Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

ABC News: Hillary Clinton's Full Concession Speech- Election 2016 Finally Comes to an End


I'm going to start with Hillary Clinton's speech here and then go through the election. As Senator Tim Kaine put it, no one ever thought for a second whether or not Hillary Clinton would concede if she lost the election. (Not a partisan statement, just a fact) Because Secretary Clinton respects and loves American liberal democracy. Secretary Clinton said she hopes that Donald Trump is a successful president. And whether you like that fact or not and I and over fifty-million people who voted against Mr. Trump including Republicans, we hate this fact, but if he turns out to be a bad president which a lot of the country fears, it won't be just President Trump who suffers, but America will suffer. If the country goes into recession, sure President Trump will take a hit. But he'll still have a job at least until January, 2021, but millions of Americans will be out of their job wondering what they will do now. If he makes any foreign or national security policy blunders, the country will suffer not just President Trump. So I believe Secretary Clinton had the perfect tone here.

As far as the election 2016 itself, CNN commentator Van Jones who has taken a lot of heat today about the so-called whitelash in the country as he put it, I believe he had the best comment for why Hillary Clinton lost last night. I'm going to paraphrase here but what Mr. Jones said was essentially that the Clinton Campaign was expecting Donald Trump himself would bring African and Latin-Americans to the polls himself against him. And vote overwhelmingly with a huge turnout against the Trump Campaign simply because of the campaign that he ran. And not what the Clinton Campaign offered them and a positive vision for why they should vote for her. That they didn't do  a major investment in Latino and African-American turnout. Unpopular president's can drive the other party to the polls against them during Congressional elections and vote for whoever the opposition party candidate or incumbent is for House or Senate. If you don't believe me, just ask GW Bush and Barack Obama.  But when it comes to the presidency, Americans have to have positive reasons why they should vote for someone. And saying the other guy is horrible is not a good enough reason.

So this election to me is about turnout. The Trump Campaign found whatever is left of the Reagan Democrat coalition in Pennsylvania and the Midwest and that is how they won Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. States where Secretary Clinton had clear leads pre-election day. And the Clinton Campaign didn't get their African and Latino-American base to the polls, as well as Millennial's. That great get-out-the-vote operation that the Clinton Campaign supposedly had, apparently took the night off or fell asleep, perhaps because of how long election 2016 felt. It just wasn't there. 2016 looks like 2004 to me with the Kerry Campaign expecting millions of Gen-Xers and Millenia's, to come to the polls and vote against President Bush. Which was how they expected to win Ohio. But President Bush won Ohio with a hundred-thousand plus votes. When 2016 could have easily had been 1988 where Americans by enlarge thought things were going well and weren't ready to take a chance on a governor with no Federal experience in Mike Dukakis. And stuck with the status-quo in H.W. Bush.
ABC News: Hillary Clinton's Full Concession Speech

Friday, November 4, 2016

Emi Music: Tom Cochrane- Life is a Highway


Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily View

“Life is a highway, I want to ride it all night long! Tom Cochrane is really on to something with those lyrics. To use a cliche, “life is a marathon and not a sprint.” Meaning you’re going to around a long time, you might as well enjoy it and not try to accomplish everything at once, or let one setback and negative thing destroy you. So you should make out of life as much as you can and live your own life instead of trying to live someone else’s, or trying to live like someone. You your favorite celebrity (if you have to have one) should be just that. The famous person you like and admire most. But remember they have your life and you have yours. And not everything they do in how they live their life will work for you. And in many cases work against you and get you into trouble. So we should all be ourselves and be the person we can be and make ourselves happy, but not try to be something we’re not simply because we think that would make us cool or awesome or whatever, at that time.
Emi Music: Tom Cochrane- Life is a Highway

Friday, October 28, 2016

PBS: NewsHour- Paul Solomon Interviewing Charles Murray- Why Economic Anxiety is Driving Working Class Voters to Trumpism

The American middle class and you could go down half of a class and look at the working class in America who tend to be blue-collar and perhaps just have a high school diploma and perhaps some college and are people who probably make somewhere around 30-60 thousand-dollars a year and would be the lower middle class in America as far as income, these people have seen an economic decline in America. Who think the rich have been screwing them and sending their jobs oversees. And the poor get to live off of taxpayers for free. So they've seen the rich get richer and the poor getting more free taxpayer funded benefits. And they're thinking how about them and whose going to look out for them and empower them to do better in America. And here comes this rich guy someone who is perhaps even a billionaire in Donald Trump saying he's their champion and fighter. Talks about bad trade deals and tells them immigration is costing them their good jobs. Someone who labels Mexicans as rapists and criminals and Muslims as supporters of terrorism. 

