Who will be the next Liar-in-Chief?
Biden’s new lie on Iraq War
Krystal and Saagar discuss Joe Biden’s Iraq War vote, and how he now says it was to “prevent a war from happening”.
Editorial: Will the Progressive Movement ever learn? Will it ever produce and pick leaders with the right stuff? Will its rank and file ever be what it needs in its leadership?
This chapter is likely over. Truth be told, Bernie Sanders hasn’t been radical enough, feisty enough, or fighter enough to keep his base fired up. He’s been great at calling certain major sectors of the economy corrupt, but he’s looked the other way, way too much concerning the Democratic Party establishment. His base wanted him to take the gloves off. He learned some valuable lessons from 2016 but not enough. He drank way too much of the neocon and “liberal” interventionist Kool-Aid concerning “Russia, Russia, Russia.” He hasn’t yet gone after those who’ve been smearing him with flat out lies.
These mistakes of his are on the same level as Jeremy Corbyn shrinking like a violet over false accusations of anti-Semitism.
Speaking of Democratic Party establishment corruption:
Under the party’s most recent set of debate rules, any candidate who had won at least one delegate in the party’s first 25 nomination contests had the right to take the stage.
Gabbard, who gained two delegates in American Samoa’s caucuses on Super Tuesday, would have qualified.
But on Friday, party poobahs announced new criteria requiring candidates to hold at least 20% of all awarded delegates by the time of the next scheduled debate in Phoenix on March 15.
Former rival Andrew Yang tweeted rueful sympathies.
“Someone asked me what the qualifications for the next debate would be,” he posted. “I responded ‘whatever Tulsi has plus one.’”
In case you don’t know, Tulsi would have gone for Joe’s jugular and succeeded. That’s why they wanted her minimized, marginalized, and ostracized right from the start. With only three in the debate, she’d have had tons of time to rip him to shreds and turn the People away from him and to economic and foreign policy progressivism, which is not “liberalism” but just what we need.
“How are you going to find $35 trillion over the next ten years without having some profound impacts on everything from taxes for the middle class and working class people as well as the impact on the rest of the budget?”
The estimated cost over ten years is actually slightly lower—$32 trillion. It may be “kind of a bargain,” according to Vox’s Dylan Scott, because the “federal government is going to spend a lot more money on health care, but the country is going to spend about the same.” There would be more services and more people covered for the same price, more or less.
Los Angeles Times business columnist David Lazarus also described the price tag as a bargain. The cost over the next ten years would be lower than currently projected health care costs.
“What Democrats have done a terrible job communicating is that we’re currently spending $3.6 trillion a year on healthcare,” Lazarus wrote. “That translates to $36 trillion over the next decade.”
“But the status quo is actually way worse than that. The federal government estimates that national healthcare spending will total about $48 trillion over the next 10 years, as costs keep going up,” Lazarus additionally noted.
A study by economists published in February found Medicare For All would be considerably less expensive.
“The current system is particularly burdensome for middle-income working households who receive relatively little support through Medicaid or other public programs but are responsible for health insurance premiums either paid directly or by their employer as non-wage compensation,” the study from the Hopbrook Institute found. “A system that cuts costs and shifts financing to income and wealth taxes will dramatically lower this burden, producing significant savings for workers and businesses.”
It is clear if Democrats nominate Biden the health insurance and health care industries will be big winners.
The nation will get less care at a higher cost.
The more important reason that Biden is winning, as I argued in an earlier article, is that while Sanders’ campaign has some of the qualities of a social movement, we do not have a level of class struggle sufficient to propel Sanders into the presidency and others of his ilk into congress. A genuine leftist political movement requires a deep sense of crisis within the society and a powerful desire for social change that has been expressed in social conflict.
Dan La Botz is a Marxist but seen by many Marxists as an incrementalist and compromiser. I’ll let them speack for themselves. I’m not a Marxist at all and certainly no incrementalist or compromiser. I am, however, a realist.
There was a deep sense of injustice in the nation right after the crash of 2008. No progressive truly capitalized on it. Sanders certainly didn’t. Whether he tried or not is a different matter.
Is it even possible to capitalize on anything when you don’t own the means of communication and the opposition can shut you down whenever it wants? It’s what leads to violence.
Low expectations and low staying-power among progressives are the two main problems.
Researchers say that after studying all the different ways TRR was implemented by different vendors, they created TRRespass, a tool that can identify new row patterns that can be “hammered” like before.
Tom Burt, Microsoft’s vice-president for customer security and trust, said in a blog post that the takedown of Necurs was the result of eight years of planning and co-ordination with partners in 35 countries.