republican opposition

The Democrat’s respone to the “Fight For $15” is so typical to how they’ve operated for the past three decades.

Remember in the Primary when Sanders was calling for a living wage, $15/hr baseline, and the Clinton response after months of badgering was, “okay, $12 but no higher.” They’re already starting from a compromised position! You can’t win that way.

This was the entire Obama administration.

The Republicans have done the opposite masterfully. They start at a position, the Democrats cave, and they move their demand even further to the right, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS CAVE AGAIN! It was how the Healthcare bill went down, it’s how tax and spending policy went down, it’s how every piece of legislation under Obama went down.

I’ve so had enough of it. You can’t win anything if you show your opponent your compromised position before you even start.

How bosses are (literally) like dictators,” Elizabeth Anderson, Vox, 17 July 2017:

The earliest champions of free markets envisioned a world of self-employment

Why do we talk like [businesses aren’t dictatorships]? The answer takes us back to free market ideas developed before the Industrial Revolution. In 17th- and 18th-century Britain, big merchants got the state to grant them monopolies over trade in particular goods, forcing small craftsmen to submit to their regulations. A handful of aristocratic families enjoyed a monopoly on land, due to primogeniture and entail, which barred the breakup and sale of any part of large estates. Farmers could rent their land only on short-term leases, which forced them to bow and scrape before their landlords, in a condition of subordination not much different from servants, who lived in their masters’ households and had to obey their rules.

The problem was that the state had rigged the rules of the market in favor of the rich. Confronted with this economic situation, many people argued that free markets would promote equality and workers’ interests by enabling them to go into business for themselves and thereby escape subordination to the owners of capital.

No wonder some of the early advocates of free markets in 17th-century England were called “Levellers.” These radicals, who emerged during the English civil war, wanted to abolish the monopolies held by the big merchants and aristocrats. They saw the prospects of greater equality that might come from opening up to ordinary workers opportunities for manufacture, trade, and farming one’s own land.

In the 18th century, Adam Smith was the greatest advocate for the view that replacing monopolies, primogeniture, entail, and involuntary servitude with free markets would enable laborers to work on their own behalf. His key assumption was that incentives were more powerful than economies of scale. When workers get to keep all of the fruits of their labor, as they do when self-employed, they will work much harder and more efficiently than if they are employed by a master, who takes a cut of what they produce. Indolent aristocratic landowners can’t compete with yeoman farmers without laws preventing land sales. Free markets in land, labor, and commerce will therefore lead to the triumph of the most efficient producer, the self-employed worker, and the demise of the idle, stupid, rent-seeking rentier.

Smith and his contemporaries looked across the Atlantic and saw that America appeared to be realizing these hopes — although only for white men. The great majority of the free population in the Revolutionary period was self-employed, as either a yeoman farmer or an independent artisan or merchant.

In the United States, Thomas Paine was the great promoter of this vision… Paine argued that individuals can solve nearly all of their problems on their own, without state meddling. A good government does nothing more than secure individuals in “peace and safety” in the free pursuit of their occupations, with the lowest possible tax burden… Paine was a lifelong advocate of commerce, free trade, and free markets. He called for hard money and fiscal responsibility.

Paine was the hero of labor radicals for decades after his death in 1809, because they shared his hope that free markets would yield an economy almost entirely composed of small proprietors. An economy of small proprietors offers a plausible model of a free society of equals: each individual personally independent, none taking orders from anyone else, everyone middle class.

Abraham Lincoln built on the vision of Smith and Paine, which helped to shape the two key planks of the Republican Party platform: opposition to the extension of slavery in the territories, and the Homestead Act. Slavery, after all, enabled masters to accumulate vast tracts of land, squeezing out small farmers and forcing them into wage labor. Prohibiting the extension of slavery into the territories and giving away small plots of land to anyone who would work it would realize a society of equals in which no one is ever consigned to wage labor for life. Lincoln, who helped create the political party that now defends the interests of business, never wavered from the proposition that true free labor meant freedom from wage labor.

The Industrial Revolution, however — well underway by Lincoln’s time — ultimately dashed the hopes of joining free markets with independent labor in a society of equals. Smith’s prediction — that economies of scale would be less important than the incentive effects of enabling workers to reap all the fruits of their labor — was defeated by industrial technologies that required massive accumulations of capital. The US, with its access to territories seized from Native Americans, was able to stave off the bankruptcy of self-employed farmers and other small proprietors for far longer than Europe. But industrialization, population growth, the closure of the frontier, and railroad monopolies doomed the sole proprietorship to the margins of the economy, even in North America.

