stevenleser
stevenleser's JournalEver heard of double reconciliation? No and no one else did either before Nov 9th.
Be prepared for GOP policies being ramrod-ed through. More dirty tricks from the GOP.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2016/11/11/gop-to-do-previously-unimaginable-things-to-slam-dunk-its-agenda/#685a044567b5
GOP To Use Previously Unheard Of Tactic To Slam Dunk Trump Agenda
The Republican congressional leadership is seriously considering an unprecedented procedure to guarantee that its and President-elect Donald Trump’s highest priorities are quickly enacted soon after Congress convenes next year.
The key is “reconciliation,” the part of the congressional budget process that allows highly controversial policies to be considered in the Senate without any possibility of them being filibustered.
But reconciliation by itself isn’t the unprecedented procedure; it’s the novel way the leadership plans to use reconciliation: For the first time in the 4-plus decades’ history of the congressional budget process, reconciliation may occur twice in the same year.
Theoretically, two reconciliations in the same year are legally impossible because the Congressional Budget Act only allows one set of reconciliation instructions per budget resolution.
.
.
.
(more at above link)
BoB/JPR folks are best understood in the context of Orwell's description of negative nationalism
I talk about Nationalism and Negative Nationalism as Orwell describes them in his "Notes on Nationalism" a lot and that is because in politics, you see that kind of behavior quite a bit, particularly when someone or some group becomes over the top about something.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
.
.
.
It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right.
I would say that BoB and JPR folks are negative nationalists with Hillary and the DNC being their chosen antagonists. An example of how they fit the nationalist description, albeit a negative one, is made more clear when Orwell describes a few unique characteristics of nationalism, particularly "instability" and transferability
Instability. The intensity with which they are held does not prevent nationalist loyalties from being transferable. To begin with, as I have pointed out already, they can be and often are fastened up on some foreign country. One quite commonly finds that great national leaders, or the founders of nationalist movements, do not even belong to the country they have glorified. Sometimes they are outright foreigners, or more often they come from peripheral areas where nationality is doubtful. Examples are Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, de Valera, Disraeli, Poincare, Beaverbrook. The Pan-German movement was in part the creation of an Englishman, Houston Chamberlain. For the past fifty or a hundred years, transferred nationalism has been a common phenomenon among literary intellectuals. With Lafcadio Hearne the transference was to Japan, with Carlyle and many others of his time to Germany, and in our own age it is usually to Russia. But the peculiarly interesting fact is that re-transference is also possible. A country or other unit which has been worshipped for years may suddenly become detestable, and some other object of affection may take its place with almost no interval. In the first version of H. G. Wells's Outline of History, and others of his writings about that time, one finds the United States praised almost as extravagantly as Russia is praised by Communists today: yet within a few years this uncritical admiration had turned into hostility. The bigoted Communist who changes in a space of weeks, or even days, into an equally bigoted Trotskyist is a common spectacle. In continental Europe Fascist movements were largely recruited from among Communists, and the opposite process may well happen within the next few years. What remains constant in the nationalist is his state of mind: the object of his feelings is changeable, and may be imaginary.
How do progressives end up supporting Trump? "A country or other unit which has been worshipped for years may suddenly become detestable, and some other object of affection may take its place with almost no interval." That's how you go from devotion to left progressivism to Trumpism.
Anyone who hasn't read Orwell's Notes on Nationalism, or who have not read it in a while should click on the above link and check it out. Beyond BoB/JPR types, support of Trump is all about Nationalism.
Hillary won the popular vote by a greater margin than 24 of 45 elected Presidents.
http://lastmenandovermen.com/hillary-won-popular-vote-24-45-elected-presidents/Trump does not have a mandate and most Americans did not want him to be their President. We should keep reminding people about that.
#NoMandateForTrump
With the object of hate that spawned them gone, JPR descends into an existential squabble
http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/ch-ch-ch-ch-changes/Now that the election’s over, we think that the battle lines are clear: JPR is a site for Progressives, Trump ain’t a Progressive, so Trump is on the other side of the battle lines from us. Henceforth, posts that praise Trump in a general way will likely go into the void. But it’s OK to praise something specific that’s connected to Trump, like his putative student loan repayment plan.
