All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Rosa Luxemburg]

So, as it turns out, there was no fraud in Bolivia's election.

Some of us already knew this, but others kept touting the narrative of those that supported the coup.

Bolivia dismissed its October elections as fraudulent. Our research found no reason to suspect fraud.

As Bolivia gears up for a do-over election on May 3, the country remains in unrest following the Nov. 10 military-backed coup against incumbent President Evo Morales.

A quick recap: Morales claimed victory in October’s election, but the opposition protested about what it called electoral fraud. A Nov. 10 report from the Organization of American States (OAS) noted election irregularities, which “leads the technical audit team to question the integrity of the results of the election on October 20.” Police then joined the protests and Morales sought asylum in Mexico.

The military-installed government charged Morales with sedition and terrorism. A European Union monitoring report noted that some 40 former electoral officials have been arrested and face criminal charges of sedition and subversion, and 35 people have died in the post-electoral conflict. The highest-polling presidential candidate, a member of Morales’s Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS-IPSP) party, has received a summons from prosecutors for undisclosed crimes, a move some analysts suspect was aimed to keep him off the ballot.

The media has largely reported the allegations of fraud as fact. And many commentators have justified the coup as a response to electoral fraud by MAS-IPSP. However, as specialists in election integrity, we find that the statistical evidence does not support the claim of fraud in Bolivia’s October election.

[Saffron]

I think most people in China are just happy that their lives have improved over the last few decades and don't want to raise too much of a stir, though there is always going to be public outcry whenever the government bungles a crisis like they did with the coronavirus. My whole point though was that the number of people who are "good" dissenters in the sense of believing that Western style democracy is the answer comprise a grand total of like six people, whereas most of the people with gripes against the government tend to favor a return to the "iron rice bowl" policies of the past, though these are still vastly outnumbered by those who are just apolitical or are generally satisfied with how things are going. Of the Russians that I have met, few really have any great love for the Soviet Union but pretty much all of them agree that it was vastly better than living under Putin, or god forbid, Yeltsin. I doubt you could find a single person who would celebrate the fall of the USSR as some liberation from communist tyranny.

I just find that hard to believe. This is completely anecdotal obviously, but in my experience dissenters (who aren't victims of discrimination or had family members killed during the Cultural Revolution) tend to be those just unhappy with their standard of living. I agree that most aren't necessarily looking for western style democracies but I've never met anyone wanting to go back to days when everybody was starving. I can't imagine Russians yearning for their empty grocery store shelves either.

[Tami]

Public Enemy Fires Flavor Flav Over Bernie Sanders Flap

Public Enemy fired Flavor Flav on Sunday, two days after he demanded Bernie Sanders’ campaign stop touting a performance at a rally. “Public Enemy and Public Enemy Radio will be moving forward without Flavor Flav,” group said in a statement, according to Rolling Stone. “We thank him for his years of service and wish him well.” The announcement came as Public Enemy Radio, an offshoot of the original group, was set to take the stage in Los Angeles in support of Sanders.

Hours before the firing, frontman Chuck D went after Flav in a series of tweets that suggested the hypeman’s political acumen isn’t exactly sharp. “It’s not about BERNIE with Flav... he don’t know the difference between BarrySanders or BernieSanders,” Chuck tweeted. “So I don’t attack FLAV on what he don’t know,” he continued, adding, “Obviously I understand his craziness after all this damn time.”

Public Enemy Fires Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally Spat

Public Enemy announced Sunday they are permanently “moving forward” without Flavor Flav, firing one of hip-hop’s most memorable hypemen after 37 years. The abrupt dismissal comes just two days after the rapper sent a cease-and-desist letter to Bernie Sanders over Chuck D’s concert at the campaign’s Los Angeles rally Sunday.

“Public Enemy and Public Enemy Radio will be moving forward without Flavor Flav,” the hip-hop legends said in a brief statement Sunday. “We thank him for his years of service and wish him well.”

