US Mid-Term Elections

[Marblehead]

It is good we live in a country with limited free speech else we all would now be political prisoners.

[ralis]

That's a late 20th century reinterpretation of the terms, a reinterpretation perpetrated by those who seek to obscure the common roots and characteristics. The origin of the reinterpretation was a left-wing effort to distance themselves from their earlier support of Hitler and Mussolini AFTER the horrors became apparent. It is Orwellian newspeak, propagated today by Alinskyites.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. Furthermore, I have read Kershaw and others who would vehemently disagree with you. Kershaw is a British academic and the foremost authority on fascism. Moreover, you are not an historian, but are just positing more revisionist propaganda. Post academic sources to back up your claims as Apech has requested.

 

Chamberlain et al, were all deceived by Hitler until it was too late.

 

FYI, Hitler hated the Communists who were attempting to take over the government during the elections in Munich. Furthermore, in case you have not read the documents, the Communists were Jewish. That is historical fact!

[zerostao]

Fascism is clearly a right wing movement and history supports my statement. I have thoroughly studied the historical documents.

i argued against you ralis, as you know lol, in previous years here in off topic threads.

however, you have offered a solid presentation of your position.

and i am looking at it different lately, maybe the past 6 months.>>concerning fascism.

the mussolini model of fascism --- how it viewed corporations--- is different than the current model, am i right?

i think events in ukraine right now is the front lines with the fascism and corporatism war but it is going on everywhere right now, unrest after elections,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

 

and from my view we are already in a ww3 of sorts, a very different type of war to be sure than previous ww's

but we were all told in 2001, this is a different type of war now, and 21st century war, well look at all the toppled north african and middle eastern activities and eastern europe going on. propaganda from all sides, info wars, proxy wars

and use of mercenaries, mercenaries not only on the battle fields but in the houses of governments

 

the cia is now warning of "emminent!" (semiotics) economic apocalypse

 

https://truthernews.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/september-2014-cyber-terror-warning-cia-cyber-attack-on-u-s-economy-imminent/

Edited November 6, 2014 by zerostao

[ralis]

This is a fine way for a Senator elect to behave. It is despicable to use a quote from the movie 'Deliverance'.

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGjAHnlgQ38

[ralis]

i argued against you ralis, as you know lol, in previous years here in off topic threads.

however, you have offered a solid presentation of your position.

and i am looking at it different lately, maybe the past 6 months.

the mussolini model of fascism --- how it viewed corporations--- is different than the current model, am i right?

i think events in ukraine right now is the front lines with the fascism and corporatism war but it is going on everywhere right now, unrest after elections,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

 

and from my view we are already in a ww3 of sorts, a very different type of war to be sure than previous ww's

but we were all told in 2001, this is a different type of war now, and 21st century war, well look at all the toppled north african and middle eastern activities and eastern europe going on. propaganda from all sides, info wars, proxy wars

and use of mercenaries, mercenaries not only on the battle fields but in the houses of governments

 

the cia is now warning of "emminent!" (semiotics) economic apocalypse

 

https://truthernews.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/september-2014-cyber-terror-warning-cia-cyber-attack-on-u-s-economy-imminent/

 

 

Let me get back to you on the fascist model later today. Then I can write a succinct answer.

[Apech]

Let me get back to you on the fascist model later today. Then I can write a succinct answer.

 

Look forward to reading this.

[silent thunder]

I've been an independent since my Father explained to me the two party system and the electoral college back when I was around 12. I started losing interest in my 'choices' as an adult in the mid 90's.

 

Any more the charade and the farce outplay any semblance of service or achievement in the 'chosen elite'.

[Apech]

Maybe the problem is that the terms communism and fascism are very much contextualised by the 20th Century. Indeed also the term 'democracy' ... as in the sense of periodically elected representatives governing by consent ... of which there are several models.

 

I think all the 20th century systems of government have been undermined by the ascendancy of global capital and the power of corporations/financial institutions.