The Industrial Revolution gave employers new powers over workers, but economists failed to adjust their vocabulary — or their analyses

The Smith-Paine-Lincoln libertarian vision was rendered largely irrelevant by industrialization, which created a new model of wage labor, with large companies taking the place of large landowners. Yet strangely, many people persist in using Smith’s and Paine’s rhetoric to describe the world we live in today. We are told that our choice is between free markets and state control — but most adults live their working lives under a third thing entirely: private government. A vision of what egalitarians hoped market society would deliver before the Industrial Revolution — a world without private workplace government, with producers interacting only through markets and the state — has been blindly carried over to the modern economy by libertarians and their pro-business fellow travelers.

There is a condition called hemiagnosia, whose sufferers cannot perceive one half of their bodies. A large class of libertarian-leaning thinkers and politicians, with considerable public following, resemble patients with this condition: They cannot perceive half of the economy — the half that takes place beyond the market, after the employment contract is accepted, where workers are subject to private, arbitrary, unaccountable government.



Univison - the largest Spanish Television station just now broadcast @ 1210 PCT that Hillary Clinton is the legitimate President of the United States, and that Trump is nothing but a hand-puppet of Vladimir Putin, and no amount of Republican opposition can hide this fact.

The implications of this are far reaching - an illegitimate President’s orders do not have to be followed, nor does the individual deserve protection.

Trump’s breathtaking surrender to Russia

“Russia has employed a sophisticated mix of conventional operations and cyber-operations to annex territory and destabilize governments. It has systematically encouraged far-right, nationalist leaders and supported pro-Russian, anti-democratic parties across Europe. It is trying to delegitimize democratic processes on the theory that turbulence in the West is good for a rising East. This is a strategy that allows Russia to punch above its strategic weight, especially since Trump has chosen to abdicate the United States’ natural role in opposition.”

Republicans are just watching it happen. Traitors, all of them.

anonymous asked:

Do you think d&d have already forgotten the "" break the wheel"" discussion ? Thank you

I don’t think the showrunners ever understood this speech as anything more than trailer fodder.

DANY: Lannister, Targaryen, Baratheon, Stark, Tyrell. They’re all just spokes on a wheel. First this one’s on top, then that one’s on top. And on and on it spins, crushing those on the ground.

TYRION: It’s a beautiful dream, stopping the wheel. You’re not the first person who’s ever dreamt it.

DANY: I’m not going to stop the wheel. I’m going to break the wheel.

So we have to ask ourselves, what is this wheel? We know what the spokes are, but what’s the substance of the wheel? Where’s the rest of the metaphor? Is it feudalism? Is it feudal war? Is it the monarchy? It is the ultra-vague “the system”? What is it Dany even intends to break, in this metaphor, and why would she break it, and how?

This speech occurred in response to a discussion of the Westerosi political situation immediately after the War of Five Kings (and included the laughable assertion from Tyrion that the Tyrells were possible Targaryen converts). That’s what we’re supposed to have in mind as Dany says this. Let’s go with the vaguest interpretation, and the one I think is most likely - Dany intends to break the system of great houses competing for dominance over Westeros at the expense of the smallfolk.

Okay then. Here’s the problem. Dany listed her own house amongst the spokes. Daenerys Targaryen cannot break this particular wheel. Her ascension to the Iron Throne or a similar position continues the problem, if that’s what the metaphor’s about. It cannot possibly do anything else. And if that’s what the metaphor is about, and Dany’s the one giving this speech, boy has she missed an issue.

So let’s hope that’s not what she meant, because this interpretation makes Dany look like a right fool.

And yet the other options don’t make a whole lot more sense either. There’s no evidence that Dany’s a republican; quite the opposite. She’s not a politician, remember, she’s a queen. While her rule seeks to be friendly and beneficial to the smallfolk, she hasn’t made any moves to give them political power en masse of any sort. Hell, in the books, a large part of her ADWD problems lie in the fact that she didn’t dismantle the existing ruling class in Slaver’s Bay. If she’s referring to stopping war on the continent of Westeros, how’s she going to “break” that “wheel”? More war? I like that interpretation best because that means Dany’s not displaying an incomprehensible lack of intelligence for this scene, she’s just bad at creating metaphors.

Most plausible of all is the meta explanation: the writers had a speech they thought sounded nice, and they needed something to put in the trailers, and so Dany ends up spouting off an unsound metaphor that doesn’t actually mean much. Nobody needs to write a storyline that follows up on an unsound metaphor that doesn’t actually mean much.
Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
Republicans have become more extreme than Democrats.

Mann and Ornstein anticipate 2016 and the rise of a post-truth, postnormal president, way back in 2012:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.


Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.


On financial stabilization and economic recovery, on deficits and debt, on climate change and health-care reform, Republicans have been the force behind the widening ideological gaps and the strategic use of partisanship. In the presidential campaign and in Congress, GOP leaders have embraced fanciful policies on taxes and spending, kowtowing to their party’s most strident voices.

Republicans often dismiss nonpartisan analyses of the nature of problems and the impact of policies when those assessments don’t fit their ideology. In the face of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the party’s leaders and their outside acolytes insisted on obeisance to a supply-side view of economic growth — thus fulfilling Norquist’s pledge — while ignoring contrary considerations.

The authors end with recommendations to the press:

We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.

Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?

I heard the funnies NPR interview this morning that was basically just like “So the Republicans have no political opposition more or less. Like, the Democrats have no majority. So that just makes it REALLY SAD they can’t seem to get a single fucking solitary thing done because they can’t really blame the opposition party. This is just them sucking at policy making. It’s February already.”
Why Democrats should hold the line and filibuster against Neil Gorsuch
By Lucia Graves

It’s not that Gorsuch’s record is significantly more problematic than that of anyone else on Trump’s shortlist (he is, in many ways, merely Scalia’s ideological twin). It’s that Scalia’s successor should have rightfully been Obama’s to choose, and Democrats should return the favor by pushing Republicans to the legal limit, including making Republicans eliminate the filibuster on supreme court nominations.

Senate Republicans shamelessly played out the clock on the president’s dwindling tenure. After vowing to filibuster anyone Obama picked, they lived up to their word in refusing to hold a single confirmation hearing even for his eventual highly moderate selection of Merrick Garland. It was the perfect cherry atop an administration marked by Republican intransigence and opposition to practically every policy proposal put forward by the president.

Why Republicans are frozen on climate change

Critics usually attribute the unwavering Republican opposition to acting on climate change primarily to ideology and money. Ideologically, most Republicans are predisposed against efforts to reduce the emissions of carbon associated with global climate change because they view it as an example of governmental regulatory overreach. Financially, the GOP hesitates to act because it receives the vast majority of the campaign contributions from oil, gas, coal and other energy industries. (In the past three elections, the oil and gas industry has directed nearly 90% of its campaign contributions to Republicans, and the coal industry channeled at least 96% of its contributions toward them in 2014 and 2016.)

External image
White House could provoke a spending showdown over funding for border wall
The new request threatens to undermine weeks of negotiations between Republicans and Democrats in Congress to pass a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown.

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that he hopes to use negotiations to keep the government open past April 28 in an effort to force Democrats to back some funding for creating a new wall along the U. S-Mexico border — a risky move that could provoke a spending showdown with congressional Democrats next week.

Mulvaney said the White House would be open to funding some of the Democrats’ priorities — such as paying insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act — if Democrats agree to fund some of the more controversial parts of President Trump’s agenda, notably the border wall.

The new request threatens to undermine weeks of negotiations between Republican leaders and Democrats in Congress to pass a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. The negotiations so far have excluded talk of the border wall, which Republicans have argued should be taken up later to keep the government open.

“We have our list of priorities,” Mulvaney said at an event hosted by the Institute of International Finance. “We want more money for defense. We want to build a border wall. We want more money for immigration enforcement, law enforcement.”

Mulvaney stopped short of saying that the White House would refuse to sign a spending agreement that does not include those priorities, but he made clear that he expects Democrats to reopen talks. Democrats saw Mulvaney’s comments as evidence that the White House is meddling to undermine what they described as successful, bipartisan talks.

“Everything had been moving smoothly until the administration moved in with a heavy hand,” said Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “Not only are Democrats opposed to the wall, there is significant Republican opposition as well.”
Turkey's new school curriculum drops evolution and will teach concept of jihad
Education minister says 'the real meaning of jihad is loving your nation'.

Turkey’s new school curriculum drops Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and adds the concept of jihad as patriotic in spirit.

The move has fuelled fears President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is subverting the republic’s secular foundations.

The chairman of a teachers’ union has described the changes as a huge step in the wrong direction for Turkey’s schools and an attempt to avoid raising “generations who ask questions”.

Ismet Yilmaz, the country’s education minister, said the controversial decision to exclude the theory of evolution was “because it is above the students’ level and not directly relevant.”

A member of the opposition Republican People’s Party, Mustafa Balbay, said any suggestion the theory was beyond their understanding was an insult to high school students.

“You go and give an 18-year old student the right to elect and be elected, but don’t give him the right to learn about the theory of evolution…This is being close minded and ignorant.”

The theory of evolution is rejected by both Christian and Muslim creationists, who believe God created the world as described in the Bible and the Koran, making the universe and all living things in six days.

Mr Erdogan, accused by critics of crushing democratic freedoms with tens of thousands of arrests and a clampdown on media since a failed coup last July, has in the past spoken of raising a “pious generation”.

The curriculum, effective from the start of the 2017-2018 school year, also obliges Turkey’s growing number of “Imam Hatip” religious schools to teach the concept of jihad as patriotic in spirit.

