This series seems to require a fourth installment even though I prefer to keep series to no more than three.
First, Progressives are just Bismarkianists who follow Bismarkianism re-imaged to Progressivisim. Bismarkianism is a political ideology who strives and aspires for Absolute Authority, and Absolute Authority is parallel to an Absolute Monarchy of old. If policies don’t benefit the governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, or aspiring public-private mergers, they are adamantly opposed to it. They favor Agricultural-Consumerist-Service economies and guilty until proven innocent justice system that is not compatible to civil rights but civil privileges.
Second, Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans only differ in details of power-structure hierarchy and how they argue it.
For example, there is no tax reform, debt ceiling, or budget debates promoting capital structure, but there are repeated arguments of wealth effect and wealth redistribution that are catalyzed by governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, and public-private mergers. In order to have central planning, you have to have a mechanism or a favored institution conducting the implementation higher in the power-structure hierarchy.
Third. it’s pretty obvious that while they disagree on details; the path trend continues unabated, and this leads to disaster. Ever hear of ‘one can’t have an economic characteristics without the corresponding economic traits’? In other words, if you base an economic model despite modern technology, this does not alter or change the economic traits. If anything history shows the technological advancement doubles down on the economic traits.
Why did so many voters who backed Barack Obama in 2012 switch to Donald Trump four years later, and what can be done to win them back?
One finding from the polling stands out: A shockingly large percentage of these Obama-Trump voters said Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy — twice the percentage that said the same about Trump. I was also permitted to view video of some focus group activity, which showed Obama-Trump voters offering sharp criticism of Democrats on the economy…
The poll found that Obama-Trump voters, many of whom are working-class whites and were pivotal to Trump’s victory, are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems. Among the findings:
- 50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.
- A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.
- 42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.
When I asked Cecil whether Clinton and/or her campaign, in addition to stagnating incomes, were to blame for these voters’ conclusions about Democrats on the economy, he answered carefully. He acknowledged Clinton’s “high unfavorable ratings” but added that “some of these problems pre-dated 2016.” When it comes to communicating a message of economic opportunity that wins over both “communities of color” (where some drop-off voters are concentrated) and “struggling exurban families” (the types who went for Trump), Cecil acknowledged that Democrats “clearly have a lot of work to do.”…
…“Democrats are going to have to make a historic investment in turnout,” Cecil said. “Democrats are going to have to have a real persuasion campaign that we lacked in 2016.”
Wage increases cupped with inflationary rates higher than 0% will always lag behind inflation rates as they accumulate quarter to quarter. This is why purchasing power taking into the account the US Dollar is the world’s reserve currency status is around $2.40 an hour at present minimum wages or around $5.40 in areas who have increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour wage.
So, people who are exchanging labor for compensation in legal tender medium of exchange works 20+ hours will only find increasing demand on their labor hours in exchange for wages that only grants temporary relief through temporarily increasing purchasing power by increasing the wages rather than increasing the purchasing power of the wages.
Food for thought, China’s minimum wages are between 2.30-2.50 an hour, and their purchasing power right now is around 5.40 an hour. This is why the Chinese currency policy floats its value to the US Dollar and in October 2017 was added to the basket of reserve currencies.
Add in regulated scarcity that increases prices cupped with income taxes, property taxes, staple necessities as food, and etc as discussions of a VAT tax
You know, how you make that a fairer system, what you do, does that necessarily determine what tax rate you should have is a question. You know we haven’t incentivized, in the past, innovation, you know, if you do this you get these expenses, but is that what we have to do to make the code a more equal and fairer code? Their attempt to go to 25 or 20 percent puts even more tremendous stress on that, so then you have to go to a BAT or some type of that: VAT or type of value-added tax, or border adjustment is what they are describing it now as a BAT. And we know the BAT creates about a trillion dollars in revenue, that you can then use too. But Democrats will be keeping up how to drive – we kind of tend to look at BATs or VATs as regressive taxes, you know. So it’s a complicated, it’s a long – I have even more to say but it’s a complicated answer to a short question.
Well, it’s been something that we haven’t necessarily gone to in terms of – sales tax, for instance, is typically a states’ issue, you know, states have used that nominally in terms of tax purposes in terms of the impact. A VAT would be usurping that, taking for the federal government as opposed to state, and I think we’re open to talking about that and seeing what effect that will have because I do think that bringing our overall rate down does make us more competitive, a more attractive place…
In short, it’ll increase prices further even as purchasing power erodes… Without the wage increase, the house of cards implodes into severe austerity or explodes into war and rationing.
The French system is based on a simple premise: No one should lead the nation unless he or she commands an absolute majority of voters. If nobody achieves a majority in the first round, the two winners face off one-on-one. In the U.S., many of our elections—for mayor, governor, House and Senate seats—are held under the same standard. But our presidential campaigns aren’t: They require a majority of the Electoral College, which isn’t the same as the popular vote.
According to a much-anticipated new report Thursday from the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the national polling was “generally correct and accurate by historical standards,” but some state polls, especially in the Upper Midwest, underestimated Trump’s standing — all leading to his surprising victory in last year’s presidential race.
Back to the first link
But often, there’s another, much simpler answer: Just look at the rules.
The “terms and conditions” of a political race may well matter more than any other factor. And if you really need a reminder of how crucial the rules of an election are to its outcome—how, for example, a candidate can win 3 million more votes than her opponent and lose—two current examples from across the Atlantic should make the case strikingly clear.
Now, lets look at Democrats and specifically Clinton’s argument:
1). Although Clinton only won 19 of 50 Nation-States, Clinton won the largest and third largest States of California and New York accumulating with her support in State’s whose popular vote went to Trump; Clinton still won the national popular vote in violation of the US Constitution. And, it’s a safe bet that the argument of ‘Outdated’ or ‘Living Document’ would be used to strip smaller populated States of their political voices and ‘Top-Down interpretation of the Supremacy Clause’.
The central basis is that the argument rests upon; the Constitution and ‘rules’ prevented Clinton from winning the Presidency, so the Democrats especially the DNC chair doesn’t have to take responsibility for running a poor candidate.
The irony is that Clinton’s political war machine would have toasted any other Republican candidate running in the primary, and the only Democratic candidate who polled well in primary exit polls was Sanders.
In the end, the fact California and New York accumulates with States Clinton won and lost to argue winning 3 million more votes is a factoid unless you’re simultaneously arguing the EC that prevents dictatorships as DC encompassing more than one State from steamrolling legislative and presidential outcomes.
2). Trump-Russia Collusion-WikiLeaks. While this political expedient maneuver grants cover for Progressive Republicans as per say the so-called ACA repeal-replace (ACA tweak reforms) to pressure dissent to making poor policy decisions. If this was the basis to impeach Trump, guilty until proven innocent would have slammed him without requiring or leaning on neither his tax returns nor attempting to get Flynn or Page as some pundits have suggested.
He’s now at the center of investigations about the Trump orbit’s ties to Russia and his own failure to disclose foreign financial ties and relationship.
Yates says Flynn was susceptible to blackmail
Yates for the first time publicly detailed her efforts to alert the White House that Flynn was potentially susceptible to Russian blackmail.
She told senators she held a meeting Jan. 26 with White House counsel Don McGahn in which she laid out the evidence that Flynn had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other senior officials about the nature of his phone calls with Russia’s ambassador…
Subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) used his time to ask how Clapper couldn’t have known about the investigation if he approved the intelligence community’s January assessment on Russian meddling, wondering if the reason is because the inquiry wasn’t “mature enough.”
“That’s a possibility,” Clapper replied. He speculated that another reason the investigation didn’t reach him is the evidence gathered to that point wasn’t conclusive enough.
Notably, it is both bipartisan (by law, no more than three of its six members may be from the same political party) and independent (its members do not report to the President nor Congressional leaders).
Note, the law does not require if the political ideologies of the Democrat and Republicans are the same just the political affiliations…
Federal campaign finance law prohibits a “foreign national” (such as the Russian government) from spending money to influence U.S. elections. And it also provides that if a political campaign “coordinates” with anyone outside the campaign who is spending money to influence the election, then the campaign would have to treat the outside money as in-kind contributions (which, from a foreign government, are illegal), and report them on federal disclosure forms.
Note, globalization enables the HQ of even international banking institutions as Goldman Sachs and other ‘Too Big To Fail’ banking institutions to be placed overseas for regulatory, taxation, and etc advantages, and the sheer practice of globalization guarantees some link. In other words, they’re using globalization’s interconnected harmonizing to assert guilt by association without first highlighting the interconnected nature making every participant of the global economy in the US subject to EXACTLY the same fate.