 

What I see in Obama (getting back to the original point) is exactly this. It doesn't matter whether he was a bit of lefty in his youth (many are) by the time he gets into power he has become actually powerless. Things change in the world, economies, society and individuals change and grow. While the system serves the needs of the population all is well and good. But when the institutions and mechanism of government fail to be able to respond then we have a problem. Voters are confused (often deliberately by commentators, spin doctors and the media generally) ... they vote Obama in hoping for something better and then rush to the GOP when it doesn't happen. In fact ... the most worrying fact ... no one seems to offer genuine alternative visions for how we might live. Everything is either shallow and unappealing or ephemeral like the occupy movement.

[Brian]

We always seem to come to this point, that when discussing American politics the words communist and fascist get used without any clear justification. I think this is because in America the word 'communist' is just an insult or is used for anyone of the political 'left'.

 

For instance I found this definition of communism:

 

"a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."

 

I'm not saying it is complete ... but for instance to say Obama is a communist you would have to show that he believes in collective ownership of the means of production and so on.

 

I don't think he does, does he?

Yes, he does. I could write a book on the evidence of Obama's Marxist/Maoist/socialist/communist principles, actions, words and affiliations over the years -- starting with his Marxist parents and grandparents, running through his endorsement by the Communist Party USA and his membership in the New Party, all the way through some of his bald-faced statements during his campaign & presidency -- but, honestly, there is little point. The record is clear for those who wish to research it and is irrelevant to those who don't.

[ralis]

Yes, he does. I could write a book on the evidence of Obama's Marxist/Maoist/socialist/communist principles, actions, words and affiliations over the years -- starting with his Marxist parents and grandparents, running through his endorsement by the Communist Party USA and his membership in the New Party, all the way through some of his bald-faced statements during his campaign & presidency -- but, honestly, there is little point. The record is clear for those who wish to research it and is irrelevant to those who don't.

 

Your comments are more based more on emotion than reason.

 

You have only stated his beliefs, but that doesn't translate into how he has governed. I don't see a dictator or Communist overlord in the White House. There are still three branches of government that are being influenced by powerful multinational corporations that are a real threat to this country as opposed to the propagandist meme's i.e, communist socialist and so forth being propagated by the media and corporate interests.

[Brian]

The socialism=left-wing/fascism=right-wing ruse is just that -- an effective attempt at obscuring the real dichotomy of statism vs. self-governance. We've had this discussion many times before and those who wish to propagate the ruse point to others propagating the ruse as authoritative when the real objective is to foment division in order to fertilize the soil for statism.

 

Works pretty well, too -- as evidenced by the many threads we have on the topic. Point out indicators of the creep of totalitarianism and you should expect the wrath of the Alinskyite to rain down in the form of character assassination, ridicule and appeal to authoritarianism.

 

I merely suggest people do their own research if they are interested...

[Chang]

 

I merely suggest people do their own research if they are interested...

 

Start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

[ralis]

The socialism=left-wing/fascism=right-wing ruse is just that -- an effective attempt at obscuring the real dichotomy of statism vs. self-governance. We've had this discussion many times before and those who wish to propagate the ruse point to others propagating the ruse as authoritative when the real objective is to foment division in order to fertilize the soil for statism.

 

Works pretty well, too -- as evidenced by the many threads we have on the topic. Point out indicators of the creep of totalitarianism and you should expect the wrath of the Alinskyite to rain down in the form of character assassination, ridicule and appeal to authoritarianism.

 

I merely suggest people do their own research if they are interested...

 

I have done my research which is based on the extant historical documents from the last century. Given your propensity for states rights which is nothing more than a return to the Federalists Papers which by the way are superseded by the Constitution. It seems to me that your view is that states can pass whatever laws the majority of residents of that state want. Whether it be a state religion, fascist or communist, that is how I understand your point of view.

[ralis]

Self governance is an ideology that has never worked, given that humans have problems living in tight social groups. Examples are myriad. I am not stating that I agree entirely with Hobbes on his position, but there must be rules to enforce a social contract. Those rules are always being experimented with and discussed.