As I said in my piece Sunday about Donald Trump, Trump voters 30-40 years ago would have been called Reagan Democrats and are now Trump Republicans. Southern and Midwestern blue-collar Republicans who tend to Anglo-Saxon and Protestant  and have other European backgrounds and are also male. The so-called angry white-males that voted heavily against Bill Clinton and other Democrats in the 1990s. Donald Trump has as much in common with working class voters as the Christian-Right has in common with Communists. But one thing that the The Donald has been successful and good at in his career has been as a salesman. The man could sell water to fish if given the opportunity and I and many other people would say he's a great con-man in the amount of success he's had at coming on fifty-years in business. And he loves power and what's more powerful than the President of the United States. And decides he'll try to convince millions of Caucasian working class voters in America who perhaps have never heard of Donald Trump before he ran for president that he's one of them. And so far he's had great success with this voting block. 

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Al Jazeera: US Election 2016- Donald Trump Woos Working-Class Caucasians

Courtesy of Democracy Journal- http://democracyjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/20826825753_0e6a51a127_z.jpg-
When you think of the Republican Party generally you think of country club Republicans, people who tend to be very conservative when it comes to economic policy and believing in low taxes and low regulations, but tend to be moderate to tolerant on social issues, perhaps even neutral. And then there's another faction of Republicans the Christian-Right. Anglo-Saxon Southern working class Protestants, who looks at politics especially social issues from their very conservative if not theocratic religious values. And there's their still solid, but no longer dominant conservative-libertarian base that came to power in the GOP thanks to Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and others. But there's another base in the GOP that use to be a solid part of the Democratic Party. The so-called Reagan Democrats that first voted overwhelmingly for Richard Nixon in 1968 and 72 and then later Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 84. European ethnic Catholics people of Eastern European, as well as Irish background, who tend to be Midwest and working class.

Reagan Democrats are now Trump Republicans. People who tend to be blue-collar, Catholics, as well as Protestants, who tend to have Anglo, as well as Irish and Slavic backgrounds. Who come from working class areas of the Southeast and Midwest, who are very conservative, but in a traditionalist and nationalistic and religious sense. (Not so much political) who came of age when their people (so to speak) were in charge in America. Where only needed a high school diploma earn a middle-income and live well. Where women weren't expected to work. Where you stood out if you didn't go to church every week. People who hang out at sports bars, bowling allies, drink beer and not wine. Who now live in a country where they're becoming a minority if not are already there. And are seeing their wages and economic security decline in an era where education is the key to being successful in America. Not just a high school diploma and a little college perhaps at a community college, but a college degree and then re-trajing later in life in order to be successful.

It's not just Trump Republicans, working class religious conservative Caucasians who've been left behind in the New America. But they're the voters that Donald Trump represents. Whose been running on this theory that if he can dominate the Caucasian working class in America in the votes, he'll win the presidency without having to appeal to anyone else. The polling and numbers don't show that when you look at the fact that Donald Trump's base is somewhere around 35-42% depending on the polls. But that is what he believes he needs and all he needs to be the next President of the United States. Essentially blue-collar Tea Party Republicans, who oppose free trade, immigration, internationalism, integration and even equal rights. The so-called Alt-Right in the Republican Party that is now the new term for Far-Right Nationalists. Who again believe there America is disappearing and there America is the 1940s, to be frank about it. When women and ethnic and racial minorities, were not prevalent in America.

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he's not a dumb man. He even has political skills and real sense of politics and what he can do and how to appeal to his own base. Which is by speaking their game even though he represents nothing as far as what this community represents in lifestyle and everything else, other than a similar complexion. But he's getting away with it at least in the sense that he's never lost this lost place in America, because they've been losing and have been falling behind for decades now as the New America has become prevalent and we're now a very diverse country ethnically and racially and where higher education post-high school is the key to how well you'll do in this country economically. The Lost America now wants that country back the country they grew up in, a country that overwhelmingly looks and thinks the way they do and they want their lifestyles back and those blue-collar jobs back that funded their lifestyles. And they see Donald Trump as their savior even as he goes down in a landslide to Hillary Clinton.
Al Jazeera: US Election 2016- Donald Trump woos Working Class Caucasians