In theory, Congress has the resources and credibility to run an independent investigation.
Note, Congress’s approval rating remains lower than Trump’s approval ratings.
Note, the article links to a declassified assessment. Here are some finer points from it, but it requires a download, so the declassified assessment is best accessible from the link above.
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaignin 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments
1). The Illinois decision that led to the super-delegates of the Democratic Party declared the Democratic Party a private club enabling it to create the super-delegates without which Sander’s would have won the DNC primary.
Furthermore, Diplomatic History states:
-During times of peace, espionage’s objectives are strategic in scope for example maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvantages as promoting your rival to pursue an indefensible military focus as unconventional warfare and low replenishment rates.
We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publiclyand in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements ofmultiple US state or local electoral boards DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
Consider the implications conveyed in the report to assert Trump-Russian collusion.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Maybe it was the suspect timing of the leaked documents. Or the staggering amount and possibility that some were fake. Or a feeling among the French that, having witnessed how hacking may have altered the American election, they would not fall for the same ploy.
The contrast with the United States presidential campaign was sharp: Hacking of Hillary Clinton that was traced to Russia may have played a role in her defeat by Donald J. Trump, but news of the hacking in France was met with silence, disdain and scorn……“We don’t have a Fox News in France,” said Johan Hufnagel, managing editor of the leftist daily Libération. “There’s no broadcaster with a wide audience and personalities who build this up and try to use it for their own agendas.”…But the leaks did not get much traction in France, where news outlets respected the blackout.
…We assess Putin, his advisers, and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump over Secretary Clinton.…Nonetheless, Putin publicly indicated a preference for President-elect Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia, and pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about whatthey saw as his Russia-friendly positions on Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the President-elect’s approach to Russia with Secretary Clinton’s “aggressive rhetoric.”Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve aninternational counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq andthe Levant (ISIL).Putin has had many positive experiences working with Western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia, such as former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and formerGerman Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Putin, Russian officials, and other pro-Kremlin pundits stopped publicly criticizing the US election process as unfair almost immediately after the election because Moscow probably assessed it would be counterproductive tobuilding positive relations.
It might sound like something out of “A Modest Proposal,” but for Trump, who has often relished doing what’s bold and counterintuitive, there are many reasons why it would make sense for him to volunteer to testify before Congress on alleged ties between Russia and his campaign.
…For example, those adviserswould do well to make such a boss think their own ideas were his. “You have to feed the narcissism,” she says, acknowledging, “It’s a little nauseating.”
The standard bearers for liberal democracy and global free trade were quick to welcome Emmanuel Macron as France’s next president, and there’s already one likely loser on the international stage: Russia.
In contrast to defeated nationalist Marine Le Pen, France under Macron looks set to back the European Union, help safeguard the euro and maintain his country’s position in NATO. More concretely, his election program committed to continue economic sanctions against Russia until it complies with the terms of the 2014 Minsk peace agreement…
They’re expected to mark the first time Trump has sat down collectively with traditional U.S. allies. Until now, they have had to make do with his vice president and national security team to reassure them that much of what Trump said before his own inauguration in January — about the obsolescence of NATO and EU, protectionism or legitimizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea — is not U.S. policy.
‘Please don’t throw me into the brier patch! Please don’t throw me into the brier patch!’ comes to mind.
Which candidates campaigned on preventing a vulnerable economic model that caters to the top and considers conventional warfare focus ‘outdated’? Yeah, it’s that simple as the War College citing the unconventional warfare loses to conventional warfare forces 70% of the time. Insurgency/guerrilla warfare loses to conventional warfare in modern history 65% of the time. The War College cites unconventional warfare focus of the US Military to be a lose-lose proposition against Russia, against China, and against Russo-Sino.
“This is a real war with real global consequences,” the group explains. “With three superpowers drawn into the mix, other nations will be coerced into choosing sides…
…“The pragmatic Chinese, it seems, are starting to lose their patience.”
First, China economically prop North Korea’s regime up. It has yet to pull the plug, and it isn’t going to accept an anti-Chinese North Korean regime to form.
