So first, I haven't heard details, but there appears to be a difference of
opinion about what Nancy could have done with "pay go". The point is that with
it, you can't spend money unless you take money away from something else. It
seems to me that it was part of the compromise that Obama made with the
Republicans in 2012. Other pieces of that have been ignored, so why not this
one?
Second: If the Democrats weren't so timid and so worried about losing moderate
Republicans or right wing Democrats, they'd impeach, or at least try to impeach
Trump. He's broken laws and been much more dangerous to the country than Bill
Clinton was when he was f-ing a White House intern and doing whatever other
slimey sexual misdeeds he did. Trump has done that sort of thing plus a whole
lot more that we already know about. Why are they trying to prove some insane
plot with Russia when they can prove he's a crook, he's breaking laws right and
left, and he's ruining the country?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 1:56 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Could This Be Our Best Hope of Removing Trump
From Office?
According to Thom Hartman, Pay as You Go is more complicated than simply voting
out the Rule. They must vote down the Statute. The Rule can be ignored, but
if they get rid of it without taking care of the Statute, it will put passing
progressive legislation in jeopardy.
There! I think I muddied that one up enough.
The attack on the Media by the Trump forces has people doubting anything in
print. Trump will most likely get some or all of his precious wall...or
fence...or whatever. Maybe after a few more bridges crash, or the highways
become so potted that we sell them off to Saudi Arabia, and they put up Pole
Booths and Check Points, and we all try to move to Canada before Trump builds a
wall on our Northern border to keep Americans from getting away, maybe then
we'll begin to understand just what it was Pogo was saying to Albert.
"We have met the enemy and they are us."
Personally, I would demand congress to refuse to spend one single American
dollar on a foolish wall that Donald Trump swore he would force Mexico to pay
for. Sure, Trump is blaming the Democrats for the partial shut down, but even
The Donald doesn't believe that. Soon the nervous Republicans will begin
pressuring Donald Trump to sign a government budget bill.
What America needs right now is legislation that blocks Donald Trump from
taking any action of any sort, without approval from bothe House and Senate.
Finally, we need to take note of this current president, and never ever again
vote into office an individual who is so self-focused that he would take down a
nation in a fit of rage, just because mommy said, "No!"
Carl Jarvis
On 1/4/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Listen to what the Democrats are saying to fight Trump over the wall.
Listen carefully. What they are saying, is based on their assessment
that the majority of American voters are truly concerned about hoards
of aliens streaming over the borders. They keep reassuring the public
that they, too, are concerned about border security. It's just that
they don't want a government shut down over payment for a wall. I
listened to Schumer on the NYT,Daily podcast yesterday, to Pelosi on
the same podcast today. And then there's "pay as you go" which Pelosi
insisted upon as one of the House legislative planks and which every
damn Democratic house member except for three, voted for. And the only
house members who voted against Pelosi for speaker, were right wing
Democrats. It's some political mechanism, having her as speaker, even
though she is as corporate and disgusting as can be, that apparently takes
precedence over any ethical consideration.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 11:42 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Could This Be Our Best Hope of Removing
Trump From Office?
Pence or Trump, it's all quite depressing to me. About all I can do
is make what sense I can from the information I have access to, and
observe. I know that I can hold to my own values, and that keeps me
going. Sadly, I don't hold out much hope for the people most in need.
The Brain Washing today is so all inclusive, and money worship has
become such a dominant factor in our lives, it seems that I am pushing
that big rock up the steep hill...over and over.
Mostly I stay in my routine, listening to all the tragic news. But
from time to time I simply have to pull my head in and listen to some
good music instead. This morning I heard of a little 7 year old girl
gunned down while riding in a car with her mother and her 3 sisters.
A little life stolen by an insane man. Yes, he is White, and yes, she
and her family were all Black. But they could have been Muslims, or
Asians, or Indians, Or Mexicans, or Gay, or simply just in the way of that
man's rage.
On 1/3/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A lot of people talk about the danger of Pence. I understand what
they're saying. But there is something about Trump's madness, coupled
with his ability to attract media attention and gather extremist
elements of our society, that is very worrying. I don't think that
Pence has the charisma to do that. He's an extremist and he's more
organized, but he wouldn't have the same kind of following as Trump.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 6:00 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Could This Be Our Best Hope of
Removing Trump From Office?
Miriam,
If I begin to ponder an answer to this note of yours, I will probably
hunt down that bottle of rum. I begin thinking, and suddenly it's
like I'm in a maze of looking glasses. Or maybe i'm in a rubber room.
We seem to have even fewer options than Americans had back in the
1890's. I keep telling myself that I have faith in the working class.
But then I look around and find that many of them are living under
the bridges.
I just don't see Pence making things better.
And I don't see a Democratic Party holding the line.
The good news is that Cathy is brewing up a Turkey Noodle Soup. Some
things never change!
Carl Jarvis
On 12/29/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
That may be true. But I have this feeling that even though the
system would remain the same, it would be a very good idea, for
several reasons, if it were possible, to remove this particular
madman from the Presidency. The author of this article, is basically
saying what Chris Hedges says, which is what you just said. But I
think that the longer Trump stays in office, the more power he will
have, the more danger he will bring to all of us, and the harder it
will be to return to any kind of sanity in this country.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 11:50 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Could This Be Our Best Hope of
Removing Trump From Office?
Removing Donald Trump is like removing a Thorn, but failing to clean
out the Pus.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/27/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Could This Be Our Best Hope of Removing Trump From Office?
President Donald Trump. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr)
The dog whistle couldn’t have been any clearer. When Donald Trump
said two weeks ago that “the people would revolt” if he were
impeached, his extremist base of neo-Nazis, Klan members,
right-wing militias and sympathetic service members likely heard the
following:
“Feel free to attack Democrats, liberals, leftists and progressives
if the coming Democratic Party-run House of Representatives acts on
its constitutional right to impeach me.”
Impeachment alone probably wouldn’t trigger a right-wing uprising.
But impeachment followed by the unlikely prospect of removal, which
requires 67 votes in the Republican-majority U.S. Senate, might
well make it happen. So too could invoking the 25th Amendment on
the grounds that Trump is incapable of performing his presidential duties.
Officially, the Democratic Party—led by corporate allies like Chuck
Schumer and Nancy Pelosi—isn’t interested in moving ahead with
either of these constitutionally available processes. That could
change, however, if and when the report from special counsel Robert
Mueller directly implicates Trump. But even if the party’s efforts
proved successful, America would be left with President Mike
Pence—an honest-to-goodness Christian fascist.
The case for Trump’s ouster grows stronger by the week. Beyond his
possible obstruction of justice, criminal acceptance of foreign
emoluments while in office and felonious campaign finance
violations—any one of which could provide grounds for legal
proceedings against him—the president has routinely embraced
authoritarian rulers around the world and engaged in obvious
appeals to violence. He has, at every turn, revealed himself to be
entirely unfit for office.
Ironically, the most effective means of achieving his removal may
be to revolt, albeit in a fashion radically different from the one
the president has envisioned. America must instead engage in civil
unrest that targets not just the current inhabitant of the Oval
Office but the entire bipartisan ruling class that birthed his
monstrous presidency. Forget Watergate; think sit-down strikes and
the march from Selma to Montgomery, Ala.
The gilets jaunes (yellow vests) in France have given us a taste of
what’s required. Among their list of demands is a real and
functioning democracy—popular self-rule. Further to that, they have
called for a referendum whereby 700,000 citizen signatories would
force the French Parliament to debate and vote on a given law
within one year. Evoking the French Revolution of 1789, there have
even been calls for a Constituent Assembly to draft a new
constitution meant to create a new French government—a Sixth
Republic based on popular sovereignty and majority rule rather than
the demands of a de facto corporo-financial dictatorship.
Imagine!
That Trump has never had a functioning democracy to overthrow is
evidence enough that this kind of activism is long overdue.