The group reiterated that Public Enemy Radio — a Chuck D-led offshoot featuring DJ Lord, Jahi and the S1Ws — would still perform at the free, livestreamed Sanders rally gig at 6 p.m. PST at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Prior to Flavor Flav’s firing — and after the hypeman accused Sanders of using his “unauthorized likeness, image and trademarked clock” to promote the rally — Chuck D said of his bandmate of 37 years in a statement, “Flavor chooses to dance for his money and not do benevolent work like this. He has a year to get his act together and get himself straight or he’s out.”

[Steel Inquisitor]

That is very much the rub though, right? If you look at Occupy, or Black Lives Matter, or the Womens' Marches, or the Extinction Rebellion, I'm sure all of those protesters sincerely believe in what they're fighting for and the media always covers them like they are some huge watershed moment, but really, what has come out of any of those movements? The consistent strand here is that none of them threaten to upset the apple cart in any significant way, they are demanding change but there are no repercussions if they don't get what they want, which means that the powers that be can safely ignore them.

Also, I'm not sure what to tell you, but "don't grow any food so everyone starves" isn't anywhere to be found either in the the Communist Manifesto or the Little Red Book. China had a big population to feed, and also needed to rapidly industrialize to compete economically, but didn't have the resources to do both. Mao tried anyway, and failed spectacularly. That's it, there was no sinister agenda at work there.

Sincerely believing in something has nothing to do with whether they'll affect real change, this is about how to properly impact the world with their agenda and Black Lives Matter do this so much stronger than Occupy did. They do this because they know it's not wise to avoid participating in political parties and they do more than protesting. They're the major organisations which are the face of the left activism because there is nobody doing what you're saying in America. Of course this is simply a distraction, since you avoid tackling problems with Communism that I focus on. There is no defense to support dictatorships.

Excuses, hyperbole and disavowing Mao and his government as a Communist when not too long ago you were defending them. They can do that without resorting to dictatorship, except your argument is it was that or death, and you're not openly condemning the Great Leap Forward as a humanitarian crisis, a "failure" that killed millions of people. Had Sanders done this in the debate it would be a worse event than defending Castro, that's how problematic it is.

There are no good dictators, PwrdOn.

[Theleviathan]

Evidently, you spent hours yesterday arguing with someone over something that never happened.

It doesn't seem like I'm the one having trouble with reality.

Ha! That was a great job proving my point! In fact, it's sorta apropos of your approach: I want something to be true, so therefore it is true. Reality be damned.

[PwrdOn]

I just find that hard to believe. This is completely anecdotal obviously, but in my experience dissenters (who aren't victims of discrimination or had family members killed during the Cultural Revolution) tend to be those just unhappy with their standard of living. I agree that most aren't necessarily looking for western style democracies but I've never met anyone wanting to go back to days when everybody was starving. I can't imagine Russians yearning for their empty grocery store shelves either.

Well despite the impression that you get of Chinese history living in the West, the Great Leap Forward only lasted for four years and outside of that time period, mass starvation wasn't really an issue even before the market reforms opened up the economy. This actually contrasts quite starkly with the pattern before the communists came to power where there would be a major famine once a decade, and indeed the Chinese population grew so quickly under Mao's rule that the one child policy had to be instituted to slow it down. Sure, life was hardly luxurious in the bad old days and putting food on the table was a daily struggle, but I think any old timer would tell you that they also had a sense of purpose and communal identity that doesn't really exist in the modern age when all people can think about is making money and climbing the social ladder. And in addition to the older folks there are, just like in the West, lots of students and intellectuals who hold radical beliefs and are especially disillusioned by how hypocritical the Chinese government has become, waving the red flag while simultaneously selling the country out to the billionaires. And granted these types of people can seem invisible now that the country has been overrun by newly minted upper middle class cretins who think nothing of class identity and only care about scoring designer handbags, but if you spend some time and actually talk to the working people I think you'll see a different side of the story.

Sincerely believing in something has nothing to do with whether they'll affect real change, this is about how to properly impact the world with their agenda and Black Lives Matter do this so much stronger than Occupy did. They do this because they know it's not wise to avoid participating in political parties and they do more than protesting. They're the major organisations which are the face of the left activism because there is nobody doing what you're saying in America. Of course this is simply a distraction, since you avoid tackling problems with Communism that I focus on. There is no defense to support dictatorships.