.
.
.
sabrina (4258 posts) (Reply to Octafish - post #5) November 17, 2016 at 9:15 pm
72. So the DU infiltration of trolls WON?? Did TM99 step down or did the DU triolls
succeed in getting him off the site? Would you like ME to step down Manny? Just say so, but when you make that decision, do not speak for me I will speak for me as I have always done.
As far as I know, TM99 was not informed that of what you are claiming. I want to be clear, if you want me to step down please make that request public.
-------------
Crabby Abbey (501 posts) (Reply to sabrina - post #72) November 17, 2016 at 9:17 pm
74. Yeah, this sounds a lot like censorship. Isn't that what we all came here
to avoid? I did!
----------------------
Post Removed (626 posts) (Reply to sabrina - post #72) November 17, 2016 at 9:23 pm
76. I think mods should be elected by popular vote.
Anywho I nominate
TM99
sabrina
-----------------------------------
ThinkingANew (496 posts) (Reply to jwirr - post #3) November 17, 2016 at 7:46 pm
Profile photo of ThinkingANew
24. There are people already threatening others here with the "new rules"
For reporting a relevant tweet that Trump put out.
Team Trump's chilling harassment of Megyn Kelly a frightening preview of whats to come?
http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2016/11/team-trumps-chilling-harassment-and.html
Threatening journalists and attacking or killing them is, or at least has been, one of the things we Americans point to regarding third world dictators and other oppressive regimes as justification of why our system of government is so great in comparison. The State Department and other Executive Branch agencies complain about those kinds of governments and their practices and try to influence them to change their ways, well at least up until now.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are important values for Americans and central to the rights afforded to us in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Megyn Kelly is one of the most prominent political personalities in media today and she has the support of the top folks of a powerful network behind her. Trump and his team went after her and harassed and threatened her. They encouraged their supporters to harass and threaten her.
The fact is that despite all the help and resources supporting Kelly, her last year was something that sounds to me like a nightmare. What will happen to those in the media who criticize Trump who don't have the kind of support and protection behind them that she does?
The question that every member of the media is now asking themselves is, once inaugurated, when team Trump is upset with a journalists coverage, will they engage the security services of the country against them? When I write of security services, I am referring to the FBI, CIA and NSA. Is there any thinking person out there who thinks that kind of abuse of power and disregard for Constitutional freedoms is beyond team Trump? Does anyone think it is beyond Trump himself? I would answer no to both questions.
This would be yet another piece of evidence supporting the idea that Trump is leading the country into oppression, hate and Fascism. If this starts to happen, Americans need to quickly mobilize to stop it.
----------------------
See the full interview of Megyn Kelly here where she details even more about her harassment by Trump himself and members of his campaign leadership team and his supporters:
Being "proven right" on a Boolean proposition isn't the genius some are making it out to be
Those of you doing this, I wouldn't wear your arm out patting yourselves on the back. Every four years some folks from each party, or that general ideology are unhappy with their nominee and bet they will lose.
Every four years half of them are right.
Without Comey's interference we win. I think that fact is more important than any other.
Yes there were other factors that would have contributed to Hillary's win not being as big as it should, but an interference like this from the FBI director is not a normal factor in an election.
I think Comey's interference also explains the polling discrepancies. I think they caused a late break for Trump and late breaks are always hard for polls to take into account.
After that we can talk about sexism, the unfair attacks on Hillary for the last 16 years, inappropriate blaming of trade agreements for loss of manufacturing jobs when automation is the real root cause, and Republican obstruction of Obama's attempts to help more middle class people being perceived as an issue with Democratic policies.
I am happy with the platform on which we ran. I don't see any need for soul searching or big changes. Without Comey Hillary wins and we take back the senate. Why would we change from that? Do we anticipate a Comey-like interference going forward and if so what would a change in policies do to help that?
Profile Information
Name: RuggedRealistGender: Male
Hometown: New York, NY
Home country: USA
Current location: NYC
Member since: Tue Jan 4, 2005, 05:36 PM
Number of posts: 32,886