[Brian]

 

I have done my research which is based on the extant historical documents from the last century. Given your propensity for states rights which is nothing more than a return to the Federalists Papers which by the way are superseded by the Constitution. It seems to me that your view is that states can pass whatever laws the majority of residents of that state want. Whether it be a state religion, fascist or communist, that is how I understand your point of view.

Actually, ralis, that's not "my point of view," that's what the Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly state. Other than the powers specifically spelled out in the Constitution or in subsequent Constitutional Amendments, all powers lie with the individual States or with the individual people themselves.

 

Don't like it? Get an Amendment passed.

[ralis]

Actually, ralis, that's not "my point of view," that's what the Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly state. Other than the powers specifically spelled out in the Constitution or in subsequent Constitutional Amendments, all powers lie with the individual States or with the individual people themselves.

 

Don't like it? Get an Amendment passed.

 

You are not a Constitutional scholar and neither am I, but this ideology that you posit regarding states rights is a slippery slope. You are taking the Federalist position that Anton Scalia takes, in that the Constitution is a 'dead document' and not a living one.

 

Scalia belongs to the 'Federalist Society'.

 

http://www.fed-soc.org

Edited November 6, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

There may be some room for debate on the original intent of some of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, but there is no ambiguity in the Tenth Amendment:

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

The method by which the Constitution "lives" is also clearly spelled out -- A-M-E-N-D-M-E-N-T.

[silent thunder]

corporate oligarchy

[Apech]

Lets not argue about constitutional law ... what I want to understand is what the appeal of the Republican Party is. I mean the appeal to people who previously voted in Democrat Governors. What would make them switch sides like that?

[ralis]

There may be some room for debate on the original intent of some of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, but there is no ambiguity in the Tenth Amendment:

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

The method by which the Constitution "lives" is also clearly spelled out -- A-M-E-N-D-M-E-N-T.

 

Would you please not use all caps. That is considered shouting.

[ralis]

Lets not argue about constitutional law ... what I want to understand is what the appeal of the Republican Party is. I mean the appeal to people who previously voted in Democrat Governors. What would make them switch sides like that?

 

The Republican strategist's have carefully crafted talking points so as to influence low information or poorly informed voters. This blog is a good place to start.

 

http://www.redstate.com

 

http://www.redstate.com/2014/11/05/dear-republicans-one-elected-work-democrats/

 

This quote by Republican strategist Erick Erickson speaks volumes regarding the right wing agenda.

 

 

 

As the reality of a Republican wave became imminent last night, a dangerous narrative began to take hold among the conservative talking heads on cable news and in the victory speeches of the victorious Republicans. The narrative was that now that the Republicans have control of both chambers of Congress, it is incumbent upon them to work with Obama and the other Democrats in the service of “getting things done” and “fixing the broken system.”

 

My hope is that Republicans reject this patent nonsense for the poppycock that it is. Not only should Republicans not work closely with Democrats, they should instead keep them as far away as possible, preferably across a large moat filled with sharp stakes, acid, and alligators. That way, our side will be safer from friendly fire when we launch the flaming tar at the remaining Democrats in office.

[ralis]

corporate oligarchy

 

Exactly! What many are not informed about is the existence of ALEC 'American Legislative Exchange Council' which works with state and local governments so as to make or delete laws for the benefit of Koch Industries and other large corporations.

 

http://www.alec.org

[ralis]

@apech,

 

The appeal is to certain issues such as unions, womens rights, abortion, global warming, states rights, lower taxes, firearms, immigration and religion.

 

In a nutshell, the claim is; the government is going to takes your guns away, a zygote and by extension a fetus is a person and abortion is murder etc.

Edited November 6, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

Anyone care to explain to a concerned Brit. why there was such a big Republican vote? I assume we now have a lame duck president and just wait a couple of years for a republican president????

 

 

To answer your original question, Apech, this is one of the most resounding political repudiations of the current state of affairs in the US since the end of WWII (which some consider an inflection point). The voters expressed vehement distrust of both political parties in opinion polls but showed through the ballot box that they dislike Obama's policies and procedures even more than they dislike the Republican Party. The US Senate races (a few of them) received the lion's share of attention from pundits, talking heads, financial backers and advocates but the story was more shocking in the US House of Representatives and at State and local levels than it was in the Senate.

 

The Republicans now control the Senate but also hold more seats in the House than at any time since the Truman Administration in the 1950s. Additionally, 31 of the 50 Governorships are now in Republican hands and the shifts in the state legislative bodies largely mirrored the swing at the Federal level.

 

What happens next? Well, what should happen, and what would happen if the Democrats had just swept into control this way, is that the Republicans in the House and Senate would flood the White House with a series of uncompromising legislative bills, forcing the President to either sign them or go on record as rejecting them via the veto. Many of those vetoed bills would then receive sufficient support in Congress to overrule the veto and become law anyhow. (The President is only supposed to use the veto to reject bills on the grounds of specific unconstitutionality but that is not always the case anymore.) Likewise with a Federal budget, which is a legal requirement but which hasn't happened ONCE during the entire Obama administration -- the House has proposed them but Senate Majority Leader has refused to bring them up for debate or vote and instead the government has financed itself with "Continuing Resolutions."

 

What will happen? We'll see! My hunch, though, is that the political establishment will continue the charade of "we'd like to stop them if only we had more power -- maybe in 2016..." The issue is that the "establishment" leadership in the two main political parties are virtually indistinguishable; both want bigger government (although some will feign to the contrary), both want stronger centralized government (again, with feigners), both want fewer meaningful options but more trivial options for the governed, both want to maintain their own positions of power and both want to feather their nests. As a result, I expect we will see lots of posturing from Congress but little action, while we will see lots of action from the White House with little pushback from lawmakers who should be in control.

 

Remember, Congress makes the laws in accordance with the restrictions of the Constitution, the President faithfully executes those laws precisely as they are written, and the Federal Courts determine on questions of the constitutionality of those Federal laws in the event a party claims injury (and has sole jurisdiction in disputes between the governments of two or more States) -- at least, that's the way it is supposed to work...

[Brian]

Lets not argue about constitutional law ... what I want to understand is what the appeal of the Republican Party is. I mean the appeal to people who previously voted in Democrat Governors. What would make them switch sides like that?

The appeal is two-fold. On one hand, you have the "throw the bums out!" reaction to broad social conditions -- a struggling economy, a continued culture of war, widespread malaise, etc. These forces work against incumbents in general but particularly against the candidates of the party "in power" (which is generally the party which holds the White House). Mid-term elections generally run against the party in the White House and this bias is generally stronger in a second-term mid-term such as this one.

 

On the other hand, there is also a general disgust with the specific actions and behavior of the Obama administration on a variety of issue which is reflected in the very weak turnout/support Democrat candidates received from traditional Democrat constituencies and in traditional Democrat strongholds. This is perhaps best reflected by GOP wins in the gubernatorial races in Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and Clinton's home state of Arkansas, or the US House wins in Maine, New York and South Florida. Obama himself said that, while he wasn't personally on the ballot this year, his policies were. The concepts of transparency, rule of law, limited government and frustration with arrogance & corruption were very powerful this election cycle.

 

Of course, you will see plenty in the media, and on this forum, try to cast it all aside as ignorant hayseeds worked into a lather by disingenuous corporate backers (but they probably won't mention that the Dems significantly outspent the Republicans across the board, even without factoring in the untabulated power of the left-biased influences of the media and Hollywood).

 

This graphic may be eye-opening -- it shows the party affiliation of all the members of the US House of Representatives, with "red" being the color for the Republicans (because the Democrats pulled a switcheroo in the TV news in 1980 to avoid the Red=Communist association...):