Jump to content

Recommended Posts

stolen from another site: 
 

“Once upon a time, there was this actor, ya’ see. He wasn’t a great actor, but he wasn’t terrible either. Just your garden variety post-war Hollywood male beefcake. He wasn’t particularly bright, but he was very affable. The kind of guy his adversaries later in life would feel bad about telling the TRUTH about him… that his ideas were screwy.

After Hollywood, he tried out his acting chops on a different stage: politics. Conservative politics, to be precise. He managed to get himself elected Governor of California, where he declared war on higher learning. The University of California was FAR too liberal for his liking, and something needed to be done about that. And why should the state pay to educate all those liberal hippie brats that leftist drivel?

By the time the war ended, the actor had won. And college-bound kids all across the country had lost. His war with UC was the beginning of the end of free education to those willing to apply themselves, nationwide. What’s that? You can’t afford to pay? Gosh, that’s too bad. I guess you should’ve been born to a wealthier family.

From California, there was nowhere to go but up. With his own aw-shucksy brand of populism, he managed to win their hearts and minds and his party’s nomination in the summer of 1980, and the White House that fall.

And then the fun started.

He dropped the top tax rate from 72% to 29%, to thundering applause from his pals at the yacht clubs. He shoved through Trickle Down 1.0, which (unsurprisingly) rendered the poor poorer, and the rich richer. The income gap between black and white Americans became a crevasse.

But possibly even more damaging than all of the above, is the legacy he established that divided the American people from their government. Even though the first three words of our Constitution make it clear; We The People are our government, he found political gold in exploiting the suspicions and distrust at the fringe. He was unequivocal about it:

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

“Government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.”
~ January 20th, 1981

Funny; I’m old enough to remember a previous, even more charismatic president, who during his Inaugural Address 20 years prior, challenged us in an entirely different way:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
~ January 20th, 1961

Hell of a diff in just two decades, huh? One asked us to roll up our sleeves and get involved, discover ways to serve, be it in the Armed Forces, the Peace Corps, on the local school board… or as a member of Congress. The other fanned the flames of distrust.

And now here we are 40 years later, up to our necks in two historic epidemics: one, a deadly virus that Trump allowed to kill over 600,000 Americans, the other, a generation brought up to embrace conspiracy theories over reality, lies over facts, and manufactured political garbage over science.

If there’s any one universally accepted mantra in modern Republicanism, it’s that Ronald Reagan was the greatest  thing since sliced bread. He was and still IS their godhead. And if he said we shouldn’t trust the government, then damn it, we SHOULDN’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT! Even if we’re drowning in a sea of Covid.

Reagan’s chickens have come home to roost.”

- Bruce Lindner

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The founders tried to prevent the President as Leader problem but the public’s attraction to such folly is relentless. Now we know that even the legislature and courts can be duped by mere bad acting. Better democracies have a powerless yet bloviating presidency and an almost nameless PM getting the actual admin job done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan was just the mouth piece. The talking head, the puppet. The Republican party hasn't had a real candidate since the second world war. The people who run (from both sides) are picked for their elect-ability, not for their independent intellectual thought. The real power brokers are so onerous that they couldn't get elected flag keeper in a game of capture the flag.

The democrats are no better, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, and look how well that worked out for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really goes back to Goldwater and his legitimization of the Dixiecrats (in return for their votes). Reagan was a big step along the way, but as stated above more of a figurehead. The Newt started what would eventually become the Tea Party movement, and began what's also become the only Republican platform: obstruction of progress. Bush-the-lessor was most certainly a puppet, but under his watch the upward shifting of wealth continued. Also, in retrospect, putting a half-black guy into the oval was possibly a few decades early for a large portion of the country to accept - which is probably a big part of how Trump happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nice! said:

 Also, in retrospect, putting a half-black guy into the oval was possibly a few decades early for a large portion of the country to accept - which is probably a big part of how Trump happened.

I see the race card got played early in the thread..  good on you mate. 

Read reason #22

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/why-donald-trump-won/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair the trickle down started accelerating the flow of money to the top - as a result a lot of angry old white people have been brainwashed into believing everything wrong is because of liberals. Trump really played that card well - minorities, democrats and anyone else to be feared is the target.

Or how to start a cult in one painful lesson.  It's not going to end well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  You left out his earliest great acts. He was head of the Screen Actors Guild during and after the war. He is the one that turned in all the names to the McCarthy hearings ( House Investigation of Unamerican Activity) that caused so many writers and actors to be Black Listed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ventucky Red said:

I see the race card got played early in the thread..  good on you mate. 

Read reason #22

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/why-donald-trump-won/index.html

Yah sure. Except for all of those factors work together. Facebook-distributed fake news is #1. Some people accepted Facebook-distributed fake news (birther theory, anyone?) because it fit their racist narrative.

When someone accuses another of "playing the race card" they are usually trying to diminish the true impact of systemic racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Yah sure. Except for all of those factors work together. Facebook-distributed fake news is #1. Some people accepted Facebook-distributed fake news (birther theory, anyone?) because it fit their racist narrative.

When someone accuses another of "playing the race card" they are usually trying to diminish the true impact of systemic racism.

Yeah but it debunks your statement.  You did read the part where many people that voted for Obama turned around voted for Trump. 

But, do enjoy your word salad with the extra heaping of bullshit, you earned it today.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ventucky Red said:

Yeah but it debunks your statement.  You did read the part where many people that voted for Obama turned around voted for Trump. 

But, do enjoy your word salad with the extra heaping of bullshit, you earned it today.

 

My statement wasn't blanket, and what you said debunks nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ventucky Red said:

You did read the part where many people that voted for Obama turned around voted for Trump. 

A number of black Americans voted for the Drumph too; and whites switched from Obama to the Drumph. 

So what??  That in no way disproves the fact that race was a major factor in both elections. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nice! said:

My statement wasn't blanket, and what you said debunks nothing.

Correct your statement was "large portion" when Mike Bloomberg's rag and CNN say it had nothing to do with it.  Ergo, your lame attempt to play the race card.

 

4 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

A number of black Americans voted for the Drumph too; and whites switched from Obama to the Drumph. 

So what??  That in no way disproves the fact that race was a major factor in both elections. 

Do yourself a favor and just shut the fuck up now before you make a complete horse's ass out of yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

Correct your statement was "large portion" when Mike Bloomberg's rag and CNN say it had nothing to do with it.  Ergo, your lame attempt to play the race card.

 

Do yourself a favor and just shut the fuck up now before you make a complete horse's ass out of yourself.

The more you shout race card, the more racist it makes you look. 

Next you'll be telling us that nobody chose to not vote for Hillary because she is a woman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

Do yourself a favor

How articulate you are  . .  and a master of the ad hominem 

so typical of the R-wordistas 

And bite me, you cowardly anonymous fascist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

How articulate you are  . .  and a master of the ad hominem 

so typical of the R-wordistas 

And bite me, you cowardly anonymous fascist. 

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ventucky Red said:

 

3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

A number of black Americans voted for the Drumph too; and whites switched from Obama to the Drumph. 

So what??  That in no way disproves the fact that race was a major factor in both elections. 

Do yourself a favor and just shut the fuck up now before you make a complete horse's ass out of yourself.

You're a bit late with that,

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So the supreme court has ruled?

Yes, in August, but much like Gene Sperling and Joe Biden, I knew it was unconstitutional before Biden adopted it.

A brief history of the eviction moratoriums so far.
 

Quote

 

...

For a couple of days, President Joe Biden and members of his administration—citing Kavanaugh's unwillingness to tolerate an executive branch–issued moratorium past July 31—claimed they had no legal authority to re-up the CDC's eviction ban. "The president has not only kicked the tires; he has double, triple, quadruple checked. He has asked the CDC to look at whether you could even do a targeted eviction moratorium—that just went to the counties that have higher rates—and they, as well, have been unable to find the legal authority," White House adviser Gene Sperling said at a press conference on August 2.

One day later, the administration went ahead and issued just such a "targeted" moratorium, covering the 90 percent of counties where the spread of COVID-19 was rated as "high" or "substantial" by the CDC.

"The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it's not likely to pass constitutional muster," Biden admitted at a press conference that day. But, he said, "by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time while we're getting that $45 billion out to people who are, in fact, behind in the rent and don't have the money."

It was an exercise in lawlessness, albeit a temporary one. On August 26, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the CDC did not have the power to issue an eviction moratorium. Still, the persistence of these measures captures a new way of thinking among some on the left: the rise of the idea that people should never be evicted for nonpayment of rent. When someone stops paying, this thinking goes, it's a problem for public policy—i.e., regulations and subsidies—to address.

For a year, the CDC was able to lay claim to a vast amount of power—arguably enough power to impose any restriction on private parties it deemed "necessary" to prevent the spread of a communicable disease. And although the CDC order was eventually struck down, moratoriums at the state and local level will persist long after the public health threat that initially justified them has ended. Seattle's moratorium on evictions for nonpayment won't expire until March 2022 at the earliest.

Meanwhile, these moves have deprived rental housing providers of the ultimate means to safeguard their property rights and remedy contract violations. It's also made their business a lot riskier.

In response, some landlords say they're raising the credit scores they'll require of new renters and increasing their security deposits. With home prices at record highs, there's also a powerful incentive to get out of the rental market altogether by selling off properties to owner-occupiers. Neither of those outcomes is great for tenants, many of whom rent precisely because they can't afford to buy right now.

"In terms of renting it out in the future, I'm way more skeptical," says Rivera. "I tried to be a good landlord. I got [my tenant] a job. I tried to be patient. But if evictions are that difficult to do, if it's going to take a year, if I'm not going to have a sense of who's in my house, it really does worry me."

Blanket eviction moratoriums were a novel feature of the COVID crisis. They look more and more likely to be a regular feature of our future—even when there isn't a crisis.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...