***Official Political Discussion Thread***

On the F News screenshot, Trump on F&F 6 AM tomorrow. does dude go on their show every morning? DO YOU EVER WORK!?
 
Listening to Rachel Maddow in podcast form, no wonder the right hates her guts, she's an outright killer.
 
dwalk31 dwalk31
What are your thoughts on the following things that occured yesterday and today?

-The president attacking the longstanding legal practice of cooperating with the prosecution in exchange for reduced charges/sentencing.
Specifically during that rant he said "It's called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal"

Should 'flipping' as he calls it be illegal or heavily regulated to restrict those kind of cooperation agreements? Should a president who is under investigation and sworn to uphold the law even be making any suggestion that 'flipping' should almost be illegal?

-The president attacking his own Attorney General once more, particularly Sessions' recusal from the Russia probe, and claiming the only reason he picked Sessions for the job was loyalty.
“I put in an attorney general that never took control of the Justice Department,” Trump said during the interview, which was taped Wednesday at the White House. “It’s sort of an incredible thing.”
“Jeff Sessions recused himself, which he shouldn’t have done, or he should have told me,” Trump said. “He took my job, and then he said, ‘I’m going to recuse myself.’ I said, ‘What kind of man is this?’ ”
“And by the way, he was on the campaign,” Trump said on Fox. "You know, the only reason I gave him the job is because I felt loyalty. He was an original supporter.”

Do you find it concerning that Trump has been repeatedly attacking Sessions' recusal (advised by DOJ ethics officials) and Trump's claim that loyalty was the sole reason he gave Sessions the job?
Loyalty being of such importance to him when it comes to the AG position certainly explains why he has directed so much anger at Sessions' recusal that applies to the Mueller investigation. Sessions has repeatedly felt the ire of the president throughout this administration despite doing pretty well in carrying out the Trump agenda. The recusal from the Mueller probe is usually central to those outbursts.

More broadly, what do you make of Trump's pattern of behavior relating to Sessions and the Mueller probe?
He claims loyalty was the sole reason he gave Sessions the job and his fury directed at Sessions' recusal has only grown worse while the Mueller probe proceeds.
On top of that President Trump has already ordered Mueller fired on at least 2 separate occasions, though it's unclear if a directive was actually delivered to the WH counsel in the second attempt.
The first time he ordered Mueller fired was in June 2017, however when the WH counsel was handed the directive he threatened to resign in protest and Trump then backed off.
Trump then attempted to fire Mueller again in December 2017, this time after reading a press report (ABC News I think) about Deutsche Bank subpoenas but he backed off when Mueller's team told him that report was inaccurate.

What do you think motivates Trump to focus so many repeated attacks on Sessions' recusal from the Mueller probe? Given Trump's claim that loyalty to him was the only reason he gave Sessions the job in the first place, doesn't that and the ever increasing volume and angry tone of the attacks on Sessions' recusal appear to indicate he rather desperately wants a loyalist in charge of the Mueller probe?
Even though Rosenstein is a Trump appointee and lifelong Republican as well.


Lastly, do you find it concerning that the president says he gets his legal advice on Cohen from tv? And by tv I presume that to be Fox News primarily if not exclusively.
Specifically this is what he said regarding the campaign finance violations Cohen pleaded guilty to:
“By the way, he pled to two counts which aren’t a crime which nobody understands.
I watched a number of shows, sometimes you get good information by watching shows, those two counts aren’t a crime.”
 
Last edited:
Belgium said:
dwalk31 dwalk31
What are your thoughts on the following things that occured yesterday and today?

-The president attacking the longstanding legal practice of cooperating with the prosecution in exchange for reduced charges/sentencing.
Specifically during that rant he said "It's called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal"

Should 'flipping' as he calls it be illegal or heavily regulated to restrict those kind of cooperation agreements? Should a president sworn to uphold the law even be making any suggestion that 'flipping' should almost be illegal?

-The president attacking his own Attorney General once more, particularly Sessions' recusal from the Russia probe, and claiming the only reason he picked Sessions for the job was loyalty.
“I put in an attorney general that never took control of the Justice Department,” Trump said during the interview, which was taped Wednesday at the White House. “It’s sort of an incredible thing.”
“Jeff Sessions recused himself, which he shouldn’t have done, or he should have told me,” Trump said. “He took my job, and then he said, ‘I’m going to recuse myself.’ I said, ‘What kind of man is this?’ ”
“And by the way, he was on the campaign,” Trump said on Fox. "You know, the only reason I gave him the job is because I felt loyalty. He was an original supporter.”

