All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Tami]

Ukraine scandal ropes in Clinton-era GOP operatives

The Ukraine scandal engulfing Donald Trump’s presidency goes well beyond the core cast of characters at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

It’s now drawing in a duo familiar to anyone who has followed past Washington imbroglios: conservative lawyers and GOP operatives Joe diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing. And the scandal is beginning to reveal the opaque agendas of a pair of Ukrainian oligarchs whose legal troubles have led them to seek favors in Washington.

DiGenova and Toensing, who played major roles in the Bill Clinton dramas of the 1990s and resurfaced amid Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, have signed up to represent Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian gas magnate who currently resides in Vienna pending extradition to the U.S. to face bribery charges.

Last year, the married lawyers were briefly expected to formally join Trump’s legal team to defend him in the special counsel’s investigation, but those plans were quickly scrapped due to conflicts of interest with their existing clients. The couple resurfaced, however, working in conjunction with efforts by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden.

For Firtash — who is fighting extradition from Austria to the U.S. to face bribery charges — his involvement began at least as early as July, when he parted ways with Lanny Davis, the lawyer who guided Bill Clinton through a variety of investigations and now represents Michael Cohen, the former Trump fixer who confessed to tax evasion, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress, among other crimes.

[Theleviathan]

You have to look past all of these ideological distinctions and think about the practical implications of "progressive capitalism" though. Capitalism succeeds in the ways that it does because market forces push companies to maximize profits by any means possible whether benign, like improving efficiency or innovating, or malignant, like suppressing wages or price gouging. This surplus can then be reinvested in the company, and when taking in the effects of compound interest and economies of scale, this is what enables the kind of explosive growth and dynamism you see in market economies. By contrast, a company primarily owned by workers would naturally seek to distribute most of its income to its workers, and while this is fine on a local level, without that maniacal drive for efficiency these types of companies just wouldn't be able to compete internationally.

There are many progressive capitalist countries throughtout the world. Including those often cited by Bernie. So while those concerns are valid, there are similar concerns with other models. I'd argue any true form of socialism will inevitably result in oppressive authoritarians because of the power vacuum. Those are speculative.

Progresdive capitalism exists and thrives in our world today.

[zinderel]

We are settling though.

I don't think the people that voted for Obama wanted the US to continue bombing people, but that's what they got because the other guy would have been even worse. When one candidate is clearly better than the other, but still bombs the **** out of people, that should be a wake up call that the system doesn't work.

I agree! Unfortunately, until enough people are ready to do whatever it takes and take the corrupt, garbage system we have down entirely, we have to do the best we can with what we have. And that means supporting a non-fascist over a fascist, even if that non-fascist isn’t perfect on capitalism. I’d rather support a candidate who supports my right to exist but who still thinks capitalism can be salvaged than one who barely gives a shot about me but hates capitalism. We will NEVER have a perfect candidate.

Never.

So the responsible thing is to make sure that we don’t get any more outright fascists in power. That is top priority. Everything else comes after that.

[zinderel]

Actually, you're right.

I recall the last 2012 poll I saw about drone strikes had it at a 62% approval rating. So I guess most of the people that voted Obama didn't disapprove.

But that number dropped to 58% in 2015, so we got to keep pushing against it.

Anyway, my usage is almost up, so you all will be free of my rantings for the rest of the month.

I hope you come back. I don’t mind ranting. And I appreciate your passion, even if we disagree somewhat on how to best effect change.

[PwrdOn]

There are many progressive capitalist countries throughtout the world. Including those often cited by Bernie. So while those concerns are valid, there are similar concerns with other models. I'd argue any true form of socialism will inevitably result in oppressive authoritarians because of the power vacuum. Those are speculative.

Progresdive capitalism exists and thrives in our world today.

The Scandinavian model is hardly one that America could reasonably emulate, because all of those countries rely heavily on exporting natural resources, the proceeds of which can then support their relatively small populations quite comfortably. Granted, they have been much more forward thinking and responsible in nurturing these resources than most comparable countries, but this is largely because they have never been strong armed into ceding control of these resources to foreign companies. Curious that America has never been shy about utilizing gunboat diplomacy to strip mine the Middle East or Africa, but we leave Norway and Sweden alone even though there is plenty of oil and minerals there and they couldn't really do much to stop us if we wanted to get our hands on it.

A big reason why socialism tends to devolve into authoritarianism in practice is because the developed world has sought to isolate and starve out socialist regimes wherever they pop up. Combined with the fact that socialist revolutions tend to occur in impoverished agrarian countries to begin with, this means that the economic planners have to try and build up self-sufficient economies with the extremely limited resources at their disposal, not being able to make up the shortfall with international trade. More critically, they aren't able to access advanced technology, as this is inevitably controlled by their adversaries, and attempts at domestic innovation invariably fall short because all of the promising talent gets lured away to capitalist countries. In a climate like this, the government is hardly in a position to placate people's demands for food and other basic goods, and often resorts to brutal crackdowns instead.

[Theleviathan]

The Scandinavian model is hardly one that America could reasonably emulate, because all of those countries rely heavily on exporting natural resources, the proceeds of which can then support their relatively small populations quite comfortably. Granted, they have been much more forward thinking and responsible in nurturing these resources than most comparable countries, but this is largely because they have never been strong armed into ceding control of these resources to foreign companies. Curious that America has never been shy about utilizing gunboat diplomacy to strip mine the Middle East or Africa, but we leave Norway and Sweden alone even though there is plenty of oil and minerals there and they couldn't really do much to stop us if we wanted it.

Most of Europe follows these models. You can disagree about the extent of the progressivism to your liking....but they exist.

[PwrdOn]

Most of Europe follows these models. You can disagree about the extent of the progressivism to your liking....but they exist.

Europe has been economically stagnant for the last decade, and a big reason why is that their more worker-focused companies aren't able to match the innovation of more ruthlessly capitalist competitors, combined with the need to support a growing elderly population with a shrinking working age population increasingly composed of immigrants. Hence the recent trend of European countries adopting more neoliberal policies to try and improve their competitiveness while limiting the benefits that people can draw to try and push them into more American style working habits. Trying to emulate the European social democratic model right when it's on the precipice of collapse seems a bit foolish to me.

[Kirby101]

I have to disagree that Europe is not innovative. or on the verge of collapse. In fact more than a few economist point out that it was the embrace of the neoliberal idea of austerity after 2008 that hurt them far more than their democratic socialist structure.

[numberthirty]

Not to be too much of a cynic, but this assumes that the majority of voters left or right care about this in a candidate. I, sadly, don't think they do.

One guy's take...

That former President Obama came from the law background that he did was one of the main reasons I voted for him. While it's not a huge group of folks, a few folks I know did as well.

It was seriously disappointing to see him take some of the "Here Is What Is Legal..." positions and continuing the drone program.

That said, I tend to agree that those folks are a rather low number.

[numberthirty]

Would you like a 32 year old newly elected state legislator to be the presidential nominee?

There's something we probably ought to talk over.

[numberthirty]

This was an excellent post. It's even more bizarre to me that someone would use these labels to reject someone's "music" while going to lengths to shrug off the sexism in their music.

This is the problem with those who reject the spectrum and try to weaponize it against candidates and supporters: it becomes this blunt tool that is so specific it stops having any value. Being a conservative or a liberal who only accepts others as part of their coalition if they agree 100% has rendered themselves irrelevant to the political process. In fact, probably harmful to their own cause.

Winning an election requires a broad coalition of votes. The more restrictive your labels - and the more you attack those that you deem unworthy of them - the more you narrow your coalition. Then you lose elections.

There was just a run of folks going over why not even making an attempt at appealing to "Bernie Or Bust!" folks(however many there might be) is the right play.

I get the feeling that the blade you are describing might have more than one edge.

[aja_christopher]

One guy's take...

That former President Obama came from the law background that he did was one of the main reasons I voted for him. While it's not a huge group of folks, a few folks I know did as well.

It was seriously disappointing to see him take some of the "Here Is What Is Legal..." positions and continuing the drone program.

That said, I tend to agree that those folks are a rather low number.

If people really cared about those things then they would have nominated Kucinich instead of Obama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis...ntial_campaign

Despite the good intentions of candidates like Kucinich and Carter, they tend not to get elected and/or re-elected in the modern era.

Doesn't mean things can't change -- just that it doesn't make sense to deny reality when it comes to the American voter.

[GindyPosts]

There's something we probably ought to talk over.

Yeah, you gotta be 35 years old minimum (although people prefer their candidates older for, you know, experience?), a US citizen (meaning American Samoans can't run as they are US nationals), and have no felonies. There tend to be other prerequisites, but those are the main ones.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump’s Plan To Privatize Medicare

As I’m a scant five years away from going on Medicare, this concerns me greatly.

[PwrdOn]

I have to disagree that Europe is not innovative. or on the verge of collapse. In fact more than a few economist point out that it was the embrace of the neoliberal idea of austerity after 2008 that hurt them far more than their democratic socialist structure.

Collapse may be the wrong word, it's more accurate to say that Europe is sort of entering a period of prolonged stagnation similar to what Japan has been experiencing for the last 30 years or so. What they really need at this point is an influx of new immigrants that will contribute to their economies and pay into their welfare systems, but unsurprisingly this is not so popular with Europeans. Evidently their commitment to equality and fairness fades once they're asked to share the wealth with people that are not like them.