Friday, September 23, 2016

Laura Flanders: Is A Socialist Future Possible? Sarah Leonard & Bhaskar Sunkara

Is a socialist future possible? Well I guess anything is possible at least in the future. I don't think this is the right question, because it's sort of like asking will we one day see cars that fly for people who don't want to sit in traffic on the way to work. I guess that is possible, but who is expecting that. We need to separate the possible and the reasonable and realistic, because they're different things. The next President of the United States, won't be a Socialist or Social Democrat. (Sorry Jill Stein supporters) The next President will either a moderate pragmatic Progressive (which is what Progressives are) in Hillary Clinton, or a right-wing authoritarian fascist in Donald Trump. Whoever controls the next Congress, the Speaker of the House won't be a Socialist, even if it is Nancy Pelosi and the Speaker's members won't be social-democratic, at least the majority. Once you get past the Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus. The next Leader of the Senate, won't be a Socialist or Social-Democrat, even if it is Chuck Schumer. And his members won't be social-democratic by nature. Once you get beyond Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin. So Socialists and Social-Democrats, won't control the next Congress in either chamber.

People point to the Millennial Generation as reason to believe we're moving in a socialist or social-democratic direction as a country as far as ideology. But go back to the late 1960s and early 1970s and yes George McGovern did win the Democratic nomination for president in 1972. But most of his support came from young Baby Boomers in their twenties. And look at the Baby Boom Generation today and you see a generation (with all due respect) that grew up. They got jobs (once they started showering and got hair cuts) and started paying taxes. They go involved romantically outside of their radical political movement and got married and had kids. They got comfortable in American society and became very successful in life and perhaps also learned about the limits of socialism and what government can do for people with their taxes. And didn't become Conservatives necessarily, but certainly moderated and became what Hillary Clinton is today. And took more of a pragmatic center-left approach to what government should and can do for the people.

Again to go back to my original point about what is possible, twenties years from now can we see an America that is a social-democratic country that looks like Canada or Scandinavia when it comes to economic and foreign policy, again what isn't possible until it's proven impossible. But I'm more interested in what's reasonable and realistic. I guess I'm just not very romantic and if the Millennial's are anything like the Boomers or even Gen-Xers and a lot of Millennial's are the sons and daughters of Boomers and Gen-Xers, they'll moderate as well. Some might even move to the Center-Right. We don't know where we'll be as a country even four years from now politically. A lot of that will depend on how the first term of the next president goes. But to say that a large percentage of the young adult generation (Millennial's) like socialism and  based on that America is moving in a socialist direction, I would ask you 5-10 years from now if you still believe that. If the Baby Boomers were Socialists, than Ronald Reagan probably never becomes President. So just I believe it's way to early to decide what direction America is moving in politically until we actually get there.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Reason: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Kristin Tate- The Libertarian Chick on Government Gone Wild

The self-proclaimed Libertarian Chick-
I know I'm going to over-generalize here and I'm not a Libertarian, but it's good to hear a Millennial who is not a Socialist . Who doesn't think speech they disagree with should be censored. Who doesn't believe there's a government program to solve everyone's problems for them. Who doesn't believe government services are free. Who doesn't believe government should protect people from themselves either from an economic or personal standpoint. Not saying all Millennial's are Socialists. Not over-generalizing that much, but the Bernie Sanders movement are Millennial's and New-Left Socialists from the 1960s who still believe the Fidel Castro Marxist Revolution is still alive and well in Cuba. The 1-2% of the Jill Stein Green Party movement, is the same movement as the Bernie Sanders movement. The difference believing that Senator Sanders isn't as partisan as Dr. Stein and doesn't see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the same. "So what's the point of voting for either?"

Millennial's are a diverse revolution politically. You have a democratic socialist wing, you have what I at least would call a classically-liberal wing. People who are very liberal and anti-big government on social issues and believe in a lot of personal freedom as far as allowing people to make their own decisions. Who don't want big government taking care of them financially either, but don't want the safety net for people who truly need it to disappear. And that is the Gary Johnson base right there and he has Millennial support. He's says he's someone who believes in fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. And then you have the Ron Paul libertarian wing that Kristin Tate represents. People who have very little if any role for government at all. Who are way to the right of Gary Johnson on economic and fiscal policy. And then you have the non-political wing of the Millennial Generation. Who are too busy staking out Apple Stores so they're the first five people to buy the latest I-Phone. And are too busy with new technology and celebrity culture, to follow politics at all.