Excuses, hyperbole and disavowing Mao and his government as a Communist when not too long ago you were defending them. They can do that without resorting to dictatorship, except your argument is it was that or death, and you're not openly condemning the Great Leap Forward as a humanitarian crisis, a "failure" that killed millions of people. Had Sanders done this in the debate it would be a worse event than defending Castro, that's how problematic it is.

There are no good dictators, PwrdOn.

I didn't say that Mao was not a communist, I was merely pointing out that yes while countless people died during the Great Leap Forward, this was not, you know, intentional. And honestly, I don't get why people always try to paint socialists as loving dictatorships, as if we saw having our rights taken away and being tortured and killed as being a positive good in and of themselves. The more accurate interpretation is that, by and large, socialists prefer EFFECTIVE governments over ones that love to talk about freedom and democracy while failing to provide for the basic needs of their citizens. This is especially funny with centrists trying to paint Bernie as a Russian asset, because if history shows us anything, is that embracing free speech and elections in a country without a strong democratic tradition or institutions is practically an invitation for foreign powers to meddle and install their own preferred candidate that will serve their interests over those of the locals. Of course, the goal is always to develop robust institutions eventually, but in the meantime when you have foreign media spreading fake news to spark regime change, and foreign money flooding elections and promoting foreign business interests over the welfare of the public, extreme measures can and have been taken to shut that down, and because these interlopers generally operate through local proxies rather than show their faces openly, this means that these draconian measures are felt by the entire public rather than targeted at the actual troublemakers. And if it's easy for people to believe that Russia, a country with an economy smaller than South Korea's and limited financial interests overseas, is capable of creating so much chaos through its meddling, what do you think the United States, a country with infinitely more resources and more reason to cause trouble, can do?

[Celgress]

I thought it would be two days from now but he was done

As did I. Oh well, he had no chance.

[Celgress]

Klobuchar should go next.

I'm beginning to think if Sanders wins the Democratic Party will split into two new parties before the general election. I just feel it in my gut after watching the numbers of Centrist Dems who detest Sanders and everything he stands for (rightly so, IMO).

[PwrdOn]

Klobuchar should go next.

I'm beginning to think if Sanders wins the Democratic Party will split into two new parties before the general election. I just feel it in my gut after watching the numbers of Centrist Dems who detest Sanders and everything he stands for (rightly so, IMO).

Hmm, so the centrists are going to split the vote and ensure Trump's re-election just to spite Bernie? That's a bold strategy Cotton.

[Celgress]

Hmm, so the centrists are going to split the vote and ensure Trump's re-election just to spite Bernie? That's a bold strategy Cotton.

Nah, it's just what I think might happen.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Well despite the impression that you get of Chinese history living in the West, the Great Leap Forward only lasted for four years and outside of that time period, mass starvation wasn't really an issue even before the market reforms opened up the economy. This actually contrasts quite starkly with the pattern before the communists came to power where there would be a major famine once a decade, and indeed the Chinese population grew so quickly under Mao's rule that the one child policy had to be instituted to slow it down. Sure, life was hardly luxurious in the bad old days and putting food on the table was a daily struggle, but I think any old timer would tell you that they also had a sense of purpose and communal identity that doesn't really exist in the modern age when all people can think about is making money and climbing the social ladder. And in addition to the older folks there are, just like in the West, lots of students and intellectuals who hold radical beliefs and are especially disillusioned by how hypocritical the Chinese government has become, waving the red flag while simultaneously selling the country out to the billionaires. And granted these types of people can seem invisible now that the country has been overrun by newly minted upper middle class cretins who think nothing of class identity and only care about scoring designer handbags, but if you spend some time and actually talk to the working people I think you'll see a different side of the story.

Mao gave China purpose and identity so it should all be forgiven? That's your stance on Mao's government?

