Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kentuck
kentuck's Journal
kentuck's Journal
June 25, 2020
I have a problem with John Bolton's "Democratic malpractice" claim about impeachment.
He claims there was a model from Watergate and the Democrats did not use it.
That simply is not true. Democrats controlled the House and Senate when Watergate was going on. And there were much more moderate Republicans at that time.
It would have been nice if Pelosi and the Democrats had had the votes to convict Trump. But, they knew they didn't have the votes. Still, they impeached. Because it was their duty to impeach. It was the duty of the Senate to convict. The House had to do their job, regardless of what the Senate did.
Bolton's claim of "Democratic malpractice" is not consistent with his comments that no matter if he had testified, no one was going to change their minds about Trump at that stage of the game. The Democrats could not change any minds? That does not mean the Democrats should not have impeached.
June 25, 2020
Hats off To (Roy) Harper
June 25, 2020
Patsy Cline -- I Fall To Pieces
June 25, 2020
What should Congress do about the very questionable actions of AG Bill Barr?
He is scheduled to appear before the House Judicial Committee on July 28th, it has been reported.
June 24, 2020
Muddy Waters
June 24, 2020
<snip>
No definition of populism will fully describe all populists. That’s because populism is a “thin ideology” in that it “only speaks to a very small part of a political agenda,” according to Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia and the co-author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction. An ideology like fascism involves a holistic view of how politics, the economy, and society as a whole should be ordered. Populism doesn’t; it calls for kicking out the political establishment, but it doesn’t specify what should replace it. So it’s usually paired with “thicker” left- or right-wing ideologies like socialism or nationalism.
Populists are dividers, not uniters, Mudde told me. They split society into “two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other,” and say they’re guided by the “will of the people.” The United States is what political scientists call a “liberal democracy,” a system “based on pluralism—on the idea that you have different groups with different interests and values, which are all legitimate,” Mudde explained. Populists, in contrast, are not pluralist. They consider just one group—whatever they mean by “the people”—legitimate.
<snip>
“[P]opulists only lose if ‘the silent majority’—shorthand for ‘the real people’—has not had a chance to speak, or worse, has been prevented from expressing itself,” explains Jan-Werner Müller, a professor at Princeton University and the author of What Is Populism? “Hence the frequent invocation of conspiracy theories by populists: something going on behind the scenes has to account for the fact that corrupt elites are still keeping the people down. … f the people’s politician doesn’t win, there must be something wrong with the system.”
One might expect this argument to fail once populists enter government and become the establishment. But no: Populists—ranging from the revolutionary socialist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to the religious conservative Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey—have managed to portray themselves as victims even at the height of their power, blaming their shortcomings on sabotage by shadowy domestic or foreign elites.
What is a populist?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/what-is-populist-trump/516525/<snip>
No definition of populism will fully describe all populists. That’s because populism is a “thin ideology” in that it “only speaks to a very small part of a political agenda,” according to Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia and the co-author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction. An ideology like fascism involves a holistic view of how politics, the economy, and society as a whole should be ordered. Populism doesn’t; it calls for kicking out the political establishment, but it doesn’t specify what should replace it. So it’s usually paired with “thicker” left- or right-wing ideologies like socialism or nationalism.
Populists are dividers, not uniters, Mudde told me. They split society into “two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other,” and say they’re guided by the “will of the people.” The United States is what political scientists call a “liberal democracy,” a system “based on pluralism—on the idea that you have different groups with different interests and values, which are all legitimate,” Mudde explained. Populists, in contrast, are not pluralist. They consider just one group—whatever they mean by “the people”—legitimate.
<snip>
“[P]opulists only lose if ‘the silent majority’—shorthand for ‘the real people’—has not had a chance to speak, or worse, has been prevented from expressing itself,” explains Jan-Werner Müller, a professor at Princeton University and the author of What Is Populism? “Hence the frequent invocation of conspiracy theories by populists: something going on behind the scenes has to account for the fact that corrupt elites are still keeping the people down. … f the people’s politician doesn’t win, there must be something wrong with the system.”
One might expect this argument to fail once populists enter government and become the establishment. But no: Populists—ranging from the revolutionary socialist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to the religious conservative Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey—have managed to portray themselves as victims even at the height of their power, blaming their shortcomings on sabotage by shadowy domestic or foreign elites.
June 23, 2020
Mojo Hand
&list=PLr4uGiq-JDeTgzZjVW9r4nwKFnETkiiCV&index=3&t=0s
June 23, 2020
<snip>
Activists across the country are targeting statues of former U.S. presidents and other well-known figures, escalating a campaign that previously focused on Confederate generals and prompting a national reckoning over the value and meaning of historical monuments.
As protests over racial injustice continue in major U.S. cities, activists have forcefully removed statues and monuments honoring historical figures who owned slaves or participated in the oppression of minority groups.
In Portland, Ore., last week, protesters tore down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom owned slaves. On Friday in San Francisco, activists toppled a statue of former President Ulysses S. Grant, who led the Union army during the Civil War but also owned a slave, whom he emancipated before the war, and lived on a plantation where he oversaw slaves.
And in Washington on Monday, activists tried to pull down a statue of former President Andrew Jackson but were blocked by police.
“When I look at these statues of white supremacists, it is just a constant reminder of the struggle that my ancestors had to face,” said Kerrigan Williams, a co-founder of the Freedom Fighters DC activist group.
Toppling of Statues Triggers Reckoning Over Nation's History (Wall Street Journal)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-seeks-to-protect-monuments-from-vandals-with-tougher-sentences-11592922449?mod=RSSMSN<snip>
Activists across the country are targeting statues of former U.S. presidents and other well-known figures, escalating a campaign that previously focused on Confederate generals and prompting a national reckoning over the value and meaning of historical monuments.
As protests over racial injustice continue in major U.S. cities, activists have forcefully removed statues and monuments honoring historical figures who owned slaves or participated in the oppression of minority groups.
In Portland, Ore., last week, protesters tore down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom owned slaves. On Friday in San Francisco, activists toppled a statue of former President Ulysses S. Grant, who led the Union army during the Civil War but also owned a slave, whom he emancipated before the war, and lived on a plantation where he oversaw slaves.
And in Washington on Monday, activists tried to pull down a statue of former President Andrew Jackson but were blocked by police.
“When I look at these statues of white supremacists, it is just a constant reminder of the struggle that my ancestors had to face,” said Kerrigan Williams, a co-founder of the Freedom Fighters DC activist group.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 111,079