Second, The political ideology in China aren’t ‘Utopian thinkers’; Kim Jung-Un’s regime exists as long as it is friendly to China and is required as a buffer zone between Sino-US forces. So, it’s pretty plain North Korea’s saber-rattling is designed to elicit exactly this respond from South Korea, Japan, and US justifying the necessity of a pro-Chinese buffer zone.
Trump ardent supporters better start evaluating Trump’s premeditated war-crime conduct in the Syrian strike in addition to his choice to utilize a MOAB in Afghanistan while Pence and McMaster pressures both North Korea and Pakistan leaving only Iran from direct threat.
3). The combination of Trump-Russia collusion and 25th Amendment for removal of President Trump from office, which pretty much bespeaks that his ego isn’t going to force him to resign assessment.
It isn’t an open question — unless you’re a cockroach thinking that by bringing us closer to a nuclear or environmental apocalypse Trump may be hastening the end of mammalian life on Earth and ushering in the Planet of the Roaches.
Moreover, the “He’s not so bad” approach simply ignores the fact that there has to be some delayed effect for most of the bad things that Trump is doing. The very real danger of Trump starting a nuclear war somehow makes people think that only immediate damages count against Trump.
Interesting isn’t it? I highly doubt that they’ll remove Trump because he’s letting Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans have what they want.
What Progressive Democrats wants is obvious, they want to retake the House, Senate, and Presidency, and their historical best ally is ‘Yesterday’s Democrats’ that makeup the Progressive Republican establishment to pursue severe austerity.
What do Progressive Republicans want, they want war and rationing, and this enables Progressive Democrats to pardon the modern expression but the political batman.
Both wants dissent to maintain the Party line if you missed Hillary Clinton repeatedly stating ‘it’s my turn’, and DNC chair interference while rank and file Republicans supported Trump. People like Bill Kristoll and Clinton proponents had a field day on how they needed to remove dissent that madeup the populist movements.
The Heritage Foundation was built to matter, and for its first three decades it mattered as much as any think tank in Washington…
there are multiple narratives in play. Many who follow the think tank space believe that DeMint had taken Heritage too far in a problematic direction, making it more political and less devoted to independent conservative scholarship. Others have suggested that he is leaving as a result of clashes with Heritage Action head Mike Needham, who has pushed for the more political approach…
… DeMint had clashed constantly with his own party’s leadership, challenging it for not being conservative enough. His most famous uttering was his line about preferring a Senate with 30 hard-core conservatives than 60 moderates. His approach, abhorred by Senate GOP leaders, seemed in line with the new Heritage Action political model of challenging senators from the right if they failed to pass conservative muster.
Before DeMint, GOP elected officials and staffers once looked to Heritage to see what the standard conservative position was, and to find a creditable defense for that position.
…Heritage needs a leader with a scholarly background. DeMint’s predecessor Feulner—who is retaking the reins in an acting capacity while the search for a replacement takes place—has a Ph.D. Such a credential is helpful but not necessary. What is required is a background as an author of serious work and an interest in taking ideas seriously.
Translation, Progressive Republican dissent of seeking an attempt to grant the artificial appearance of conservative values precisely as Bill Kristol, Eric Erickson, and numerous others attempted to exert as J Bush, Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich were ousted in the primary.
Heck, you’d be amazed how few are even aware Cruz sponsored an Expatriation Act that expanded guilty until proven innocent through guilty by association as justifiable suspicion to expatriate suspected American citizens to terror groups as ISIS. Note, many Cruz supporting publications or those who supported Trump with Cruz supporters have been under hostile takeovers since the end of the primary.
Another essential trait is the ability to bring conservatives together. For decades, Heritage’s great strength was the fact that people in politics and in the media looked to it for the consensus conservative view.
There’s that ‘consensus’ reference again. In other words, those who don’t support artificial conservative appearances get left in the dirt like ‘under-performing regions’ discussed by America2050.org.
On April 28 the transcript was released from the most recent hearing at a federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on the lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party’s status quo.
Over the next several months, Republicans will have to figure out how to cut deals with Democrats to avoid a default on the national debt and avert a government shutdown, among several other must-pass items. But the negotiations will unfold against the acrimony of the GOP’s Obamacare repeal effort and a bruising fight over tax reform, none of which are likely to inspire trust between the two sides…
A new government funding bill is due by the end of September, and Republicans are behind schedule on producing a budget that lays out their spending plans. The debt ceiling will likely need to be raised around that time, a vital exercise that an all-GOP Washington hasn’t executed for more than a decade. Democrats are eager to extract leverage at every opportunity given their minority status. At least eight Democratic votes in the Senate will be needed to pass a funding bill and, most likely, increase the debt ceiling…
Budget leaders are already scheming to get conservatives to swallow a tough vote after years of opposing increases to the debt limit. White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney is suggesting that Republicans impose “more fiscal discipline” in future fiscal deals, while House conservatives have similarly hinted that they want some kind of deficit-slashing package to be included with a debt ceiling vote.
First, power attracts people who crave power, and such power tend to breed corruption.
Second, Trump and Sanders’ rises through the 2016 election cycle states large disenfranchising of the present status quo; therefore, Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans who are the mainstay of the status quo must bring their party’s dissidents to heel. Consensus is precisely the same as peer-pressure. For this reason, I am confident that Trump is unlikely to be impeached after all some of Sander’s supporters crossed the asile to give Hillary Clinton a middle finger salute, and rank and file Republicans voted Trump to give Progressive Republicans a middle finger salute. Once you acknowledge and recognize this aspect of the election cycle, the excuses boil down to promoting ‘lesser of 2 evils’/’devil you know V devil you don’t’.
I did enjoy the irony of outlets attempting to portray Trump’s rise as the first time lesser of 2 evils have been a voting calculation. I have yet to have an election cycle votes weren’t based on that or in Obama’s recent assertion
Former President Barack Obama gave a speech Tuesday in Milan, Italy, at a summit on food innovation. During a question-and-answer session after the speech, Obama may have tossed in a dig at people who didn’t show up to the polls in November.
“You get the politicians you deserve,” Obama said without mentioning President Trump. “And if you don’t vote and you don’t participate and you don’t pay attention, then you’ll get policies that don’t reflect your interests.”
Bare in mind, Obama floated making voting mandatory, and there are groups who actually believe such people who simultaneously promote voting results especially from abstaining to vote opposed to ‘voting none of the above’. Lets play the primary game. If you add those who voted for an independent party candidate and abstained, the argument President Obama had a voter mandate goes out the window. Clearly, this also means Trump didn’t get a voter mandate.
Case and point
The goal of the forthcoming Obama Presidential Center, he said, is “to provide them the tools, the training, the networks, the relationships, the funding, so that they can be even more effective.
I seriously doubt that the Obama Presidential Center will provide funding, training, tools, or relationships to per say Trump supporters. I can hear it now ‘grant support training, tools, networks, funding’, and etc ‘to a Republican let alone a Trump supporter’, and the undoubted ‘As if a Republican such group would grant to an Democrat let alone Obama supporter’.
The central basis to both isn’t racism, sexism, xenophobia, and etc; these are rationalizations to justify promoting an idealist image and training to vote for a status quo or otherwise an Progressive Democrat or Progressive Republican leaderships preference in the voting booth. The rationalizations to promote ‘the politician Americans deserve’ is precisely utilized to compel through peer-pressure a political consensus that Trump’s and Sanders’ supporters rejects.
I am confident Trump won’t be removed, but he will be signing and conducting actions that Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans want that is wholly unpopular and will tick off rank and file Democrats and Republicans. This means 2018 likely sees Democrats losing some of their seats while 2020 becomes an 2008 style election shift from W. Bush to Obama.
Consider, Trump’s Syrian strike as was Obama’s Libyan kinetic action both under false pretenses are premeditated war-crimes under Responsibility to Protect. Clearly, Liberals aren’t going to give a hoot if Trump is impeached for war-crimes despite Obama’s actions, and there was little fanfare from Liberals when Obama granted W. Bush’s administration a Presidential Pardon for crimes conducted pursuing the war on terror. If they were going to impeach him, they don’t need Trump-Russia collusion, 25th Amendment, or Emolutions, which apparently ethics were waived… They have him. Where’s the impeachment? It’s not coming because Progressive Democrats need Sander’s supporters and other dissidents of the Democratic Party support to the status quo in the same manner Progressive Republicans need their rank and file brought to heel.
It’s political maneuvering for political expediency at its finest…