I didn't say that Mao was not a communist, I was merely pointing out that yes while countless people died during the Great Leap Forward, this was not, you know, intentional. And honestly, I don't get why people always try to paint socialists as loving dictatorships, as if we saw having our rights taken away and being tortured and killed as being a positive good in and of themselves. The more accurate interpretation is that, by and large, socialists prefer EFFECTIVE governments over ones that love to talk about freedom and democracy while failing to provide for the basic needs of their citizens. This is especially funny with centrists trying to paint Bernie as a Russian asset, because if history shows us anything, is that embracing free speech and elections in a country without a strong democratic tradition or institutions is practically an invitation for foreign powers to meddle and install their own preferred candidate that will serve their interests over those of the locals. Of course, the goal is always to develop robust institutions eventually, but in the meantime when you have foreign media spreading fake news to spark regime change, and foreign money flooding elections and promoting foreign business interests over the welfare of the public, extreme measures can and have been taken to shut that down, and because these interlopers generally operate through local proxies rather than show their faces openly, this means that these draconian measures are felt by the entire public rather than targeted at the actual troublemakers. And if it's easy for people to believe that Russia, a country with an economy smaller than South Korea's and limited financial interests overseas, is capable of creating so much chaos through its meddling, what do you think the United States, a country with infinitely more resources and more reason to cause trouble, can do?

You were backtracking by implying The Great Leap Forward had nothing to do with Communism. It not being intentional didn't make it any less monstrous. We do that when they shore up Communist dictatorships rather than less sensitive places with socialist policies, like Scandivania. Is it really that hard not to support dictatorships when discussing socialism or Communism? Which is why it's confusing why you're not doing that in this conversation, instead you'd rather be whitewashing left wing dictatorships. Socialists are a diverse group of people, you're going to get 10 different answers from 8 of them in a room.

Bringing up Sanders being a Russia asset is a distraction and requires more depth and nuance that I'm not bothering going into because its' an excuse to dodge the real discussion we're having about endorsing Communist dictatorships. (Spoilers: They'e Bad!) Engaging in the narrative that Russia's harmless, and didn't do anything in '16. My opinion of you is dropping by the second. Once again, another distraction. America did wrong with their interfering with elections, this isn't a controversial stance here.

I've never encountered someone who genuinely was an old school Communist before, this thread has been educational on that account.


Do you think left wing dictatorships are good? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Nah, it's just what I think might happen.

I don't think that they'll split into another party, though the Greens will get a rise in membership. They'll use it as an excuse to leave politics again, and tilt toward another Occupy movement rather than the Justice Democrats. Who might be in danger if they're not careful.

[Lord Falcon]

Wow, seriously? I wasn't expecting that so soon.

I'm impressed it was this fast, to be honest. If he was going to stay in, he'd stay in past Super Tuesday. If he was going to drop, now would be the clear time for it. Pete's a lot more decisive and perceptive of the big-picture than he sometimes gets credit for. But for a number of issues, some self-made from his time as mayor and some plain unlucky, he'd be in serious contention for the nomination now.

He's doing the right thing.

He doesn't have much of a path forward, and at this point, would mainly split the centrist vote. It's better for him to drop out now than after all the states go on Super Tuesday.

I think he might have been the strongest general election opponent for Trump, as an intelligent young midwesterner who served his country, but he definitely elevated his profile honorably. He has first choice of the nomination for any statewide office in Indiana, and would be a worthy addition to any Democratic presidential cabinet.

Yeah, while I'm sad he's not going to be the nominee, he's got plenty of options going forward. Indiana is conservative, but it's not Texas. And he's built more than enough prominence without generating serious bad blood with anyone (other than with Klobuchar, and frankly I think that's more on her than him) that he could easily serve in a president's cabinet.

Agreed. And hey... maybe he can be Biden's VP It certainly won't hurt his career going out still doing well; and he's young, he'll have another shot. But agreed about an opponent to Trump. His military background would have helped a lot, and siphoned of a little Republican support who are military inclined. And the fact he's not a millionaire could have appealed to the working class more (again, Republican base). Either way, he did good. Made history. No matter what, he was a trailblazer. Got firther than any openly gay candidate before him. Only(?) openly gay candidate to win a state in the primaries. Only openly gay candidate to make it to Top 2 in New Hampshire. It was a very noble effort.