Millennial's aren't Socialists, they aren't Liberals, they aren't Centrists and they aren't Libertarians. This is a generation that's still finding they're way politically. I mean the oldest Millennial right now is 36 years old. We didn't know how to label the Baby Boom Generation at least until the 1980s when they started entering their forties. They started off as part of the New-Left radical socialist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Then they finally grew up, started taking showers, discovered barber shops, got their hair cut, got jobs, got married, had kids and moderated their political views at least to the point they were no longer bombing schools and banks, because they thought capitalism was unfair and racist. Which is what I hope happens with the Millennial Generation. That they grow up as well as a generation and discover that part of living in a liberal democracy (and yes liberal democracy) is from time to time hearing political viewpoints that they disagree with and even find insulting.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964

Quoting Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo

"The question for Republicans at their 1964 National Convention was: At this crucial point in American history, will we send in our bat boy? Or will we send in our Babe Ruth — a man who is not afraid or forbidden to take a good cut at all major issues of the day? [p.28]

He is the one Republican who will not pull his punches to please the kingmakers. He can be counted on to face the issues squarely. He will make the kind of forthright hard-hitting campaign that American voters admire. This is why he is the man the left-leaning liberals most fear. He is the only Republican who will truly offer the voters "a choice, not an echo". [p80-81]

Behind the scenes, the kingmakers prepared the publicity buildup of several candidates to replace Barry Goldwater. How can the average person spot the kingmakers' candidates? Here is a sure litmus-paper test:

1. A kingmaker candidate does not criticize other kingmaker candidates.

2. Kingmaker candidates criticize Senator Goldwater more than they criticize Lyndon Johnson.

3. Kingmaker candidates never criticize the Democratic foreign giveaway programs.

4. Kingmaker candidates never criticize the State Department or the concessions it has made to the Communist axis.

5. Kingmaker candidates hardly ever raise the issue of Communism, either foreign or domestic. [p.88]

Meanwhile the kingmakers engaged in a frantic search to dig up anybody — just anybody — to prevent Republicans from selecting their obvious candidate. [p.89]

Even after he was dropped by the kingmakers, Romney was faithful to their wishes. On June 7, he violated his long standing

rule against politicking on Sunday to announce: "I will do everything within my power to prevent him (Goldwater) from becoming the party's presidential choice." [p.89-90]

As it turned out, no Republican could have won the Presidency in 1964, but Goldwater inspired conservative Republicans for many years later."

In 1964 pre-Barry Goldwater's win essentially taking over the Republican Party, his conservative-libertarian wing, the Republican Party was very similar to what the Reform Party looks like today. A fiscally and economically conservative party, that worried about debt and deficits, high taxes, centralized big government, over regulation of the economy and taking power away from the states to give it to the Federal Government. As well as believing in strong national defense and being strong anti-Communist Cold Warriors. It was the party that Tom Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, put together in the 1940s and 1950s. It was also a party that believed in the safety net for people who really needed it and supported things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security, and other public assistance programs. Just as long as they were paid for and people who could were expected to work. They were somewhat moderately-conservative on safety net issues. They didn't believe government had no role, but that government shouldn't try to do everything for everybody.

What Conservative-Libertarian Republican Senator Barry Goldwater argued in his 1961 book Conscience of a Conservative, was that America needed another vision. Something to counter the progressive New Deal of the 1940s and that government was becoming too big and taxing too much and we needed a new political philosophy to counter the New Deal Progressives. Conscience of a Conservative lays out that conservative vision for America. Phyllis Schlafly, agreed with Barry Goldwater that America did need a right-wing alternative vision to progressivism. But her politics was a bit different. Barry Golwater, was a anti-big government Conservative across the board. He didn't want big government in our economic or personal affairs and not trying to tell individuals how they should live their own lives. As long as being a strong defense anti-Communist Cold Warrior.  Phyllis Schlafly, was with Goldwater on the economic and foreign policy issues, but they separated when it came to social and cultural issues.

When I look at Phyllis Schlafly's politics today, I see Ron Paul plus Pat Buchanan. Someone who was anti-big government and even anti-safety net when it came to economic policy. But believed in standards and limits to what government should allow people to do in their personal lives. Not just anti-abortion, but anti-homosexuality, anti-gay marriage, they believed women working was not good for the American family and that government shouldn't encourage women to work. They believed pornography should be outlawed across the board. They were anti-immigration and multiculturalism. That America should be governed based on their Christian religious and cultural beliefs. Phyllis Schlafly, to me at least is responsible for launching the Christian-Right and even the Alt-Right today. And Alt-Right radio and commentary from people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Phyllis Schlafly, is responsible for launching a major political movement in America and one of our most powerful and influential political activists. And deserves some credit for that.
The Dove TV: Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo