Home | About | Donate

'November Is Coming': On Containing the Catastrophe

'November Is Coming': On Containing the Catastrophe

Robert Reich

Anyone still unsure of how (or even whether) they’ll vote in the midterms should consider this: All three branches of government are now under the control of one party, and that party is under the control of Donald J. Trump.

With the addition of Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court is as firmly Republican as are the House and Senate.

1 Like

" . . . the values we hold dear . . ."

Aren’t we glad that Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept Bernie Sanders off the ticket? He could have appointed a Supreme Court justice. OMG!

I am not holding my breath for the upcoming midterm; but I am holding my nose.

13 Likes

Schultz did not keep him off the ticket. Sanders lost more open, semi-open, and closed primaries than Clinton, and basically did well in mainly white, lower turnout caucus states. He lost both the popular vote and delegate count as a result, which is why he wasn’t the nominee.

1 Like

You have to hand it to the dems. like Robert Reich. They are so good at their endless con game that they are the opposition and the party of change.

8 Likes

Not true:

Those are pre-election comments from 2016. Aside from the names, what was I wrong about? Some of us warned people here that voting in such a way that made it more likely Trump would win would be disasterous for our country. We were told we were “pushing fear voting” and basically called corporate hacks.

1 Like

If it were not for Trump and the “Great Revealing” where it becomes crystal clear what the US Government really about , there would be no move towards socialism, wars would still be cheered on , Capitalism would remain god and the Environmental movement would remain moribund.

The Democrats would have ensured this. It would have been “Business as usual” without the vulgarity and crudity . hidden behind the facade that the Democrats care about something other then promoting the well being of the 1 percent.

Under Obama , the USA intervened in Syria, helped promote the war in Yemen , destroyed Libya , sent troops into the African States , escalated the potential for war with Russia by deploying anti-missiles systems in Eastern Erope. opened the Atlantic coast to more drilling , bailed out the bankers to the tune 20 trillion dollars , failed to prosecute any of those bankers and allowed war criminals to walk free.

Reich comes back with a rework of the same old “hope and change” con. I hope citizens of the USA do not fall for it again.

6 Likes

What don’t I get? Here’s a comment I wrote in 2016 (linked above):

"What are we bringing to a head? Locking in a hard right Supreme Court that permits states to disenfranchise voters? A Congress and President who will sign laws that are counter to things we hope to achieve? Watching a not-even-trying-to-hide-it racist issue executive orders from the White House on our televisions? Or an FCC rollback net neutrality?

Sheesh.

Again, Bernie’s not a sellout. He’s trying to level with you about things."

Some of us did see this, quite clearly.

1 Like

THEY WILL! The pistol packin mama from Alaska had it correct when she stated: " how is that hopey, changey thing workin out fer ya".

3 Likes

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, really. really really really oh

2 Likes

With the addition of Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court is as firmly Republican as are the House and Senate.

Think for a moment about what that means. Bart O’kanavaugh may be new to the lowest court in the land, but the meaning of this sentence is old:

Whether a person is guilty or innocent, whether the principles of civil law favor one party or another, depends on whether the judges involved are Republicans or Democrats! How messed up is that?

Don’t you think it’s odd that there are 5-4 decisions? Here we have the 9 most prestiged legal experts in the country, so none of them should be making an error in their understanding of the law (and certainly not 4 of them;) they are all accessing the same version of the constitution, and yet, the law is ambiguous enough that not only is a unanimous decision almost unheard of, but their understandings of the law can be tweaked to fit in comfortably with whatever political ideology.

As a matter of fact, the decisions and their consequences could just as credibly be decided by 9 randomly selected citizens with less familiarity with the constitution than with pop music lyrics! Even if 9 judges did nothing but flip coins, we would still have decisions that would match what the 9 greatest legal experts in the country would come up with, if those 9 legal experts had been chosen at just the right point in history, by just the right president.

What does that say about the constitution? What does that say about the integrity of the court, even before there was at least one perjurer sitting on it?

Then you have judges who call themselves “originalists,” as if the founding fathers had any intent with respect to even 10% of the issues at stake. Net neutrality? Interstate trade in electricity? Money as free speech? Do they really expect us to believe they are only concerned with the most direct interpretation of the constitution? Ha!

And, of course, there was Susan Collins who said that finally, we won’t have to deal with 5-4 decisions. Right, because now they will be 6-3 decisions and somehow we don’t have to worry about the image of uncertainty. Huh? Go back in time to any supreme court decision, pick any two numbers that add to 9, and I guarantee you could find a combination of 9 people, all qualified for the court, who would decide in that specific tally.

Or go back only 2 years, when a small number of voters in one state would replace Gorsuch and O’Kavanaugh with two picks from Hillary Clinton. The result would be the same: fewer 5-4 decisions and more 6-3 decisions. And I suppose Susan Collins would think that was great too because then we don’t have to worry about those decisions seeming so uncertain, even though they would be decided exactly opposite of the decisions for the next few years. That’s right–two completely opposite decisions, and they’re both as certainly correct!

1 Like

I have not forgotten how you like the idea of a violent mess in our future. Normal people do not want to “get it.”

Every time I read about some wonderful bill put forward by Sanders or Warren or whoever, I think two things:

  1. Would these bills have been put forward if the Democrats had control of congress?
  2. What will happen with/to these bills if the Democrats take control of both chambers next month?
5 Likes

You seem clueless in your ideology. Democrats have been moving toward socialism since, FDR, LBJ, and Obama. You dream there is some kind of magic way to change things quickly. And, if you don’t understand that the environment would be better off if Gore and Hillary had been “officially” elected, then there’s no need to waste my time. We likely both agree the Earth will be hammered in the future with climate change. But, there are degrees of catastrophe.

1 Like

Nothing will happen. Trump will veto. And there are always a few democrats in the pockets of someone. We need a vast majority. Will that ever happen?

1 Like

Are you serious? The Democrats are about as far away from being Socialist as one can get. Welfare reform under Bill Clinton was the first step towards cutting all ties with FDR and his new deal. Bill Clinton also started the bank deregulation.

FDR was not a Socialist either. He acted to SAVE Capitalism from the Socialists.

Obama was President for 8 yeears. Little to nothing was done to help the Environment. He much like Trudeau here in Canada. That Harper might of been “worse” as far as the Enviornment goes or that Hilary might not have been as bad as Trump is MEANINGLESS when given the severity of the problem. It like saying “Bill is gonna shoot you four times in the head while Bob will shoot you three times in the head so you better pick between Bob or Bill for who you want to shoot you in the head”. When THAT the choices offered I suggest people look for different choices. Dead is still dead.

Back to Socialism. I suggest you educate yourself and learn what it REALLY about. It not about bailing out Bankers and “work for welfare”

9 Likes

Dear Robert:

We haven’t been able to contain many catastrophes within the oligarchy’s rigged system. Democrats throw drowning people cement life savers while concentrating on fund raising from democracy-destroying Big Money.

I will vote Democrat this time if you and other Dems begin adopting direct, decentralized democracy. Here is just one of various apps for it:

Guess you didn’t know that. Glad I could help.

Bill Clinton signed welfare reform over two decades ago. Things have changed pretty significantly since then. And, of course, he was president after 12 years of Republican presidencies in a country that was trending right, not left. He won because he was a Democrat from a southern state known for moderation. Are progressives going to forever be stuck in 1996 or something? It’s crazy.

Pretty good as I recall…Obama and Biden beat her sorry ass…and we had one less old white male running this country as well.

Yes, things have changed dramatically. The Democrats have moved even further to the Right and are even more in the pockets of the Corporations. Barack Obama was to the right of Clinton. Just because a policy forwarded by the Democrats is not a Republican Policy, it hardly means it “progressive”.

The Republicans have moved 20 steps to the right, the Democrats 10 and all of a sudden because the Democrats only moved those 10 steps, people believe they somehow “progressive”…

8 Likes