It'd be a smart move by Bernie to pick Pete as VP. Not so much for Biden, I think, who will get most of the center and mid-west regardless. But it would be interesting to see Pete debate former governor of Indiana, religious, super anti-LGBT VP Mike Pence. Possibly a snoozefest, but thematically at least there'd be many interesting angles.

I guarantee it will basically boil down to "We can't let the socialist win" And I would bet Biden had a conversation with him about a place in his cabinet if he wins. No other reason to do this today and not Wednesday.

If Pete wants to shore up his support among black voters, endorsing Joe Biden in this moment would go a long way towards doing that. But Bernie has plenty of black support too, so it's a risk. But maybe one worth taking if he genuinely wants to take a stand.

I'm glad Buttigeig is dropping out. He and Klobuchar are my favorites amongst the dems but right now all the sane moderate dems are doing is guaranteeing a Sanders nomination which means 4 more years of Trump. The moderates need to coalesce around one candidate and Biden or Bloomberg seem to be the only realistic candidates. Both have their warts but they are better than Sanders.

I am pretty sure a short, awkward New York mayor who made soda-size shrinking a priority is the worst alternative the Dems could put forward. At least Bernie gets a base fired up. Right now my support is towards Biden, but remains tentative depending on whether he can show more that his brain's not gone off to pasture yet.

I'd be surprised if he doesn't back Biden. So... what position would you imagine? I don't think Secretary of State, he's too young. Oddly I think he'd be a better VP than Secretary of State, I don't know why??? He's not going to get that, but isn't that odd... that I feel his age is more a hindrance for the 4th biggest job than the 2nd?

It's not weird at all. The Secretary of State is a weighty, work-heavy diplomatic position where connections, ready-made respect, name-recognition and such matter. Nobody really knows Mayor Pete. He's got good people skills and his midwestern discipline would lend well to diplomacy, but the guy would be starting from zero worldwide.

The VP job is much more flexible because it has no actual power of its own. A successful VP takes direction from the President, has a close, trusting relationship with said President, can build bridges under the President's name, can handle responsibility as assigned and can give perceptive advice. Pete would be far better suited to being VP than Secretary of State.

He won't get the VP nod. Biden is going to pick a VP candidate who will help win a state or draw a lot of voters to him. The gay demographic is already going to vote for the dem regardless of who the candidate is so he doesn't really help there. Indiana is very red so he probably can't swing the state.

Sherrod Brown is my bet. A lot of dems are already floating his name out there as an alternative candidate in a contested convention. As a senator from Ohio he could flip Ohio to Biden and Brown is very popular with blue collar workers, the demographic that went for Trump in 2016.

If Biden can't carry blue-collar workers by himself he has no business being the nominee.

[aja_christopher]

Sanders even divided Public Enemy.

----
"Public Enemy Fire Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally Spat"

“Public Enemy announced they are permanently “moving forward” without Flavor Flav, firing one of hip-hop’s most memorable hypemen after more than 35 years. The abrupt dismissal comes just two days after the rapper sent a cease-and-desist letter to Bernie Sanders over Chuck D’s concert at the campaign’s Los Angeles rally Sunday.

“Public Enemy and Public Enemy Radio will be moving forward without Flavor Flav,” the hip-hop legends said in a brief statement Sunday. “We thank him for his years of service and wish him well.””

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...anders-960272/

[numberthirty]

Sanders even divided Public Enemy.

----
"Public Enemy Fire Flavor Flav After Bernie Sanders Rally Spat"

“Public Enemy announced they are permanently “moving forward” without Flavor Flav, firing one of hip-hop’s most memorable hypemen after more than 35 years. The abrupt dismissal comes just two days after the rapper sent a cease-and-desist letter to Bernie Sanders over Chuck D’s concert at the campaign’s Los Angeles rally Sunday.

“Public Enemy and Public Enemy Radio will be moving forward without Flavor Flav,” the hip-hop legends said in a brief statement Sunday. “We thank him for his years of service and wish him well.””

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...anders-960272/

Unless Chuck D. and Professor Griff had the foresight to put the cover story in place years ago, that really ain't the case.