Damedius' forum posts

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/u-s-senates-first-bill-in-midst-of-shutdown-is-a-bipartisan-defense-of-the-israeli-government-from-boycotts/

When each new Congress is gaveled into session, the chambers attach symbolic importance to the first piece of legislation to be considered. For that reason, it bears the lofty designation of H.R.1 in the House and S.1 in the Senate.

In the newly controlled Democratic House, H.R.1 — meant to signal the new majority’s priorities — is an anti-corruption bill that combines election and campaign finance reform, strengthening of voting rights, and matching public funds for small-dollar candidates. In the 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.

But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered — S.1 — is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign policy-related measures, the main one of which is a provision — with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor — to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As The Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities that participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.

Punishment aimed at companies that choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.

Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa of Arizona wrote in her decision issuing a preliminary injunction against the law in a case brought last September by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of “an attorney who has contracted with the state for the last 12 years to provide legal services on behalf of incarcerated individuals,” but lost his contract to do so after he refused to sign an oath pledging not to boycott Israel.

A similar ruling was issued in January of last year by a Kansas federal judge, who ruled that state’s Israel oath law unconstitutional on the ground that “the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.” In that case, a Mennonite who was a longtime public school teacher lost her independent contract as a school curriculum developer after she followed her church’s decision to boycott goods from Israeli companies in the occupied West Bank and thus, refused to sign the oath required by Kansas law.

These are the Israel-defending, free speech-punishing laws that Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen. Although Rubio is the chief sponsor, his bill attracted broad bipartisan support, as is true of most bills designed to protect Israel and supported by AIPAC. Rubio’s bill last Congress was co-sponsored by several Democrats who are still in the Senate: Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

It's good to know that your politicians are thinking of you first and not some other country.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

Neither.

Trump declares a National Emergency tomorrow night in order to build the "wall".

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-fans-can-t-be-allowed-poison-another-democratic-ncna953976

I'm hardly the only political observer who blames Hillary Clinton's general election defeat to Donald Trump in part on personal attacks on Clinton first made by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his backers. Those attacks from her left laid the groundwork for copycat attacks lobbed by Donald Trump — and, in the process, helped hand the Supreme Court to the right-wing for a generation.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself who said what.

  1. "I know the guys at Goldman Sachs. They have total, total, total control over him. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton."
  2. "I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."
  3. "Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments — governments which are dictatorships? Yeah, I do have a problem with that. Yeah, I do."
  4. "The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history."
  5. I think [superpredators] was a terrible thing to say."
  6. "Because [superpredators] was a racist term, and everybody knew it was a racist term."

The answers: 1. Trump; 2. Sanders; 3. Sanders; 4. Trump; 5. Trump; and 6. Sanders.

And now, though the 2018 Democratic presidential primary has only just begun, those same long knives — mostly courtesy of supporters of Sanders' prospective candidacy — are out for outgoing Rep. Beto O'Rourke, D-Texas, charging that he is not a true progressive.

The reason for these pre-emptive attacks (which has the markings of a coordinated effort) in a spate of news and opinion articles in a variety of publications, is obvious enough: After losing the Texas Senate race to incumbent Ted Cruz, O'Rourke nonetheless has shot to the top in Democratic primary polls since Election Day, overshadowing both Sanders and another left-wing favorite, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

In politics you shoot up, not down.

Berniecrats seem determined to dust off the same destructive playbook this time around, even though the attacks against O'Rourke are flimsy and misleading. O'Rourke unseated a conservative Democrat in a primary and never tacked right in an election in deep red Texas. He has run in favor of federal legislation legalizing marijuana and the impeachment of President Trump, and although he fails their litmus test on free college tuition, their claims that his support is weak for Medicare-for-all don't match his record: As a Senate candidate, he said he would vote for it.

Bernie supporters have made questionable claims about contributions to O'Rourke from the oil and gas industry, as well as his support for certain Republican-sponsored House bills — but neglect to mention that the oil and gas money came mostly from low-level industry employees (hundreds of thousands of Texans are employed by the industry), and that O'Rourke broke ranks with his party less than the average Democrat.

The real problem for Sanders' supporters seems to be that this "Kennedyesque golden boy," as one has derided O'Rourke, seems perfectly poised to steal Sanders' thunder among millennials and white liberals with his fresh energy and personal charisma. Thus, it's not enough to disagree with O'Rourke; his persona and reputation must be dragged through the mud.

Democrats should greet this early maneuvering by Sanders' supporters with alarm. If Democrats cannot show such tactics — which will be used against any non-Sanders candidate, because no one can get to the left of a socialist — for what they are, they ignore them at their own peril.

Failing to end this internecine warfare will mean that all members of the Democratic Party running for its presidential nomination will face months of minuscule ideological litmus tests turned into character assassinations. The narrative, driven by the far left and lapped up by the press, will likely result in a nomination fight that could well devolve into the kind of pointless factionalism that will only help Republicans.

