BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1106 Pages +
  • « First
  • 509
  • 510
  • 511
  • 512
  • 513
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#10201 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-May-24, 10:04

Here's how the special counsel responded to the court over attempts to get information:

Quote

"The Special Counsel's investigation is not a closed matter, but an ongoing criminal investigation with multiple lines of non-public inquiry,” the special counsel wrote. “No right of public access exists to search warrant materials in an ongoing investigation," Robert Mueller's team wrote in a filing Wednesday night.”

Don't let big tech control what news you see. Get more stories like this in your inbox, every day.

"The investigation consists of multiple lines of inquiry within the overall scope of the Special Counsel's authority,” prosecutors added. “Many aspects of the investigation are factually and legally interconnected: they involve overlapping courses of conduct, relationships, and events, and they rely on similar sources, methods, and techniques. The investigation is not complete and its details remain non-public.”


In other words, this investigation is YUGE!
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10202 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-May-24, 10:11

For the Art of the Non-Deal file:

Trump cancels nuclear summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#10203 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,222
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2018-May-24, 12:28

 y66, on 2018-May-24, 10:11, said:



I have been travelling. One of the pleasures has been minimal keeping up with Trump. But I did notice the above event, and then the following taken from online WaPo:

Quote

South Korea's government seemed blindsided by the news. "It is difficult to deal with these sensitive and difficult diplomatic problems with this current way of communicating," President Moon Jae-in said, urging Trump and Kim to have direct dialogue.


The truth, well-spoken, by someone in the cross hairs. I could not have said it better.Of course this is a brilliant move. Trump is always brilliant. Just ask him, he will tell you. And tell you. And tell you.
Ken
0

#10204 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-May-24, 14:23

The initial take at The Economist is:

Quote

If there is one foreign policy goal to which President Donald Trump is unswervingly committed, it is to make America safe from Kim Jong Un’s nuclear weapons. That was the message the president’s foreign policy team quietly transmitted for most of the past year. Where, in light of Mr Trump’s announcement on May 24th that he had decided to cancel a historic summit with Mr Kim, which was scheduled to take place in Singapore next month, does that ambition now stand?

For context, it is worth noting that Mr Trump’s decision in March to meet with Mr Kim seemed ill-considered but, on balance, probably justifiable. His decision to cancel the meeting, after recent indications that the North Koreans were making a fool of him, had come to seem almost inevitable. And almost everything else about the president’s approach to, ostensibly, the biggest foreign policy challenge of his tenure has appeared uninformed, ill-considered and potentially disastrous.

Mr Trump agreed to meet Mr Kim after South Korean diplomats brought him a message that the North Korean dictator was prepared to put his nuclear weapons up for negotiation in return for talks. Many Korea watchers expressed alarm. It seemed possible Mr Trump was not aware of North Korea’s long history of seeking direct talks with America, or of its past promises to abandon its nuclear weapons, or the bad faith and broken promises that have at all times characterised its nuclear diplomacy. Mr Trump’s alacritous agreement to meet with Mr Kim seemed like a wasted opportunity to exact more concessions, or at least more proof of seriousness, from the rogue regime before honouring it with one-on-one presidential attention.

At risk was not only the success or failure of the promised talks. The worried experts feared Mr Trump, in his eagerness to save face and make a deal, would make a bad deal. Perhaps he would grant Mr Kim’s wish to be recognised as a nuclear power in return for a narrow agreement to protect America. Yet, despite these fears, the summit still seemed like a gamble worth taking.

At the least, America stood to learn more about Mr Kim’s intentions from the promised meeting. It also seemed sensible to direct Mr Trump—who had been demanding options for military action against the rogue nuclear power and last year threatened to unleash “fire, fury and frankly power” against it—away from sabre-rattling. As it turned out, the extent to which Mr Trump proceeded to veer from darkness to light on North Korea looked like an astonishing proof of naivety.

He dispatched Mike Pompeo, his former CIA director and now secretary of state, to Pyongyang to meet Mr Kim twice and heralded their “good relationship”. Last month he praised Mr Kim for being “very open, I think, very honourable”. Visibly buoyed by suggestions from Republican toadies that he already deserved the Nobel peace prize, Mr Trump appeared to believe he was on course to solve one of the world’s most intractable security problems. “They have agreed to denuclearisation (so great for the world)” he tweeted last month. Those who feared he was on course to get played by Mr Kim’s regime, which views its nuclear arsenal as the main guarantor of its survival, were not encouraged by this.

Over the past couple of weeks, such doubts have been vindicated further. It was inevitable that the North Koreans would test America’s resolve to demand their total denuclearisation. But they appear almost to have been ridiculing Mr Trump. Decrying a pro forma and unremarkable US-South Korean military exercise, the Pyongyang regime cancelled planned talks with South Korea and threatened to cancel the planned summit with Mr Trump. It also appeared to backtrack on Mr Kim’s alleged offer to discuss denuclearisation.

A senior official in the North Korean foreign ministry, Kim Kye Gwan, was quoted saying the regime would cancel the summit if the Americans “push us into a corner and force only unilateral nuclear abandonment”. After Mike Pence appeared this week to threaten Mr Kim with regime change if in fact he did not agree to give up his nukes, another senior North Korean diplomat, Choe Son Hui, called the vice president a “political dummy” and threatened America with nuclear war. “As a person involved in the US affairs, I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant and stupid remarks gushing out from the mouth of the US vice president.”

In a letter to Mr Kim, that the president appeared to have drafted himself, Mr Trump cancelled the Singapore summit a few hours later. He said his decision was “based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement… You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used.”

The distinct impression of wounded presidential pride must have delighted Mr Kim. Indeed, Mr Trump’s letter could hardly have broadcast his feelings of humiliation more clearly. It suggested the two leaders may have spoken on the phone. It made Mr Trump sound like a nuclear-armed jilted lover. “I felt a wonderful dialogue was building up between you and me, and ultimately, it is only that dialogue that matters,” Mr Trump wrote. “If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write.”

Perhaps Mr Kim will rush to repair the damage. Mr Trump is said to have such a high regard for his negotiating skills that he might not take much persuading to reconvene the cancelled talks. Yet this does not seem likely.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#10205 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,487
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2018-May-24, 16:54

Good article in TPM

https://talkingpoint...-to-kim-jong-un
Alderaan delenda est
0

#10206 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-May-25, 06:20

From Ireland’s Abortion Vote Becomes a Test for Facebook and Google by Adam Satariano at NYT:

Quote

DUBLIN — Craig Dwyer recently sat in an office above a convenience store in downtown Dublin, scrolling through a database he had compiled of hundreds of online ads that have popped up about Ireland’s abortion referendum on Friday.

Mr. Dwyer, who co-founded an election transparency group, pulled up one anti-abortion YouTube video that had only a few views when it was posted last year. After the video was republished as a referendum campaign ad on Facebook by a group from an unknown location, it attracted more than 1.2 million views, he said. He also showed an anti-abortion ad on Facebook that purported to be from an unbiased organization, but was also purchased by a buyer who couldn’t be traced.

With such ads on the rise, Facebook and Google took aggressive steps this month to prevent foreign meddling ahead of Ireland’s vote. Facebook blocked ads related to the abortion campaign from groups outside Ireland, while Google banned all referendum-related spots altogether.

“With social media in this campaign, our democracy is up for sale to the highest bidder and we’re blindfolded at the auction,” said Mr. Dwyer, 28, who runs the Transparent Referendum Initiative, which is pushing for new campaign disclosure laws for digital advertising.

Ireland has turned into a test case of whether Facebook and Google can thwart foreign groups from influencing elections, and misinformation from spreading. For months leading to Friday’s vote on whether to lift a constitutional ban on abortion, online ads on the issue became increasingly common from international groups attempting to sway the outcome. Of the 280 groups that since February had bought ads on Facebook tied to the abortion vote, 14 percent were based outside the country or in an untraceable location, according to Mr. Dwyer’s group.

How Facebook and Google have responded to these ads is being closely scrutinized because it foreshadows what the companies may try in the United States and elsewhere to keep elections unsullied. Both companies want to show they have improved since the 2016 American presidential election, when Russian agents manipulated Google’s YouTube and Facebook to spread divisive messages to voters. On Thursday, Facebook and Twitter rolled out new election transparency efforts.

...While many Irish are split on the abortion vote, they have been united in their criticism of Facebook’s and Google’s roles in the referendum.

The referendum experience is leading some Irish politicians to push for regulations that would require companies to disclose who was paying for campaign ads. A bill they wrote is gaining momentum and, if passed, would be the world’s first campaign-finance rule to account for social media ads. A similar measure in the United States, the Honest Ads Act, has languished.

“We need to know who is running the ads and who’s paying for the ads,” said James Lawless, the legislator who sponsored the bill.

Facebook said it supported the Irish bill. Google declined to comment.

Mr. Dwyer said governments globally must set stricter rules around disclosures of online campaign ads so voters knew who was paying for the material showing up in their Facebook feeds, in their Google search results and on YouTube.

“Ireland is definitely not unique,” he said. “No country has cracked this.”

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#10207 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-May-25, 08:06

 RedSpawn, on 2018-May-24, 05:51, said:

Winston,

Trump is no more ruthless than the very Congressional codgers (politicians) who claimed foul when he became President-Elect.

The 2016 election was supposed to be Hilary's coronation. Since she was an establishment candidate, upper crust Wall Street investors, lobbyists, executive members of the business community, and government agencies would know what to expect from her administration. Instead, everyone got a wild joker card with Trump's victory and that scared them because politics is POWER. Politics decides how the power base will be divided; politics ultimately determines who lives and dies on the streets. Several different stakeholders didn't know if they were going to be on the short end of the stick with Trump's policies and that's unnerving when big money (wealth) and the stability of the capital markets are on the line.

HRC was "supposed" to win the election. She was denied the Presidency by both Obama and Trump; once bitten, twice shy. Out of touch politicians forgot that when they don't take care of the economics of the voting working poor (especially those displaced in the Russet belt), they risk losing elections that were "no brainers". People often vote with their wallet instead of their conscience. Further, it's a strong testament to where we are heading politically when voters put more faith in a snake oil salesman perpetrating as a real estate mogul than a shady Democratic establishment candidate who is chronically engrossed in scandals. Voters had to ask themselves, "In the matter of Clinton versus Trump, do we take the devil we know or the devil we don't know?"

Congress pulled almost all of the levers of government to attack Trump once he became President-Elect. He was too mercurial, inexperienced, unpredictable, and anti-establishment for Congressional, media, and investor tastes. So we have opted to overturn the 2016 election through the machinations of government. I think it's more disturbing when Congress empanels a special counsel as revenge for Trump winning an election than owning the political mistakes that were made in a critical federal election. Trump has been demonized for our current political crisis but he is only part of the problem.

We have a political shell game going on between Republicans and Democrats, and the voter keeps on picking an empty shell and they are tired of it!


This is ridiculous as it is simply more whataboutism, but not even accurate whataboutism as the parties are not equal.

The last time the Democrats controlled all 3 branches of government, the end result was the Affordable Care Act, an action that had the goal of helping to provide health coverage to the uninsured and a level playing field from which to choose coverage.

Today, we have tax cuts for the wealthy, auctioning of U.S. policy, and unbridled corruption.

And we have Dotard Dennison. And you claim everything is equal?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10208 User is online   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,587
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-May-25, 08:18

 Winstonm, on 2018-May-25, 08:06, said:

The last time the Democrats controlled all 3 branches of government, the end result was the Affordable Care Act, an action that had the goal of helping to provide health coverage to the uninsured and a level playing field from which to choose coverage.

Did the Democrats really control Congress when that happened? I thought it was a result of enormous concessions by the White House that allowed Republicans to vote for it reluctantly.

#10209 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,676
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2018-May-25, 09:19

 barmar, on 2018-May-25, 08:18, said:

Did the Democrats really control Congress when that happened? I thought it was a result of enormous concessions by the White House that allowed Republicans to vote for it reluctantly.

Seriously?

No republicans voted for the ACA in the Senate or house. The Senate republicans said that they would filibuster any attempt to allow amendments to the committee bill, promising that they'd allow amendments to fix the shortcomings later. When the bill passed, they reneged on that promise.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
1

#10210 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-May-25, 10:33

 barmar, on 2018-May-25, 08:18, said:

Did the Democrats really control Congress when that happened? I thought it was a result of enormous concessions by the White House that allowed Republicans to vote for it reluctantly.


No, and the the only reason no changes could be made to the bill was due to the death of Senator Kennedy, which would have then killed the bill when that seat was lost.

Quote

Key events leading up to the passage of Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act)
Next, follow the timeline of key events leading up to the passage of the Obamacare law, along with key provisions that went into place after the law was enacted.

July 2009: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a group of Democrats from the House of Representatives reveal their plan for overhauling the health-care system. It’s called H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

August 25, 2009: Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, a leading supporter of health-care reform, dies and puts the Senate Democrats’ 60-seat supermajority required to pass a piece of legislation at risk.

September 24, 2009: Democrat Paul Kirk is appointed interim senator from Massachusetts, which temporarily restores the Democrats’ filibuster-proof 60th vote.

November 7, 2009: In the House of Representatives, 219 Democrats and one Republican vote for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans vote against it.

December 24, 2009: In the Senate, 60 Democrats vote for the Senate’s version of the bill, called America’s Healthy Future Act, whose lead author is senator Max Baucus of California. Thirty-nine Republicans vote against the bill, and one Republican senator, Jim Bunning, does not vote.

January 2010: In the Senate, Scott Brown, a Republican, wins the special election in Massachusetts to finish out the remaining term of US senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat. Brown campaigned heavily against the health-care law and won an upset victory in a state that consistently votes in favor of the Democratic party.

In January 2010, eHealth published research conducted by Opinion Research highlighting public perceptions of health-care reform.

March 11, 2010: Now lacking the 60th vote needed to pass the bill, Senate Democrats decide to use budget reconciliation in order to get to one bill approved by the House and the Senate. The use of budget reconciliation only requires 51 Senators to vote in favor of the bill in order for it to go to the president’s desk for signature.

March 21, 2010: The Senate’s version of the health-care plan is approved by the House in a 219-212 vote. All Republicans and 34 Democrats vote against the plan.

March 23, 2010: President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act into law.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10211 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-May-25, 12:40

The Gotcha Moment:

Quote

AP Source: Trump lawyer met Russian oligarch at Trump Tower

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with a Russian oligarch and discussed U.S.-Russia relations just 11 days before Trump was inaugurated as president.

That's according to a person familiar with the meeting held at Trump Tower in New York who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the meeting publicly.

This person said the oligarch, billionaire Viktor Vekselberg, met with Cohen for about 20 minutes in Cohen's office. The two men were joined by Andrew Intrater, Vekselberg's American cousin, who heads a New York private equity firm that manages his financial assets.

Soon after the inauguration, Intrater's firm, Columbus Nova, paid Cohen $500,000 for consulting work. Vekselberg was targeted in April with U.S. Treasury Department sanctions, citing his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10212 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-May-26, 08:19

Quote

Yahoo News reports the FBI has obtained from Spanish police transcripts of wiretapped conversations involving now-sanctioned Russian politician Alexander Torshin, who has close ties to the National Rifle Association and who met with Donald Trump Jr. during an NRA convention dinner in May 2016.

José Grinda, who has spearheaded investigations into Spanish organized crime, said that bureau officials in recent months requested and were provided transcripts of wiretapped conversations between Torshin and Alexander Romanov, a convicted Russian money launderer. On the wiretaps, Romanov refers to Torshin as “El Padrino,” the godfather.

“Just a few months ago, the wiretaps of these telephone conversations were given to the FBI,” Grinda said in response to a question from Yahoo News during a talk he gave at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. Asked if he was concerned about Torshin’s meetings with Donald Trump Jr. and other American political figures, Grinda replied: “Mr. Trump’s son should be concerned.”


Oh, yes, we've got trouble. And it rhymes with dump.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10213 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-May-26, 09:36

From Why Are We So Fascinated By Cults by Kirstin Allio at the Paris Review:

Quote

In March, I sent an announcement around to friends and colleagues: watch out for my new novel, Buddhism for Western Children. It’s a spiraling story of a powerful, manipulative guru versus a boy who must escape to recover his will, I wrote, and it profiles Western lust for Eastern spiritual mystique and tradition. I got a lot of wonderful goodwill in response, and also quite a few, Wait—is this like Wild Wild Country?

What was Wild Wild Country? I don’t watch TV, a habit left over from my antiworldly, culty childhood, on which my novel is loosely based, but now, obligated, I turned on Netflix. Like so many others, I was hooked, and I began to wonder anew why accounts of cults—novels, movies, docudramas—titillate and resonate time and again.

Wild Wild Country, the true-crime docuseries directed by the brothers Chapman and Maclain Way, is a sprawling, melodramatic, tricky show that follows the guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh from his sixties-era ashram in India to a vast ranch in Central Oregon in 1981. It uses miles and miles of sandy, archival, look-at-me footage (and you feel a little dirty, looking), including incredulous televised broadcasters, and pulls you through a heady succession of the scandals provoked as the cult’s new city arose. “It was really wild country,” says one of the key followers, or sannyasins. Helicopter shots zoom in on the frontier, a mountainous, treeless terrain: “Everything you can see belonged to you,” declares Ma Anand Sheela, Bhagwan’s irrepressible, blithely arrogant lieutenant, who is arguably the mastermind of the soon-to-be metropolis. The interlopers stream and swarm into Antelope, wearing a color wheel of red hues. The locals feel besieged. As tensions between Oregonians and spiritual seekers simmer, schisms also flare inside Rajneeshpuram. The conflict is further animated by an astounding cast of odd and indelible characters and eerie juxtapositions: long-haired Sannyasins against shaking-their-head townies; beautiful, beaming, blissed-out blondes with outdoor tans versus white-bread government officials. And then there’s Bhagwan himself: otherworldly, fragile saint to his disciples, faux mystical, egotistical charlatan to outsiders, berobed, fishy eyed, a magpie for flashy watches and fancy cars. “I’m not your leader,” says the guru, in a voice that seems to come from a little plastic pillbox tucked inside his cheek. “You are not my followers. I’m destroying everything.”

And so they follow him to the ends of the earth. Just like that, they build him a city.

It’s a broad drama, and yet, Wild Wild Country also seems cramped by its datedness. It’s small and specific, one more marginal, creepy cult story in which no one died. So why is it so riveting, so compelling now?

I can explain my own interest. The Rajneeshees looked like my people. Giddy, electrified, childlike in their unabashed belief, exhorting and quivering and shining. The young mothers looked like my mother, and I thought how my father would have loved to captain one of those bulldozers, carving new roads out of nowhere, or straddle the balance beam of a rooftree.

I could feel the messy, lurid tale in my bones. Bhagwan and Sheela use the same machinations and follow the same trajectory as the guru in my own early eighties childhood. Sannyasins—we called ourselves devotees—cultivate a high-minded, even genial nihilism, paired with an acute, voracious interest in the self, its betterment and its pleasure. And there was the same paradox-ridden, trademark guru style: “Never born, never died,” reads Bhagwan’s epitaph. The words to one of the most popular devotional songs in the cult of my childhood were, “For I am not born, and I shall never die.”

