Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
So what's your takeaway from it?

I don't know too much about Noam except for a few things of his I've read before, and Jimmy Dore practically idolizes him. I've agreed with everything that Dore has said that Chomsky has had to say about things that he's talked about.

Wouldn't it be funny if we both watched this video and were on the same page?

16 minutes isn't that long. I'll try to remember to give it a watch before I go to sleep for the day.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

I agree that the Democratic Party abandoned the working class in the 1970s OR EVEN EARLIER.* That means, btw, that ALL BILL CLINTON'S AND OBAMA'S MAJOR POLICIES WERE AGAINST AMERICAN WORKING PEOPLE. I think it's time you took those fuckers down off those pedestals where you placed them, and recognize that the offshoring of American jobs, the repeal of Glass Steagall, and bailouts to the banks cast the DNC FIRMLY in the hands of the ultra-wealthy global financialists. That was the genesis of the Occupy Movement. Remember the Occupy Movement? IN REALITY, the Democratic Party offers no alternative to working Americans because its soul belongs to the banks.

---

Quote:

---

However, while the GOP relies on social issues and its own version of identity politics to maintain its base, TRUMP DID NOT WIN JUST THE GOP BASE BUT ALSO INDEPENDENTS AND SOME DEMOCRATS.

---

Quote:

---

Why is that? An analysis that misses that point and which relies solely on white Xtian/ Southern strategy explanation for Trump's election misses roughly 30% of Trump voters.

---

Quote:

---

I think there is an important point which the follow-up discussion points to, and that is that Trump was a PROTEST VOTE. He not only appealed to the GOP evangelical base, he appealed to people who were fed up with "more of the same". People threw up on the idea of "more of the same", and with good reason, since - under Obama- all of that "growth" was going to the top 1%.

---

Quote:

---

But they BOTH miss Trump's biggest backers, and who his policies really benefit, and that is national manufacturers and businesses (Oh, and Israel). Yes, Trump's tax cuts benefit "the wealthy" but it is NOT the same "wealthy" that the Democrats benefitted.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, Chomsky is intelligent and he pretty much nailed it, according to the question he was asked. SGG

I agree that the Democratic Party abandoned the working class in the 1970s OR EVEN EARLIER.* That means, btw, that ALL BILL CLINTON'S AND OBAMA'S MAJOR POLICIES WERE AGAINST AMERICAN WORKING PEOPLE. I think it's time you took those fuckers down off those pedestals where you placed them, and recognize that the offshoring of American jobs, the repeal of Glass Steagall, and bailouts to the banks cast the DNC FIRMLY in the hands of the ultra-wealthy global financialists. That was the genesis of the Occupy Movement. Remember the Occupy Movement? IN REALITY, the Democratic Party offers no alternative to working Americans because its soul belongs to the banks.- SIGNY

You seem to be hung up on this Clinton/Obama thing. Ok, they were horrible, horrible people. Now, that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the topic at hand. - SGG

---

Quote:

---

However, while the GOP relies on social issues and its own version of identity politics to maintain its base, TRUMP DID NOT WIN JUST THE GOP BASE BUT ALSO INDEPENDENTS AND SOME DEMOCRATS.- SIGNY

Now, this statement here, wow! everybody knows this.- SGG

---

Quote:

---

This is not something new. Let's move on. =SGG

---

Quote:

---

Why is that? An analysis that misses that point and which relies solely on white Xtian/ Southern strategy explanation for Trump's election misses roughly 30% of Trump voters.- SIGNY

He did ramble on a little, but you don't agree with his synopsis because he didn't go into the "protest" vote analysis? - SGG

---

Quote:

---

I think there is an important point which the follow-up discussion points to, and that is that Trump was a PROTEST VOTE. He not only appealed to the GOP evangelical base, he appealed to people who were fed up with "more of the same". People threw up on the idea of "more of the same", and with good reason, since - under Obama- all of that "growth" was going to the top 1%.- SIGNY

And yet today we have more of the same, as he pointed out in his analysis.
Only difference now is that the growth is going to the even smaller percentage of wealthy individuals and corporations. - SGG

---

Quote:

---

But they BOTH miss Trump's biggest backers, and who his policies really benefit, and that is national manufacturers and businesses (Oh, and Israel). Yes, Trump's tax cuts benefit "the wealthy" but it is NOT the same "wealthy" that the Democrats benefitted. - SIGNY

So, Trump's backers are different than Clinton/Obama's backers. I don't see any difference, if it's as you say there shouldn't be. All back wealthy and they do so by shafting workers. Explain how this is so.

Let me say this: I know of a handful of corporations that knowingly help the
working class. Ben & Jerry's at one time were very positive role models as
a corporate entity, also the Greek Yogurt King, of Chobani yogurt. There
were a couple of others in past years, but I really don't remember their names. So maybe in that sense, this is what you mean.- SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
To summarize (whew!) while a centralized government such as the United States can do much good- Medicare for all, reducing carbon dioxide emissions in ways that starts and individuals can't, for example- it can do much harm, like obliterating the world in a nuclear flash.

The further away that power to control goes, the more important it becomes to ask the question: Who controls the controllers?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
To summarize (whew!) while a centralized government such as the United States can do much good- Medicare for all, reducing carbon dioxide emissions in ways that starts and individuals can't, for example- it can do much harm, like obliterating the world in a nuclear flash.

The further away that power to control goes, the more important it becomes to ask the question: Who controls the controllers?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

This is my main point. All of the wealthy screw the workers, and they (mostly)do it through the corporate structure, not as individuals. In that sense, they're all the same. The difference is WHOSE RULES GOVERN CORPORATE BEHAVIOR AND WHERE THEY WILL BE ADJUDICATED. I know that probably sounds kind of wonkish but please bear with me and follow my logic.

IF a corporation in the USA spews pollution over a neighborhood, or steals worker's pay, or launders money, or sells contaminated medication they are subject to American regulations and laws. In this case, various state and/or Federal agencie ... county and state environmental agencies and the EPA, departments of labor, the SEC, or the FDA can step in a cite/fine/jail bad actors. If the corporation chooses to fight the issue it will be decided in an American court referencing American laws, sometimes all the way up to the Supreme Court (which happened to the agency where I used to work.) As a retired environmental regulator, I've been in many agency hearings, cooperated with our county DA, and contributed to the rulemaking process which was all done in many consuling meeings and open hearings. so I know quite a bit about the rule=amking, rule-enorcement, and appeals process.

But what happens if the USA signs a trade deal, and the rules are written, in secret, by industry representatives? What happens if one of he provisions prohibits interference with normal and expected profits? What happens when one of the provisions mandates that disputes be settled outside of the signatory nations, but in a secret trade tribunal instead?

What if a city writes a regulation limiting carbon-intensive fuels, which blocks Canadian tar-sand products from being sold within its jurisdiction? What happens if a nation writes a plain-packaging regulation to reduce cigarette sales/improve public health? What happens if a state wants to label GMOs, or limit glyphosate in food? What happens if these regulations interfere with normal and expected corporate profits? What if a corporation sues a city, or a nation? what if these nations, states, counties and cities are bound by this trade treaty? what happens if all of this is decided in, say, Singapore where their democratically-controlled laws and regulations are struck down?
Who do they appeal to?
The UN???

That is what happens under GLOBALIST policies. Globalism (which benefits transnationals) which the DNC endorses is very much like the EU: Rules are made and regulations are written that are completely out of control of the member nations. They may be good rules, or bad rules, or sideways rules (like the mandated size and thickness of toilet seats, I kid you not) but the member states have no democratic input or appeals to any of them.

Every environmental, labor, product safety hope that you might have would be subject to these transnational regulations and there would be no appeal.

I admit that the United States has a case of "regulatory capture", but if our system of regulations and our courts were so completely ineffective, there would never have been a need to concoct these trade deals. The trade deals that the Clintons and Obama and the Bushes posed removed even the THEORETICAL prospect of democratic input.

That brings up the concept of nationalism and sovereignty generally. When a nation has no control of its borders, its currency, econmic policies, laws and regulations, and these are all placed in the hands of some non-democratic entity like trade tribunals or the UN (did YOU vote for any of those representatives?? Yeah, me neither.) what happens to democracy?

Centralization ("integration") always leads to greater and greater loss of self-determintion and agency.

I could go on about Trotskyists and Marxists and centralization, but this is where I stop for today.

---

Quote:

---

I neither have the time nor the energy to answer your diatribe. But, suffice it to say, I kind of expected it. Trotskyites, sheesh! I'm glad you stopped when you did. SGG

---

Quote:

---

But, I intend to unpack the above holy mess and respond. At first glance, I saw some things that just thoroughly felt like screeching chalk against a blackboard. No matter, I will answer at some point.- SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECONDRATE: If the American public has so little control, why does the deep state work so hard to lie us into war? Why do the globalists work so unrelentingly to remove us from the picture?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
They still don't get it.

Michael Moore said it the best, right before the election. Neither party is listening to their base, but the GOP especially.


Noam has is 180 degrees wrong. Both parties have shifted towards the LEFT, not the Right, as he so laughably tries to claim. Chomsky believes that we must adopt Soviet style European central gov't to appease the gods of the " Left ".

As Trump flatly stated, and correctly, the United States will never be a socialist ( communist ) country.

We'll have a war before that happens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't think there's really a big difference between the two parties these days.

There's a lot of pretending that there is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
If you only look at the politicians: No Democrats voted for Trump's Tax cut. No Republicans voted for gun control. There are other differences, you know.

---

Quote:

---

If you only look at the personality of the voters, there is all the difference in the world between the two parties.

---

Quote:

---

It is also no surprise that when control of the Federal government changes sides, the government doesn't swiftly change directions, no matter how hard one side pushes the buttons that control the country. For people with a superficial understanding of government, it looks like there is no difference in parties because there is no differences in performance because the opposition party is still there, slowing everything down.

---

Quote:

---

Let's run an experiment after the next election: both political parties bring loaded guns to work and start shooting their opposition. I think in the aftermath that gun control will become law, which will be a win for the Democrats.

---

Quote:

---

But a less extreme version of this experiment is to elect a two-thirds majority for one party or the other. Then we'd find out how fast things can change. The Confederates resigning from Congress was an example of how fast government can move once the opposition leaves Washington DC.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

But a less extreme version of this experiment is to elect a two-thirds majority for one party or the other. Then we'd find out how fast things can change. The Confederates resigning from Congress was an example of how fast government can move once the opposition leaves Washington DC.

---

I can't imagine that would ever happen again, so your experiment will never even take off the ground.

If the Democrats had complete run of the show right now we'd be the United States of MexiPakistanifornia and we'd be at war with Russia without any guns.

Not sure what would happen if the Republicans ran the show, but I don't trust them anymore with that power than I do the Democrats.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

But a less extreme version of this experiment is to elect a two-thirds majority for one party or the other. Then we'd find out how fast things can change. The Confederates resigning from Congress was an example of how fast government can move once the opposition leaves Washington DC.

---

I can't imagine that would ever happen again, so your experiment will never even take off the ground.

If the Democrats had complete run of the show right now we'd be the United States of MexiPakistanifornia and we'd be at war with Russia without any guns.

Not sure what would happen if the Republicans ran the show, but I don't trust them anymore with that power than I do the Democrats.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

This has happened once before. Herbert Hoover did such a poor job responding to the Crash of 1929 that FDR was elected and, two years later, the Democrats finally got two thirds of the seats in the Senate. The Republicans accused FDR of making America into MexiPakistanifornia, exactly like you are doing now. The Republican opposed everything as Communism. Social Security was Communism. The New Deal was Communism. Even aid to the United Kingdom to fight Hitler was Communism.

The Bitter Origins of the Fight Over Big Government - What the battle between Herbert Hoover and FDR can teach us
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/fdr-herbert-hoover-big-go
vernment/580456/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

I don't think there's really a big difference between the two parties these days.
There's a lot of pretending that there is.- SIX

If you only look at the politicians: No Democrats voted for Trump's Tax cut. No Republicans voted for gun control. There are other differences, you know.- SECONDRATE

---

Quote:

---

If you only look at the personality of the voters, there is all the difference in the world between the two parties. - SECONDRATE

---

Quote:

---

It is also no surprise that when control of the Federal government changes sides, the government doesn't swiftly change directions at all...

---

Quote:

---

I hope, SGG, that you take apart the post that you said you would. I'm really interested in understanding your POV.

---

Quote:

---

This is my main point. All of the wealthy screw the workers, and they (mostly)do it through the corporate structure, not as individuals. In that sense, they're all the same. The difference is WHOSE RULES GOVERN CORPORATE BEHAVIOR AND WHERE THEY WILL BE ADJUDICATED. I know that probably sounds kind of wonkish but please bear with me and follow my logic.

---

Quote:

---

IF a corporation in the USA spews pollution over a neighborhood, or steals worker's pay, or launders money, or sells contaminated medication they are subject to American regulations and laws. In this case, various state and/or Federal agencie ... county and state environmental agencies and the EPA, departments of labor, the SEC, or the FDA can step in a cite/fine/jail bad actors. If the corporation chooses to fight the issue it will be decided in an American court referencing American laws, sometimes all the way up to the Supreme Court (which happened to the agency where I used to work.) As a retired environmental regulator, I've been in many agency hearings, cooperated with our county DA, and contributed to the rulemaking process which was all done in many consuling meeings and open hearings. so I know quite a bit about the rule=amking, rule-enorcement, and appeals process.

---

Quote:

---

But what happens if the USA signs a trade deal, and the rules are written, in secret, by industry representatives? What happens if one of he provisions prohibits interference with normal and expected profits? What happens when one of the provisions mandates that disputes be settled outside of the signatory nations, but in a secret trade tribunal instead?

---

Quote:

---

What if a city writes a regulation limiting carbon-intensive fuels, which blocks Canadian tar-sand products from being sold within its jurisdiction? What happens if a nation writes a plain-packaging regulation to reduce cigarette sales/improve public health? What happens if a state wants to label GMOs, or limit glyphosate in food? What happens if these regulations interfere with normal and expected corporate profits? What if a corporation sues a city, or a nation? what if these nations, states, counties and cities are bound by this trade treaty? what happens if all of this is decided in, say, Singapore where their democratically-controlled laws and regulations are struck down?
Who do they appeal to?
The UN???

---

Quote:

---

Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the Senate.

The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

If the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts.

Why create these rigged, pseudo-courts at all? What’s so wrong with the U.S. judicial system? Nothing, actually. But after World War II, some investors worried about plunking down their money in developing countries, where the legal systems were not as dependable. They were concerned that a corporation might build a plant one day only to watch a dictator confiscate it the next. To encourage foreign investment in countries with weak legal systems, the United States and other nations began to include ISDS in trade agreements.

Those justifications don’t make sense anymore, if they ever did. Countries in the TPP are hardly emerging economies with weak legal systems. Australia and Japan have well-developed, well-respected legal systems, and multinational corporations navigate those systems every day, but ISDS would preempt their courts too. And to the extent there are countries that are riskier politically, market competition can solve the problem. Countries that respect property rights and the rule of law — such as the United States — should be more competitive, and if a company wants to invest in a country with a weak legal system, then it should buy political-risk insurance.

The use of ISDS is on the rise around the globe. From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than 100 ISDS claims worldwide. But in 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. Recent cases include a French company that sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage, a Swedish company that sued Germany because Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after Japan’s Fukushima disaster, and a Dutch company that sued the Czech Republic because the Czechs didn’t bail out a bank that the company partially owned. U.S. corporations have also gotten in on the action: Philip Morris is trying to use ISDS to stop Uruguay from implementing new tobacco regulations intended to cut smoking rates.

ISDS advocates point out that, so far, this process hasn’t harmed the United States. And our negotiators, who refuse to share the text of the TPP publicly, assure us that it will include a bigger, better version of ISDS that will protect our ability to regulate in the public interest. But with the number of ISDS cases exploding and more and more multinational corporations headquartered abroad, it is only a matter of time before such a challenge does serious damage here. Replacing the U.S. legal system with a complex and unnecessary alternative — on the assumption that nothing could possibly go wrong — seems like a really bad idea

This isn’t a partisan issue. Conservatives who believe in U.S. sovereignty should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals. Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems. And progressives should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinationals to weaken labor and environmental rules.

Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry, but fascism isn't ' right -wing '. Apparently repeating this lie often enough has confused some into buying that Hitler and Mussolini were ' Right wing '. They weren't.

---