These folks who travel from city to city for the purpose of escalating left/right conflict need to stay at home and mind their own business. If all of the different political factions worked toward the purpose of turning their local communities into their ideal model of a startup society, then they would have something. Naturally, places like Portland and Seattle will have a more “left-wing” orientation just as rural counties would presumably have a more “right-wing” orientation (with suburbs being the center?). Unfortunately, too many people are ignorant enough of history that they do not understand that tribal warfare is always a dead end. But they’re Americans, so I suppose we should expect some handicaps in this area.
I can’t really see any principled objection to firebombing police cars (enemy military vehicles). The problem that I have with both conservative anti-protestors like Saager Enjeti and Tim Pool or liberal pro-protestors like Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski is that they all believe in the fundamental legitimacy of the system. I reject the “pro-protest/anti-violence” stance. That doesn’t mean I necessarily like all the protestors, violent or non-violent, as much as I simply view them as necessary chaos agents for the purpose of undermining the system. It’s about creating a critical mass that prevents the system from functioning while preventing any of the factions from gaining a concentration of power. It’s not so much a “three-way fight” as the “antifascists” claim as much as “twenty-way fight” with more teams being added all the time. A civil war in the US would have as many teams as the NFL, NBA, or MLB.
The pandemic has done wonders for expanding class divisions and further centralization of wealth control.
Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti break down the latest unemployment numbers, and how they have been steadily decreasing since April.
Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is.
There is a little too much “law talk” in this segment for my tastes. The ideal situation would be for the center-right, center-left, far-right, and far-left to fight, both in the electoral system/political institutions and in the streets, to the point that none of these can achieve anything approaching a monopoly of state power. The enemy is all around. The objective is for them to keep fighting each other to a permanent stalemate.
Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti weigh in on the controversial comments made by Attorney General Bill Barr advocating for criminally charging certain protesters with sedition.
The true power elite is likely to say otherwise. Trump’s ego notwithstanding, US presidents are merely managers, not dictators.
By Andrew Solender
President Trump said Saturday that he plans to “negotiate” to run again in 2024 if he wins reelection in November, his latest in a series of comments that have alarmed critics who say he has little regard for constitutional boundaries.
The Soviet analogy really isn’t appropriate. Neoliberals are proponents of globalized technocratic state-capitalism, which uses feminism and multiculturalism to meet its human resources needs and construct a self-legitimating ideology. That has nothing to do with Communism.
In normal times, it would seem outlandish to worry that an American president might refuse to concede defeat upon losing his bid for reelection. This year it is not. Even though he won in 2016, Donald Trump falsely claimed that he was the victim of voter fraud. And when he sat down for an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace this July, he said: “I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election. I really do.”
Visibly alarmed, Wallace asked whether Trump would accept the outcome of the election if he should lose.
“I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no. And I didn’t last time either,” Trump responded.
The prospect that Trump will lose but try to remain in office has spooked analysts. The question on their mind is how many Americans would go along with such a blatant attack on democratic institutions.
Official misconduct played a role in the criminal convictions of more than half of innocent people who were later exonerated, according to a new report by a registry that tracks wrongful convictions.
According to the report, by the National Registry of Exonerations, official misconduct contributed to false convictions in 54 percent of exonerations, usually with more than one type of misconduct. Overall, men and Black exonerees “were modestly more likely to experience misconduct,” although there were larger differences by race when it came to drug crimes and murder.
The report comes at a time of reckoning for the American criminal justice system as nationwide civil unrest against racism and police brutality continue.
During a phone call last week with federal prosecutors, Attorney General William Barr said they should consider charging anyone who committed a violent crime during recent protests with sedition, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times on Wednesday.
Between 1900 and 1917, waves of unprecedented terror struck Russia. Several parties professing incompatible ideologies competed (and cooperated) in causing havoc. Between 1905 and 1907, nearly 4,500 government officials and about as many private individuals were killed or injured. Between 1908 and 1910, authorities recorded 19,957 terrorist acts and revolutionary robberies, doubtless omitting many from remote areas. As the foremost historian of Russian terrorism, Anna Geifman, observes, “Robbery, extortion, and murder became more common than traffic accidents.”
n Bob Woodward’s book Rage, the author quotes President Trump as claiming that he “saved” de facto Saudi ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) after the assassination and dismemberment of Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi. Trump reportedly said, “I was able to get Congress to leave him alone. I was able to get them to stop.” Not only was this shocking, but the general U.S. cultivation of despotic Saudi Arabia for the sake of oil purchases and weapons sales is unnecessary in today’s world.
This U.S.-Saudi bargain goes back to World War II, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt noticed that the trends were pointing toward the U.S. increasing its dependence on foreign petroleum, as its own world-leading oil production attenuated. Before the world oil price increases of the 1970s, the U.S. government believed in buying other nations’ oil and conserving its own supplies. (After the 1973 Arab oil embargo and price increases, the rage became “oil and energy independence”—in other words, lessening oil imports and using petroleum produced within U.S. borders.) The deal FDR reached with the Saudis was that they would sell the United States oil from their substantial reserves in exchange for American protection of their country and oil fields.
This is a fairly nuanced discussion of BLM from a right-libertarian perspective. The gist of the discussion is that it is necessary to distinguish between the BLM movement and the organization bearing its name.
By Brad Polumbo
Foundation for Economic Education
On Monday night, Terry Crews was grilled over his criticism of Black Lives Matter by CNN host Don Lemon. As Gina Bontempo pointed out on Twitter: “Don Lemon did everything he could to talk over Terry and silence him as soon as they started approaching what the BLM organization is *really* about.
So what is Black Lives Matter really about?
Many conservatives insist Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-police, radical organization that wants to tear down America. Meanwhile, most liberals simply view Black Lives Matter as a heroic movement and powerful slogan signaling support for racial justice and opposition to police brutality.
Both are right. There is Black Lives Matter™️, and there is “black lives matter.”
Imagine that. The Gulf States and Israel are merely state-guaranteed export markets for US arms manufacturers and economic colonies for US petroleum companies underwritten by the US taxpayers.
Executive VP at The Quincy Institute, Trita Parsi, breaks down the latest reports from the intelligence community concerning a potential attack on America orchestrated by Iran’s leadership. Some say these retaliation efforts are a direct result of the killing of terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani.
Most people prefer safety and security first (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) over everything else. I don’t think the response of either Democrats or Republicans to COVID-19 has been optimal (to say the least). What people want is public health safety with economic compensation.
Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti react to the recent ABC News townhall President Trump participated in, receiving both backlash and criticism from many of the voters present.