“It is also our duty to fix what has been perceived as wrong. This is why the Islamic law class and basic fundamental religion lectures will include [lessons on] jihad,” Mr Yilmaz told reporters. “The real meaning of jihad is loving your nation.”

Jihad is often translated as “holy war” in the context of fighters waging war against enemies of Islam; but Muslim scholars stress that it also refers to a personal, spiritual struggle against sin.

Mehhmet Balik, chairman of the Union of Education and Science Workers (Egitim-Is), condemned the new curriculum.

“The new policies that ban the teaching of evolution and requiring all schools to have a prayer room, these actions destroy the principle of secularism and the scientific principles of education,” he said.

Under the AKP, which came to power in 2002, the number of “Imam Hatip” religious schools has grown exponentially. Erdogan, who has roots in political Islam, attended one such school.

Read More

what leftists mean when we say there’s little difference between the democratic and republican parties: the consequences of both parties’ actions are largely the same because the democrats are spineless and cave when any real pressure is applied by either their corporate donors or the republican opposition, so if you’re judging by the outcome of each party’s politicking then there’s basically no difference between doing harm and doing next to nothing to stop others from doing harm

what we don’t mean: democrats and republicans are equally bigoted and the two parties’ platforms are literally identical
NYT: McCain Announces Opposition to Republican Health Bill, Likely Dooming Its Fate
Senator John McCain released a statement saying he would oppose the latest proposal, by Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.
By Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear

GOOD NEWS! McCain announced that he is a hard no vote against the Cassidy-Graham bill. This likely means that the bill is dead, which is great news! However! They can still pass something by as late as next Friday right before midnight. They can still flip Murkowski and Collins. They can still pressure Rand Paul into flipping.

Call your Senators. Do not relent. Show the Senate that you are mad as hell and will not let them take away health insurance from tens of millions of people.
Health Bill Appears Dead as Pivotal G.O.P. Senator Declares Opposition
Senator Susan Collins of Maine announced her opposition to the latest bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, leaving party leaders short of the votes they need.
By Thomas Kaplan

WASHINGTON — Senator Susan Collins of Maine said on Monday that she would oppose the latest plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, leaving Republican leaders clearly short of the votes they need for passage.

Ms. Collins, a Republican, announced her opposition in a written statement, delivering a significant and possibly fatal blow to the party’s seven-year quest to dismantle the health law.

“Health care is a deeply personal, complex issue that affects every single one of us and one-sixth of the American economy. Sweeping reforms to our health care system and to Medicaid can’t be done well in a compressed time frame, especially when the actual bill is a moving target,” Ms. Collins said in the statement.

“Today, we find out that there is now a fourth version of the Graham-Cassidy proposal, which is as deeply flawed as the previous iterations,” she said. “The fact that a new version of this bill was released the very week we are supposed to vote compounds the problem.”



Oh my god, I have been waiting for someone to ask me this question for so long, for so long!

We must think of this from the past perspective first. Americas first political party of the Federalist party, then the Anti-federalist party. The anti-federalist party became the Democratic Republican party, or Republican party for short. The Federalist party was led by Alexander Hamilton and the Democratic Republican party was led by Thomas Jefferson- of course this led to bitter rivalry. 

After the election of 1800, there was the Federalist parties last string of hope for getting a candidate to the presidency. The election of 1800 loss for the Federalists and the Democratic Republican’s win marked the turning point in which the Federalist party would never again have more power than the Republican party. When James Madison became president and then the War of 1812 ensued- the end of the war of 1812 marked the end of the Federalist party. Fifth president James Monroe was the last president we ever had who ran unopposed and won without question for the presidency- possibly due to the fact that the Democratic Republican Monroe had no member of the Federalist party running against him since the Federalist party seemingly died out. 

Before death, party leaders of the Democratic Republican party, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were founders to the Democratic party- the one we have today. The Democratic Republican party soon became the Democratic party. While the Federalist party burrowed under ground for quite some time and became roots and laying foundations of ideals for the Republican party which sprang up in 1854 (and little while before that time). 

If you think of it from this perspective- I am unable to conclude Benjamin Franklin with a political party, for he was a independent politician; George Washington, John Adams, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton would be apart of the Republican party of today- while Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe would be members of the Democratic party. 

Keep reading
McCain Announces Opposition to Republican Health Bill, Likely Dooming Its Fate
Senator John McCain released a statement saying he would oppose the latest proposal, by Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.
By Thomas Kaplan

Senator John McCain of Arizona announced on Friday that he would oppose the latest proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act, leaving Republican leaders with little hope of succeeding in their last-ditch attempt to dismantle the health law.

“I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal,” Mr. McCain said. “I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried. Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will effect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it.”

Senator McCain’s nay, along with Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Murkowski of Alaska, are likely to again save millions of American’s health insurance.

Call your representatives and tell them your healthcare is important to you.