Here also were the spiritually estranged, or “worldly,” people from my childhood, “sluggish and guilty,” as I write in my novel, whose inability to pronounce Indian words betrays their ignorance and bigotry. One of the finest Wild Wild Country characters, John Silvertooth, the mayor of Antelope, remembers Bhagwan’s sinister personal pharmacist, “Puta? Was that her name? Puja? Yeah, Puta’s something in Spanish we don’t wanna say.”

Because of my history, this particular tale holds familiar allure, but the question persists: Why is everyone else so enthralled? I have a few speculations:

  • Sex, drugs and tambourines
  • Who's American now?
  • The tantalizing utopia?
  • Power at play?
  • We can't look away from a train wreck (and it could be ours)

Are we fascinated by cults because we want to watch folks just like us get smitten, overtaken, ensorcelled, Stockholm syndromed without even having to be kidnapped? To watch them expose themselves? We’re riveted by a version of it in politics every day: the cult leader in the White House; the puppet master of the Twit Theater; the savant who stepped into the vacuum, filled the spot for fundamentalist tyrant.

At some level, in watching all this, we’re complicit. Our almost lascivious appetite for the accounts of cults, their rises and falls … I’d say we’re hooked because it’s the story of us.

Not to mention the story of how we aspire to receive total consciousness:

Quote

Carl Spackler: So I jump ship in Hong Kong and I make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas.

Angie D'Annunzio: A looper?

Carl Spackler: A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#10214 User is online   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,587
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-May-26, 14:13

Is anyone else feeling whiplash from back and forth over whether the North Korea summit might happen?

#10215 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-May-26, 15:22

 barmar, on 2018-May-26, 14:13, said:

Is anyone else feeling whiplash from back and forth over whether the North Korea summit might happen?


Just all part of the negotiation dance. Wait and see what happens. It is a pleasure to see a master negotiator at work.
0

#10216 User is offline   StevenG 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 2009-July-10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bedford, England

Posted 2018-May-26, 15:55

 ldrews, on 2018-May-26, 15:22, said:

Just all part of the negotiation dance. Wait and see what happens. It is a pleasure to see a master negotiator at work.

True. That Kim is much smarter than he looks.
0

#10217 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-May-26, 17:10

 StevenG, on 2018-May-26, 15:55, said:

True. That Kim is much smarter than he looks.


I hope so. The world is relying on Kim being smart enough to make a good deal.
0

#10218 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-May-26, 20:45

From Fintan O’Toole's story at IT:

Quote

So Ireland voted overwhelmingly No.

No to the tribalism that would divide it into mutually exclusive clans of male and female, rural and urban, young and old. No to Constitutional body-shaming. No to “feck off to England”.

No to holier-than-thou. No to the condescension of knowing more about what a woman must do than she is allowed to know herself.

No to the politics of fear, misrepresentation and manipulation that have given the English-speaking world Brexit and Donald Trump.

No to the Ireland of As If.

No to the self-declared Moral Majority that is now emphatically a minority whose notion of morality cannot be enforced by the State.

This referendum was a collective act of letting go, the end of a very long goodbye. Three years ago, when the results of the same sex marriage referendum came in, it felt like a big Irish wedding.

This time, it feels more like a wake - albeit one of those wakes where most people do not bother to hide their disdain for the deceased. For something has undoubtedly died.

End of Irish exceptionalism

This is the end of Irish exceptionalism. The Ireland of absolutes is dead and gone, and with the Eighth Amendment in its grave. An Ireland of complexities, of ambiguities and uncertainties has taken its place.

The light in the beacon of holiness that Ireland once imagined itself casting on the world has been turned off for good. Instead, we have turned the light onto our millions of intricate, convoluted, open-ended all-too-human selves. Ireland is an ordinary place now and must find its nobility in that ordinary humanity. There is no great cause for euphoria in that, but there is room for a deep sense of relief.

At wakes, after all, there is sometimes a quiet joy that a life that had gone on far too long and become too painful to bear has ended at last. Even for many of those who voted No there must be some tacit sense of release.

The Eighth Amendment was never much loved by the people at large even in 1983 when most of them either did not vote or voted against it. For its most passionate supporters, it turned sour in 1992 when the Supreme Court ruled in the X case that it did not mean what they thought (and insisted) it meant.

And after the referendums of 1992 inserted the rights to information and to travel, the whole thing ceased to be any kind of statement of moral principle and became a mere matter of geography. The only Irish exceptionalism it pointed to was an exceptional hypocrisy.

The Eighth became mere Constitutional nimbyism. And yet it stalked on like a zombie, not really alive but undead.

Sheer scale

The sheer scale of the vote to end it, and the way that choice was made in every part of Ireland, shows a determination to finish this thing off once and for all. It has already had a 26-year afterlife since 1992 and we have made plain to the political system that we do not want it to have another.

There is no great glee in laying such a creature to rest and no call for wild dancing on its grave. There has been too much grief, too much hurt. Too many women have been made to feel small, contemptible, shameful, unwanted. Too many families have had bad situations made infinitely worse.

For all the courage of those who spoke out and told their most intimate stories, too many people still carry silences within them that will go with them to their graves: the unexpectedly high vote showed that there are still silent Yeses. Too many vicious things have been said in the campaign, things that will be harder to forget than to forgive.

And yet, even if outright triumph would not be appropriate to the occasion, we are surely entitled to at least three cheers.

Three cheers

The first cheer is for democracy.

What the Irish political system and the Irish people have just done is very hard. Planting a bomb in the Constitution was relatively easy in the atmosphere of 1983. But defusing a bomb takes skill and nerve and courage.

Even though the cultural and social context has changed radically, the abortion bomb is still explosive. It is packed with visceral emotions, ancient prejudices, religious doctrines and deep anxieties about meaning and identity.

To defuse it you have to get right into the wiring of those forces, to touch the rawest of nerves without setting the whole thing off.

The timing, too, was inauspicious. Ireland was undertaking this delicate political process at a time when democratic politics have seldom been more indelicate. It was raising deep questions of national identity at a time when a wave of reactionary identity politics is washing over the democratic world.

It was conducting an open democratic exercise at a time when the online techniques for subverting democratic choice have been honed and proved in the Brexit referendum in the UK and the Trump campaign in the US. It was trying to embrace complexity at a time when simplistic sloganeering is in the ascendant.

And all of this gave the No side huge advantages. In referendums it is always easier to be negative. The positive proposition has to be clear and coherent. The assaults on it can be as wild, untruthful and as self-contradictory as they are self-serving.

Soft repealers

The Yes side played with its cards turned up - the proposed legislation was published and even though there was in reality no workable alternative to what it envisages, those proposals were a shock to many soft repealers.

Exit polls show that significant numbers of Yes voters had to overcome their own unease.

But the No side did not merely not have to show its cards. It could play from different decks at the same time, insisting both that all abortion is murder and (especially in the last week) that if the Eighth was retained it would come up with some unspecified solutions for the “hard cases”.

Irish democracy withstood all this. It stuck to a thoughtful deliberative process through the Citizen’s Assembly and the Oireachtas committee. Most TDs and party leaders took their duties seriously and gave responsible leadership. Civil society groups showed tremendous commitment, resilience and skill.

The much-maligned mainstream media broadly succeeded in holding open a public arena for truthful information and civilised debate.

And this is not just an Irish achievement. It has global significance. It shows democracy itself can still hold fast, that decent politics and a serious-minded citizenry can rise above hysteria, hate and manipulation.

The second cheer is for civic engagement, especially by the young. There were plenty of old-timers around the Repeal campaign and many undaunted veterans who have endured the hard times.

New generation


(It is important to remember that The Irish Times exit poll shows us that in absolute terms more Yes voters were over 65 than under 25.)

But this campaign has been largely won by a generation that had good reason to give up on Ireland. It is the generation of 2008, the generation that was handed a massive bank debt, that was told there were no jobs, that had its wages and welfare payments cut, that was informed, in so many words, that it would be greatly appreciated if it would kindly remove itself to somewhere else.

Yet it’s a generation that cared enough about Ireland to want not to be ashamed of it any more.

And to do something about it.

A generation caricatured as snowflakes went out and took the heat on the doorsteps and did not melt. Young people who are supposed to live in echo chambers went out to talk and listen face to face, to take the abuse, to try to answer the hard questions, to engage with people superficially very different from themselves.

This is what patriotism really looks like - not flag-waving xenophobia but real belief in the possibilities of a better Ireland. And we find ourselves, astonishingly, with a new generation of patriots.

Blow against misogyny

The third cheer is one that can be just a little bit raucous. It’s for the big blow that has been struck against misogyny. The equation in the Eighth of a woman to her ovum at the exact moment of fertilisation was not just about abortion.

It was an act of profound belittlement. And of stark division - women’s right to life and health were qualified and made conditional in ways that could never be applied to men. So long as those words were in the Constitution, women could never be equal citizens. But they could be, in their childbearing years, objects of suspicion and bearers of shame.

We have taken a giant step towards taking gender out of Irish citizenship. This is good for all citizens. A citizenship that is qualified and hedged around, that is uneven and unequal, is devalued for everyone who holds it. It was moving to see so many women posting pictures of themselves with their Éire/Ireland passports as they arrived home to vote or showed up at polling stations.

There will no longer be a kind of invisible asterisk on the passports of Irish women - Nationality: Irish (*but female). Women will no longer have to read the Constitution of their own republic and turn their eyes away from Article 40. Belonging has become that bit easier for all of us.

But even as we toast the deceased with these three cheers, we must know that this end is also a beginning. A huge space has been cleared. The Eighth and the struggle against it has filled too many rooms in our heads and in our public arenas.

Energy

It has forced the body and its intimacies into places where they should not be - there has been too much body in the Irish body politic. It has siphoned off 35 years of energy that might have been devoted to child poverty, to housing, to health, to education. It has kept people apart who should be united on many of these things, creating false tribes of liberals and conservatives and weakening the possibilities of a broad consensus for social justice. We refused on Friday to be identified with these tribes.

Now we can go on to be part of a real republic.

After the wake, we can bury, along with the delusions of Irish exceptionalism, the anger, the frustration, the bitterness.

All the wasted energy that went into the politics of pointless gestures can be unleashed into something more constructive. We have decided not to be the holiest place in the world but we can still be a country to be proud of.

We have decided not to think in black and white anymore. Now we have to decide whether to subside into greyness or to replace that old monochrome with new colours of justice, decency and inclusion.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#10219 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-May-26, 20:50

emphasis added

Quote

@realDonaldTrump
With Spies, or “Informants” as the Democrats like to call them because it sounds less sinister (but it’s not), all over my campaign, even from a very early date, why didn’t the crooked highest levels of the FBI or “Justice” contact me to tell me of the phony Russia problem?

2:28 PM - May 26, 2018


What a dotard. Duh?

Quote

WASHINGTON — In the weeks after he became the Republican nominee on July 19, 2016, Donald Trump was warned that foreign adversaries, including Russia, would probably try to spy on and infiltrate his campaign, according to multiple government officials familiar with the matter.


He's a master, all right, a real crackerjack, and he's so terrified of Mueller he's about to piss all over himself. Tick-tock, tick-tock, whizzzzzz
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10220 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-May-26, 20:55

 Winstonm, on 2018-May-26, 20:50, said:

emphasis added


What a dotard. Duh?



He's a master, all right, a real crackerjack, and he's so terrified of Mueller he's about to piss all over himself. Tick-tock, tick-tock, whizzzzzz


You have got to be kidding! Trump has several balls in the air at the same time and doesn't even look like is he breaking a sweat. Give me a break!

Now Clapper and Brennan, on the other hand, are looking very nervous.
0

  • 1106 Pages +
  • « First
  • 509
  • 510
  • 511
  • 512
  • 513
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

45 User(s) are reading this topic
1 members, 44 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Cascade