We've seen this movie before: Sanders' assault on Clinton's progressive credentials were pernicious in large part because they were not about policy disputes at all, but rather intended to falsely impugn Hillary's character and integrity.

The atmosphere online was even more toxic: Pro-Bernie message boards lit up with a montage of Hillary hate. Here, Hillary was a "corporate whore," a likely criminal in the email case and the cheating mastermind of a rigged primary.

No wonder "Lock her up!" later became so resonant.

In 2016, I ran a pro-Hillary SuperPAC which attempted to defend the candidate against false attacks, many of which came from or originated to her left. Though they were hardly in charge of our messaging, it was made very clear to us by our allies at her campaign headquarters that any efforts on our part to push back against the left-wing anti-Clinton brigades were unwelcome assistance; they feared alienating Sanders' voters.

That head-in-the-sand posture was ultimately self-defeating.

Today, Democrats are rightly laser-focused on picking a winner in 2020, and the stakes are just too high to let bad faith actors — whose real aim is to smear Democrats as no different than Republicans — stage inter-party schisms. If Sanders decides to run again this time, he should focus on policy and eschew character attacks on Democrats — and admonish his supporters to do the same. Otherwise, they put the core values we all share at risk, yet again.

David Brock

David Brock is the author of five political books, including "Killing the Messenger" (Hachette, 2015) and "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative" (Crown, March 2002). He founded Media Matters for America in 2004 and then American Bridge 21st Century in 2011.

So what do you guys think? Was it Sanders/Bernie Bros fault that Clinton loss?

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@Vaasman said:

The problem is America has a precedent where we do not negotiate with terrorists.

America just arms and trains them.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@horgen said:

But that wouldn't please the private companies who make gear for the military.

Hence they pay off the republicans.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense— at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February.

While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractor employees gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 from defense-related workers — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Damedius: And yet they want something in it's place....ie improved. So you're both wrong again.

And that does not mean open borders.

So what I linked is false.

If that's the case I guess I'm wrong, must be fake news.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

No one wants open borders so stop with the regurgitated lying talking heads pronouncements.

But then again that is just you.

Well, that is not what the left is saying

Open borders, abolish ICE and allow all illegals permanent stay.

No no they are not saying that.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/29/17518176/democrats-to-abolish-ice-movement-gillibrand-de-blasio-ocasio-cortez

Here is a list of Democrats who have signed on so far:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

It’s unclear whether the calls to abolish ICE would have reached Gillibrand and De Blasio were it not for candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Joe Crowley in his primary this week. (As the Democratic nominee in a heavily blue district, she’s almost surely headed to the House in the fall.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Gillibrand became the first US senator to publicly call for abolishing ICE during a Thursday interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo. Gillibrand was responding to a question of whether she would support Ocasio-Cortez’s call to abolish ICE.

“Well, I agree with it. I don’t think ICE today is working as intended,” Gillibrand said. “I believe that it has become a deportation force. And I think you should separate out the criminal justice from the immigration issues.”

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio

Mayor Bill de Blasio came out with a call to abolish and significantly reform ICE on a Friday segment of WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show. Again, De Blasio’s call stemmed from a question Lehrer posed about Ocasio-Cortez’s position on the issue.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI)

Pocan is one of the most prominent progressive Democrats in the House and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He is currently drafting on a bill that would get rid of the agency, while at the same time setting up a commission to look at replacement options.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Warren, widely considered another potential 2020 contender for Democrats, said she wants to replace ICE in a Saturday Facebook post announcing her participation in the “Families Belong Together” rallies. She said she was taking part to “speak out against the Trump Administration’s cruel and inhumane zero-tolerance immigration policies.”

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@watercrack445 said:

@blaznwiipspman1: lol, you are right. It was USA fault for destabilizing Libya and Syria. Libya is where most of the migrants come from Africa, for people that didn't know. So, Europe should blame partly the USA for its problem.

Did US strategists know that this would happen? Was it something that they may have even seen as a strategic goal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence.

Much of his analysis is concerned with geostrategy in Central Asia, focusing on the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass in a post-Soviet environment. In his chapter dedicated to what he refers to as the "Eurasian Balkans", Brzezinski makes use of Halford J. Mackinder's Heartland Theory.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

Anything else than the same Trump debate is needed, but when you seem to do more hit&Run posting with no substance it does not really spark a debate.

Fair enough. When was the last thread you created?

You must have obviously created many great threads which we are still debating to this day.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

Hmm, why do I get the feeling that the OP is a double profile?

But this OP sure loves to post about nothing and then leave.

Sorry to interrupt your Orange Man Bad debates. We definitely need more of those.