Do you find it concerning that Trump has been repeatedly attacking Sessions' recusal (advised by DOJ ethics officials) and Trump's claim that loyalty was the sole reason he gave Sessions the job?
Loyalty being of such importance to him when it comes to the AG position certainly explains why he has directed so much anger at Sessions' recusal that applies to the Mueller investigation. Sessions has repeatedly felt the ire of the president throughout this administration despite doing pretty well in carrying out the Trump agenda. The recusal from the Mueller probe is usually central to those outbursts.

More broadly, what do you make of Trump's pattern of behavior relating to Sessions and the Mueller probe?
He claims loyalty was the sole reason he gave Sessions the job and his fury directed at Sessions' recusal has only grown worse while the Mueller probe proceeds.
On top of that President Trump has already ordered Mueller fired on at least 2 separate occasions, though it's unclear if a directive was actually delivered to the WH counsel in the second attempt.
The first time he ordered Mueller fired was in June 2017, however when the WH counsel was handed the directive he threatened to resign in protest and Trump then backed off.
Trump then attempted to fire Mueller again in December 2017, this time after reading a press report (ABC News I think) about Deutsche Bank subpoenas but he backed off when Mueller's team told him that report was inaccurate.

What do you think motivates Trump to focus so many repeated attacks on Sessions' recusal from the Mueller probe? Given Trump's claim that loyalty to him was the only reason he gave Sessions the job in the first place, doesn't that and the ever increasing volume and angry tone of the attacks on Sessions' recusal appear to indicate he rather desperately wants a loyalist in charge of the Mueller probe?
Even though Rosenstein is a Trump appointee and lifelong Republican as well.


Lastly, do you find it concerning that the president says he gets his legal advice from tv? And by tv I presume that to be Fox News primarily.
Specifically this is what he said regarding the campaign finance violations Cohen pleaded guilty to.

“By the way, he pled to two counts which aren’t a crime which nobody understands.
I watched a number of shows, sometimes you get good information by watching shows, those two counts aren’t a crime.”
Click to expand...

In regards to his comments on "flipping" the full context of the conversation referred to individuals who lie and make up things to "get a deal." That is a true thing that happens in our justice system. It also highlights the issue I addressed earlier when people take plea deals, even when they are innocent, because trial is too great a risk.

AG Jeff Sessions serves at the absolute pleasure of the president. So, if he isn't pleased he has the absolute right to fire him. I don't think there is much to read into his statements re: the Mueller probe considering he has terminated many others once they stopped seeing eye to eye (see Sean Spicer, Steve Bannon, and Reince Priebus). None of those individuals were related to the Mueller probe.

He likes loyalty. That is his right as the commander and chief.

As I have stated many times, most people agree that President Trump's tweets and comments could be better. He has a unique style. Arguably, it is what voters signed up for as he has been animated throughout the campaign and since his swearing in.
 
You get busy and you miss so much ****. Now I gotta take a day to read and absorb the entire week's events.
 
dwalk31 said:
In regards to his comments on "flipping" the full context of the conversation referred to individuals who lie and make up things to "get a deal." That is a true thing that happens in our justice system. It also highlights the issue I addressed earlier when people take plea deals, even when they are innocent, because trial is too great a risk.

AG Jeff Sessions serves at the absolute pleasure of the president. So, if he isn't pleased he has the absolute right to fire him. I don't think there is much to read into his statements re: the Mueller probe considering he has terminated many others once they stopped seeing eye to eye (see Sean Spicer, Steve Bannon, and Reince Priebus). None of those individuals were related to the Mueller probe.

He likes loyalty. That is his right as the commander and chief.

As I have stated many times, most people agree that President Trump's tweets and comments could be better. He has a unique style. Arguably, it is what voters signed up for as he has been animated throughout the campaign and since his swearing in.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone would or can argue that Trump's doesn't have the right to fire a cabinet member. He hasn't fired Sessions yet because even top Republican leadership seems too concerned about the political aftermath, at least for now. Pressuring Sessions on his recusal, including alleged conversations of Trump telling Sessions to overturn his recusal is one of the points of interest in Mueller's obstruction inquiry.
 
Last edited:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354

Democrats Must Reclaim the Center … by Moving Hard Left

Every time Democrats lose a presidential election, blue America promptly collapses into civil war—and never more so than in the aftermath of 2016. Progressive Democrats, buoyed by a number of high-profile victories, insist that if the party is to have any hope of fending off Trumpism, it must decisively move to the political left by embracing the populist messaging and agenda of insurgent outsiders like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Establishment Democrats (egged on by eye-rolling pundits and concern-trolling never-Trumpers) dismiss that idea as electoral suicide, contending that now more than ever is the time for the party to reclaim the political center by championing an agenda that pragmatically appeals to voters on both sides of the aisle.

And you know what? They’re absolutely right. All of them. The Democratic Party must reclaim the political center. And the only way to do that is by boldly moving toward the so-called “radical” left.


If this strikes you as counterintuitive, you’re not alone. By respectively attempting to purge the center or marginalize the left, progressive and establishment Democrats alike have displayed a willful ignorance of where and what the center actually is. This is not mere wordplay. Over the past several decades, Democrats have allowed a mistaken and self-destructive definition of centrism to become party orthodoxy. It continues to undermine party unity at a time when a unified Democratic Party is more essential than ever.

In fact, there are two kinds of political centers: There’s the ideological center—the one that Democrats are waging a civil war over. And there’s the majoritarian center—the one where most of the people are. If Democrats hope to be a majority party, it’s the majoritarian center they need to embrace. And to understand the difference between these two strains of centrism, it’s important to understand exactly what the center is measuring.

Imagine lining up every person in America on a yardstick, with the poorest person standing to the far-left edge of the stick (zero inches) and the wealthiest person standing to the far right (36 inches). Assuming that people are equally spaced, and that there is no correlation between wealth and weight—if you could balance that yardstick on the tip of your finger, the fulcrum would fall on the 18-inch mark, the exact center of the yardstick, with exactly half of all Americans standing to the left, and the other half standing to the right. Clustered on and near that 18-inch mark are the median American families—the middle-middle class—the majoritarian center of the American electorate, at least from an economic perspective.

Now imagine that very same yardstick with every American standing in their very same spots—only this time, rather than balancing people, we are balancing their personal wealth, stacked up in $100 bills. But because 2 percent of Americans (of which I am one) own 50 percent of the nation’s wealth, to balance this yardstick you’d now have to slide your finger nearly all the way over, beyond the 35-inch mark, just inside the far-right edge. This fulcrum balances the interests of capital, not people. And unfortunately, this is the yardstick of our current ideological center—a centrism informed by the bad economic theories that have guided the policies of both parties for more than 30 years.

This precarious balancing act helps explain why policies that would clearly benefit the majoritarian center are so often rejected as ideologically “far left;” for a centrism that seeks to balance the interests of capital is a centrism that seeks to balance the interests of the very wealthiest Americans against those of everybody else. It’s this sort of “one dollar, one vote” logic that led to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision—a logic that threatens to subvert American democracy itself. For a system that justifies the wealthiest 2 percent purchasing the same political influence as the other 98 percent, isn’t really a democracy at all. I’m not saying that self-described “centrist” Democrats are any more greedy or corrupt than their progressive colleagues, but if they’re honest with themselves, they should recognize how much they have internalized this orthodox ideological bias. Indeed, this is what they mean by “pragmatic centrism”: an economic policy agenda that necessarily balances the interests of business (the few) versus the interests of labor (the many), in an attempt to best serve the interests of all. Yet as pragmatic as such an approach might at first appear, when viewed from a majoritarian perspective, the ideological center consistently fails to hold.

Take, for example, the minimum wage, a stereotypically lefty policy if there ever were one. But is it really so lefty? In fact, the federal minimum wage is extraordinarily popular, with 71 percent of Americans supporting a raise to at least $10 an hour—even according to a partisan survey conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz on behalf of the minimum-wage-hating National Restaurant Association! Ouch. In a country as politically polarized as ours, I’d say that 71 percent support for anything is about as majoritarian centrist a policy as you’re likely to get.

But what about a $15 minimum wage? Surely, the higher we raise the minimum wage the more extremist the policy becomes, right? Again, not from a majoritarian perspective. According to a 2017 Pew Research Center poll, a majority of registered voters—52 percent—favor raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour (support far stronger than the 41 percent approval rating currently enjoyed by President Trump). But more importantly, a $15 minimum wage would benefit far more workers. At $7.25 an hour, the current federal minimum wage provides a floor under only 1.3 percent of all wage and salary workers—a cohort one might fairly characterize as occupying the far left of our economic yardstick. By comparison, a hike to $15 an hour would directly or indirectly benefit 29.2 percentof workers. And with half of all American jobs paying less than $18 an hour, a $20 minimum wage would directly cover a majority of workers, while indirectly pushing wages higher for many millions more. From a majoritarian perspective—a perspective that asks, “Who does it benefit?”—the higher you raise the minimum wage, the more centrist the policy becomes!

And the same holds true for many other policies routinely caricatured as “far left.” After 40 years of erosion, the current $23,660 overtime threshold now guarantees time-and-a-half overtime pay to only 8 percent of workers, but a return to a 1970s-level threshold would cover 66 percent. Less than 30 percent of college graduates manage to get through school without accumulating often crushing levels of student debt, but tuition-free public college would offer an affordable higher education to every qualified student. And with an enrollment age of 65, only 15 percent of Americans enjoy the privilege of purchasing affordable health insurance through Medicare, but “Medicare for All” would deliver exactly what its name implies. All three of these proposals enjoy majority support, while directly benefiting the majority of Americans. So to mischaracterize these policies as “lefty” rather than “centrist” would be to abuse those words. Small wonder that “socialists” like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have gained so much traction with mainstream voters. “This race is about people versus money,” says Ocasio-Cortez. “We’ve got people, they’ve got money.” That’s as clear a declaration of majoritarian centrism as voters might hope to hear.

You self-described “pragmatic” Democrats who publicly fret that such policies would be far too costly to taxpayers or to employers should remember that there is nothing pragmatic about losing elections. You can’t be the grownup in the room if you’re not in the room. That’s why you never hear Republicans worrying about how to pay for their $1.5 trillion tax cut for the rich: It’s a losing argument. And besides, your trickle-down instincts are wrong! The U.S. economy was never as strong, nor its middle class as secure, as during the three decades when the real minimum wage and the overtime threshold and public subsidies for higher education were at their peak. Medicare for All wouldn’t burden employers; it would relieve them of their costliest employee benefit. And if we do need to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to rebuild the middle class, so what? There is simply no correlation between top tax rates and growth. Stand up for the middle class for a change and you might be rewarded. But there is absolutely nothing to gain—economically or electorally—by aping a trickle-down narrative that just isn’t true. On economic issues, the Democratic Party has long embraced an ideological definition of centrism that simply has nothing to do with the center. And both the party and the nation have suffered as a result.

***

There once was a time when both parties vied to occupy the majoritarian center, an era when American politics was more a struggle over means than of ends—until, after three decades of unprecedented and broad-based post-war prosperity, the Republican Party lurched violently to the right, and the age of New Deal centrism came to a close. Supply-side tax cuts, attacks on unions, a crusade against “big government” and other tactics of the Reagan revolution helped put us on the road to a new Gilded Age. And while Republicans certainly led the way, we wouldn’t have gotten here as quickly had Democrats not kept driving in the same direction every time we managed to get our hands on the wheel.

Sure, we drove a bit slower and made a few detours before delivering the working class to a neoliberal paradise of billionaires and paupers. And we offered an occasional helping hand to the millions of Americans we left behind in a ditch. But while we tried to strike a more compassionate balance than our GOP counterparts, our deference to the tenets of neoliberal orthodoxy kept our economic agenda firmly tilted toward the interests of the super-rich.

Under Bill Clinton, the wealthy got financial deregulation and capital gains tax cuts worth hundreds of billions of dollars, while our most vulnerable citizens got a higher Earned Income Tax Credit and CHIP—benefits worth just tens of billions. Under Barack Obama, the Wall Street titans who had used their regulatory freedom to crash the global economy got bailouts and bonuses and a monetary policy that inflated their assets, while some in the middle-class got affordable (or, at least, less unaffordable) health insurance, and millions of homeowners were left to drown in their underwater mortgages.

This isn’t to say that the Affordable Care Act and EITC expansion weren’t worthwhile programs. I’m a Democrat for a reason. But “we suck less than the Republicans” just doesn’t cut it, politically or economically. Reagan’s class war left the economic center in ruins. Restoring shared prosperity required nothing less than a Marshall Plan for the middle class. Instead, centrist Democrats let them eat charter schools.

In the golden age of New Deal liberalism, organized labor delivered shared prosperity for the middle class and electoral success for the Democratic Party. A mountain of studies have shown that strong, private-sector unions reduce inequality and raise middle-class wages for workers who belong to them and for those who don’t. Other studies have shown that when unions decline in a state, the Democratic Party’s share of that state’s vote declines along with them. Thus, upon returning to power in 1992, it should have been a no-brainer for Democrats to rewrite the nation’s labor laws to make it easier for workers to organize—and harder for bosses to stop them.

But they didn’t. In the 1980s, as Reaganism was ascendant, “centrist” Democrats started blaming much of their party’s struggles on organized labor: By doing the bidding of that “special interest group,” centrists argued, Democrats had alienated the middle. So, instead of taking its policy cues from a labor movement it dismissed as corrupt, lazy and market-distorting, Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party let Wall Street set its agenda. The Robert Rubin wing of the White House believed that working-class Americans didn’t need collective bargaining rights to force their employers to pay a living wage, or redistributive programs to guarantee them a fair share of after-tax income. No, what the economic center really needed was for government to wage war on the deficits, trade barriers and financial regulations that were holding back economic growth. Labor law reform was out; welfare reform, NAFTA and deregulated derivatives markets were in.

Some of these measures might very well have contributed to the late-1990s growth spurt—but they also set the stage for the 2008 crisis while accelerating the decline of American manufacturing and with it the labor movement. And though median wages did rise during the Clinton expansion, so did economic inequality. And unlike this brief spike in wages, inequality has been relentlessly rising ever since.

Centrist Democrats weren’t blind to this inequality. They just refused to believe that it was a product of the economic rules they helped write. Working people weren’t falling behind because markets were structured to funnel all the rewards of growth to the top, centrists told themselves; the middle class was falling behind because it lacked the skills to compete in the new “knowledge economy.” After all, wages were rising for highly educated Americans—you know, like centrist Democratic politicians—so middle-class Americans just needed to become more like them. Companies said they were desperate to give high-paying jobs to American workers, if only they could find workers who were qualified to do the jobs. None of this meant that centrist Democrats were blaming the middle class for its struggles. They didn’t expect working Americans to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” without any help from Uncle Sam (they weren’t Republicans, after all.) They just thought that the median worker needed a better education or retraining, not a modicum of bargaining power with her employer. It wasn’t rapacious economic elites who were preventing workers from getting reasonable wages and benefits. It was the damn teachers unions.

Of course, minting more college graduates didn’t reduce inequality; it just produced a new class of extremely well-read baristas with crushing college debt. The “skills gap” was always a lie told by corporations who just wanted to pay less for high-skill labor. Still, the myth survived well into the Obama presidency, when a unified Democratic government once again declined to modernize labor law, while selling education reform as an elixir for inequality.

It’s been three decades since centrist Democrats abandoned the majoritarian economic center, and the consequences for the middle class have been devastating. Since 1980, the bottom 80 percent of American workers have effectively been bypassed by economic growth while absorbing most of the costs of public disinvestment in housing, education and the social safety net. After-tax corporate profits have doubled from approximately 5 percent of GDP to 10 percent—about a trillion dollars a year—while wages as a share of GDP have fallen by about the same amount. Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent of Americans went from collecting 9 percent of personal income to about 22 percent today. Taken together, these changes amount to a shift of more than $2 trillion a year from middle-class paychecks to the bank accounts of corporations and the very rich.

Some of my fellow filthy-rich capitalists would like you to believe the middle class has actually benefited from having us gobbling up more and more of America’s annual income gains. After all, they claim, we “job creators” know best how to productively invest wealth: The more capital we get to control, the more economic growth we’ll be able to produce—and the benefits will trickle down!

Yeah, right. Contrary to popular wisdom, America hasn’t enjoyed drastically higher economic growth since 1980 than more egalitarian Western countries. And a moment’s glance at how the “job creators” are currently investing their windfall illustrates why: Right now, roughly 55 percent of corporate profits (about $1 trillion, or 5 percent GDP) is going into stock buybacks—the signal marker of corporate malfeasance and self-dealing—while an additional 37 percent goes to dividends. This means that 92 percent of the profits that American businesses make this year will be spent on enriching the small, elite fraction of the population that owns significant amounts of corporate stock. Meanwhile, at a time of so-called “full employment,” inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom 80 percent of American workers are actually declining.

After the corporate elite slices off its giant share of the income pie, the median American family—those standing near the 18-inch halfway mark of our majoritarian yardstick—is left with about $59,000 a year. Had inequality held constant since 1980, that figure would be $86,000. Had middle-class incomes grown with productivity (as they had in the previous three decades), the median American family would be earning over $100,000 a year.

Let me underscore this point: America owes the median family a raise of somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000. Per year. This—not the fictional entitlement crisis—is the inconvenient economic truth that elites in both parties lack the political courage to confront. And only by enacting policies that right this wrong can Democrats lay claim to being a truly centrist party.

Of course, Democrats never quite gave up their belief in redistribution. But because they stubbornly stayed beholden to their ideological center, these redistributive measures were always too little, too late—and of little help to the majoritarian center. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to millions of low-income Americans—but it condemned the median family to complicated, costly and uncertain health insurance exchanges. Similarly, Obama proposed raising the minimum wage, but at first only to $9 an hour, and eventually to $10.10—a change that would have raised the wages of just a small percentage of workers at the very bottom of the income distribution, many of them nonvoters. Attending to the needs of the most vulnerable is a fine thing, of course. But it is impossible to build a winning coalition out of the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution. The rich get tax cuts, the poor get scraps and the middle is left to fend for itself.

Is it any wonder then that so many working- and middle-class voters could see little practical difference between the policies of Democrat Hillary Clinton (one of the more qualified presidential candidates ever to win a major party nomination) and those of a lying, racist, vainglorious, authoritarian, know-nothing like Republican Donald Trump? Clinton was correctly seen as the leader of a Democratic establishment whose “centrist” policies had long served to undermine the legitimate interests of the middle class. So why not take a flyer on Trump? It is in this way that three decades of Democratic ideological centrism helped lead our nation down the neoliberal road to Trumpdom.

***

All is not lost. Well, not quite yet. There is still an opportunity for a unified Democratic Party to retake Congress in November and remove Trump from office in 2020 (if not sooner). But being anti-Trump is not enough. To build an electoral majority Democrats must come together and embrace an economic policy agenda that boldly and decisively reclaims the majoritarian center. And this will require sacrifices from progressives and centrists alike.

For you centrist Democrats who have long dominated the party establishment, it is time for you to admit that a “pragmatically centrist” agenda that enjoys neither majority support nor serves a majority of voters, is neither pragmatic nor centrist. In fact, it’s suicidal. Indeed, when Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz earnestly insists that Democrats must “go after entitlements” (“Medicare for Fewer” rather than “Medicare for All”), his only real chance of uniting voters is in opposition to Howard Schultz. And don’t you dare think for a moment that you somehow know better than voters what’s good for them, because “Econ 101!” or something. Econ 101 is ********—at least in the way that it’s been relentlessly misapplied to public policy these past 40 years. And as for trickle-down economics—“a rising tide lifts all boats” and all that—well, that’s a demonstrable con: Tax cuts for the rich don’tcreate growth (if they did, Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax giveaway wouldn’t have resulted in declining wages and record stock buybacks). A higher minimum wage doesn’t kill jobs (if it did, the job market wouldn’t be booming in Seattle and San Francisco and New York and in every other city or state that has recently hiked its local wage floor). Deregulation isn’t a magical potion of market efficiency (unless if, by “efficient,” you mean efficiently wiping out the savings of millions of working- and middle-class families through a predatory lending and derivative-fueled economic collapse).

As for progressive Democrats, it’s time for us to stop trashing the very notion of centrism itself. The “centrist” wing of our party (and to be clear, it’s a wing, not the center) isn’t uniformly evil or corrupt. They’re not bad people. They’re just wrong. They believed what economists told them, and then tried to govern accordingly. But they’re still Democrats, and as such, we all broadly share the same inclusive values and goals. Moreover, by relentlessly reviling the center, progressives needlessly cede it. Which is stupid. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is already the largest Democratic caucus in Congress. So you know what that makes them? The center!

Free from the elitist constraints of ideological centrism and refocused on the wants and needs of the majoritarian center, a unified Democratic Party has an opportunity to build an electoral wave strong enough to swamp the gerrymandered seawalls of the Republican-controlled Congress. And what would a truly centrist Democratic agenda look like? A $15 minimum wage, a restored overtime threshold, affordable public college, Medicare for All, paid family leave, crucial infrastructure investments, modern labor laws, and substantially higher taxes on wealthy corporations and individuals would be a good start. If that sounds like the platform of lefties like Ocasio-Cortez, it’s because it is. But when ideologically “lefty” ideas are both broadly popular and broadly economically beneficial, they occupy the majoritarian center from which electoral majorities are built.

Democrats need to stop balancing the economic interests of the top 2 percent against the interests of everyone else and start focusing on the needs of the majoritarian center—the 80 percent of families who have been left behind by 40 years of trickle-down economics. Raise wages now. That’s the kind of pragmatic centrism the majority of Americans truly want, and that our economy needs.
Click to expand...
 
kdawg said:


Oof.
Click to expand...

Please don't post any more photos of Obama.

It's like seeing an old girlfriend, who you parted with on amicable terms. You're glad she's doing well and both of you have successfully moved on. Still there's a part of you, that hurts remembering the good times you had and looking at her smile and flashing eyes, you realize, your new girlfriend is an orange skinned fat sloth with tiny hands and ****** up hair, who spend all the time on social media with some Russian guy and drinks water out of a bottle like some kind of T-rex with extra short arms.

Do you ever think of me Obama or are you too busy kite surfing with your new friends?
 
People need to throw bricks at tomi lahren.

Also it’s freakin disgusting that this administration and republicans are using people who died for their immigration agenda. They don’t care about those people, they just want money to build a stupid wall that’ll prove to be useless.
 
Last edited:
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17721874/national-prison-strike-2018-13th-amendment-attica
A mass incarceration expert says the 2018 prison strike could be “one of the largest the country has ever seen”
To protest unfair treatment in the criminal justice system, prisoners across 17 states from coast to coast have started what they expect will be a nearly three-week prison strike — it began on August 21 and ends on September 9.

Prisoners will conduct work stoppages, hunger strikes, and spending boycotts in the hopes that their list of 10 demands is met. Vox’s German Lopez has explained the treatment of incarcerated Americans, the reasoning behind the strike and its technicalities in detail.

The prisoners are protesting many issues — including an exemption in the 13th Amendment allowing them to be forced to work for pennies a day. They are led by a slew of organizations, including Jailhouse Lawyers Speak and the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee.

I spoke with Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a senior fellow at New York University Law School’s Brennan Center for Justice and the author of Inside Private Prisons: An American Dilemma in the Age of Mass Incarceration, the historical context behind and efficacy of what has the potential to be “one of the largest prison strikes that the country has ever seen.” We discussed why the 13th Amendment still allows prisoners to work for very low pay, the historical resonance of this strike, and the likelihood that the prisoners’ demands will be met.

Our conversation is below, edited for length and clarity.



There is a nationwide prison strike going on. Make sure you don't forget incarcerated people who are suffering under the weight of this system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cragmatic
Hikers of NT - Official Hiking Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
cragmatic
cragmatic
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
17K
Zephyr1983
Zephyr1983
feeninlikejodeci
Tactics to scare Landlord?
Replies
21
Views
2K
OrangeBlueGarden
OrangeBlueGarden
Brownstone
Buzzer Beaters Only Thread
Replies
11
Views
830
ThaxbyChamblis
ThaxbyChamblis
therealest1
Nike Air Max Sunder
Replies
4
Views
3K
1978S
1978S

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

| Xenforo Add-ons © by ©XenTR | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Back
Top Bottom