Released in the early spring of 2008, Sheldon Wolin’s classic study
“Democracy
Incorporated:
Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism”
revealed that the U.S. was no longer a “democracy,” if it ever had
been. America, Wolin found, had mutated into a new sort of
totalitarian regime wherein economic power and state power were
conjoined and virtually unchecked by a demobilized, atomized and
politically disinterested populace, conditioned to stay that way.
“At best,” Wolin determined, “the nation has become a ‘managed
democracy’
where the public is shepherded, not sovereign.”
“Should Democrats somehow be elected,” he prophesied, they would do
nothing to “alter significantly the direction of society” or
“substantially revers[e] the drift rightwards. … The timidity of a
Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts points to the
crucial fact that for the poor, minorities, the working class and
anti-corporatists there is no opposition party working on their
behalf.”
Sure enough, a nominal Democrat was elected president along with
Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008. What
followed under Barack Obama (as under the prior Democratic
administration of Bill Clinton) was standard-issue neoliberal rule
in the service of big-money bankrollers and their global empire.
The nation’s first black president implemented the preferred
policies of Wall Street and the Pentagon more effectively than
wealthy white Republicans like John McCain or Mitt Romney could have ever
hoped to.
America’s “inverted totalitarianism” was rebranded, to deadly effect.
Fed by a widespread and easily exploited sense of abandonment and
betrayal, the country’s rightward shift grew more pronounced, as
the Democrats depressed and demobilized their purported base. Over
a period of eight years, the party lost more than 1,000 elected
offices nationwide, including the U.S. presidency.
Along the way, its power brokers managed to stamp out a progressive
insurgency from Bernie Sanders through dubious means, clearing the
field for a deeply unpopular candidate in Hillary Clinton. And in
so doing, they handed the populist torch to a far-right reactionary
in a change election.
We should expect a similar outcome from the Democrats’ presidential
nomination process in 2020. The smart money is on anti-populist
Joe Biden or the telegenic faux-progressive Beto O’Rourke—this
despite the continued popularity of Sanders and his progressive agenda.
One year after Hillary’s ignominious defeat, the distinguished
liberal political scientists Benjamin Page (Northwestern) and Marin
Gilens
(Princeton) published their expertly researched book “Democracy in
America?”
The volume’s key finding: “The best evidence indicates that the
wishes of ordinary Americans actually have had little or no impact
on the making of federal government policy. Wealthy individuals and
organized interest groups—especially business corporations—have had
much more political clout.
When they are taken into account, it becomes apparent that the
general public has been virtually powerless. …”
Whether we vote or not, Mammon reigns in the United States, where,
as Page and Gilens note, “government policy … reflects the wishes
of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary
citizens who turn out every two years to choose among the
preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office” (emphasis
added). Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
(“The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.”)
Perhaps our only hope is a mass movement for “the radical
reconstruction of society itself”—what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
called “the real issue to be faced”—and the replacement of the
unelected and interrelated dictatorships of capital and empire by
popular sovereignty and workers’ control. As Chris Hedges wrote
earlier this year:
“The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on
a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long
process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of
our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we
live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political
mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be
vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward
tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system,
dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major
political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back
political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this
means massive and sustained civil disobedience. … If we do not
stand up, we will enter a new dark age.”
(Emphasis added.)
“A new dark age” may ultimately prove euphemistic. The original
Dark Ages concluded with the planet still habitable. Humanity now
faces the near-term historical threat of extinction thanks to the
grave “ecological rifts”
generated by a global profit system upheld by both ruling parties
that is turning earth into a great, big Greenhouse Gas Chamber.
“The uncomfortable truth,” philosopher Istvan Meszaros rightly
argued 17 years ago, “is that if there is no future for a radical
mass movement in our time, there can be no future for humanity itself.”
Sustained civil disobedience in the United States could provoke a
response far bloodier than anything seen in France. But while the
human costs of revolution are great, none can compare with the
ecocidal rule of capital.
Paul Street
Paul Street holds a doctorate in U.S. history from Binghamton
University.
He
is former vice president for research and planning of the Chicago
Urban League. Street is also the author of numerous