***Official Political Discussion Thread***

While there will be extra electoral attempts to unseat Bernie Sanders if he becomes President, I am starting to believe that capital will attempt a coup against Elizabeth Warren.

After seeing coups against Lula and Evo, it’s obvious that capital will oppose reformers as well as revolutionaries. Recall that in the 2000’s, Lula and Evo came you power as part of the “pink tide” which was a wave of elections where several left meaning but not revolutionary leaders got voted into power. Those new leaders emphasized that they would work with capital while pursuing social democracy.

Wealthy Brazilians and wealthy Bolivians stayed wealthy while extreme poverty was reduced and investors in New York and London still get a good rate of return on their bonds as well as their foreign direct investment into those Latin American Countries.

For the wealthy people in Latin America and for the investor class in the global north, shared prosperity was unacceptable for two reasons. One is that they could get higher rates of return these countries went back to neoliberal policies. The other reason is that even modest measures to reduce poverty disrupt the lord-serf, client-patron social relations that exists in Latin America.

The fact that capital cannot tolerate social democracy and growing rich at a somewhat slower pace should be a warning to workers in all countries.

there was no coup in Bolivia
 
Billionaires are scared of a Warren DOJ and other Departments under her.

She might not be able to pass substantive policy, but she will be up their *** with lawsuits.

No corporation wants to have to fight an antitrust case, and ole girl seems eager to go at someone.

perhaps

but when those cases make their way to the supreme court and bart o'kavanaugh is the deciding vote it's not very promising
 
perhaps

but when those cases make their way to the supreme court and bart o'kavanaugh is the deciding vote it's not very promising
-Fighting an antitrust case takes tons of resources and attention for a company. To this day former Microsoft execs still blame theirs for bad business moves that happened. The talk about how it looked over the company. Even if you might win it, no company wants to have to fight one.

-Second, majorities are fragile. Warren winning, the Dems getting 50 Senators, and Thomas dying is not a lock but could happen in the next 9 years. If I am a gready billionaire, I would not want to risk that.
 

The part where Rick Gates witnessed Trump getting a call from Stone was in the report, though Stone's name was redacted if I recall correctly.
Either way it was very clear from the context that the caller was Stone. After getting off the phone, Trump then indicated to Gates that more Wikileaks dumps were coming.

What the report didn't say on that part was that Gates wasn't the only witness for that call, there were 2 other Secret Service witnesses. I think that was a pretty important aspect that was left out. But in general the report did make clear that the Trump campaign was working with Stone.

I remember learning shortly after the Stone indictment that Bannon was the "high ranking campaign official" mentioned in the indictment but I can't recall how or exactly when. Pretty sure Bannon was indentified not much later in the press.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom