Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Eddie Glaude Rocks MSNBC With A 'Bipartisanship' Takedown" video.

  1. part 7 of 8 And the wings in either party that would push for economic populism never get anywhere: a) because the party establishment is opposed to it anyway AND b) because it is objectively speaking so difficult to get things done unless they favor the interests of rich people and big biz.
    1
  2. part 2 of 8 The U.S. system has a system with ADVERSERIAL parties / politicians, but the establishment of both parties is beholden to BIG DONORS. While making cooperation a necessity to get anything done. 60 out of 100 Senators is a massive majority (to overcome the filibuster which is NOT in the constitution), and then you have to have more than 60 % to compensate for the defectors that defend the big donor interests against populist economic proposals. See Joe Lieberman or Joe Manchin who won elections on the D ticket. The ONLY issues with HIGH and EASY bipartisanship (and they are not discussed, mainstream media glosses over the issues, that are typically not popular with voters) War Excessive military spending (Congress and Senate gave Trump even more than he asked for, and less than a handfull of both paries in total) objected. That is cooperation, and not for a good purpose. Increasing the already insanely high budget even some more. That's Democratic "resistance" for you. Allegedly he was a danger when having the nuclear codes (they do have a point), but they gave him all military spending he asked for and then some. Why ? The contractors also bribe Domcrats. Trade deals to oursource more jobs or to give favors to companies (TPP was about patent protections and undermining the rights of consumers, and labor, and the rights of big biz to sue governments for damages if they do not like labor protection, minimum lwages, environmental protection. Mass surveillance - the infringement on the constitutional rights of the citizens.
    1
  3. I disagree with the professor: Norm abiding Republicans like Mitt Romney are hardly better. They would not send the mob to the Capitol. But they and neoliberal Democrats are the reason there is a mob. FDR kept the Amercian fascists of the 1930s at bay. With economic populism. But the big donors pay the Democrats for pushing THEIR interests, not for helping The People (which almost always means less profits for them or higher taxes for them. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK had no qualms to inconvenience the rich and profitable buisinesses). Democratic politicians would need to be content with the official salary of the office (around 170k before taxes) and good healthcare. Plus a pension if they held office for longer (It used to be 6 years for federal office. Jimmy Carter does not get one at least not from the presidency. It may be that he also does not get one for being governor of Georgia). No campaign donations. No perks for sitting representatives (forbidden, but possible and of course they happen). Very important: No golden parachutes for former politiciains that want to leave politics, have a health or family issue or burn out - or lose an election or are forced to resign.
    1
  4.  @nedthumberland  Obama sold out in 2008 and playing "bipartisanship" provided cover. The myth that Republicans hindered him still exists. The racist attacks made the base rally behind him, no questions asked (and they overlooked a LOT).
    1
  5.  @nedthumberland  D and R have the same big donors, it is a Good Cop / Bad Cop game and Dems are financed to 1) be weak against Republicans and 2) to win the primaries against New Deal style Democrats, then they can fight just fine. Obama is not stupid, he and Democratic establishment were intentionally feckless. I guess Republicans took the cynical game farther than Dems expected. Repubs knew they could stir up and work with racial resentment and just could not resist the opportunity. Like they did after the Civil / Voting Rights Act passed. Specializing in racism to fish for voters w/o the need to have good policies for them. The Southern Strategy. Nixon exploited that electoral windfall after the Civil Rights Legislation - and made in a deliberate, organized strategy. Rachel Maddow has a good piece on the complete failure of idolizing "bipartishanship" under Obama in 2009 / 2010. Republicans fiercly opposed Obamacare (ACA) and the immigration plan they had voted for not long ago. Just because. Obama won in an impressive manner (they attacked him on his birth certificate - no one claimed he had not won, they couldn't, it was too impressive). Blue Wave midterms 2006, good results in 2008 for Congress and Senate, too. They had the House and Senate. That was a mandate to get things done not to court stonewalling Repubs (why would Repubs support Democrats to polish up their credentials with a groundbreaking healthcare reform - one that so many presidents had tried to get passed ? Or let them have credit for saving the economy after their president had let the bubble build up) First major flaw (not a mistake, it was intentional): the Dems started not with common sense Single Payer (to compromise maybe with Public Option), but with the big donor friendly version of Romneycare (based on a Heritage Foundation proposal in the 1990s) .... but only after dragging the complex bill out for 1 year and letting Repubs lot of space and time to trash it (remember death panels ?). Did I mention that ACA and Romney care are based on the Heritage Foundation proposal of 1990 which is a rightwing think tank ? That was a reaction to the Clinton proposal then. And then some D Senators completely defanged ACA by killing the pulbic option. Which was a campaign promise of Obama. It would have created some competition for private insurers. REAL competition. They shouldhave made a few fast ! fair, simple to understand (read: communication with the voters) bills regarding a stimulus, help for the home onwers and and a GOOD healthcare reform (p.o. is a weak second best compared to single payer, but it is the bare minimum, and it would have been a start). Then daring bluedogs and Republicans to vote against it - putting them on record for the attack ads. Obmaa could have done some FDR style arm twisting. (in 1933 the Dems had all 3 branches of government and then too some Democrats intended to stand in the way. FDR was not having it. To be fair he abandoned black voters to a degree, to appease the Dixicrats. Farm and domestic workers were excluded from getting Social Security, so the Dixiecrats made sure that the black families missed out on retirement payments. SS passed in 1935 so I guess it started in 1936. Democrats (after "inviting" Republicans to work with them and letting them drag it out and water good provisions down and blue dogs killed the rest of what was good in the bill) passed ACA w/o ANY Republican votes. During a filibuster proof window of 60 days in spring 2010. Then they should have a good reform bill ready to go (and wanna be defectors been kicked into submission, they had 15 months time for that, too). Plus: gun and immigration reform. Stimulus program. The Repubs would not have know what hit them. The R outrage machine, Fox, but also the big donor friendly concern trolls of the "liberal" networks would have been a little overwhelmed. What to complain about first ?? And how to frame it as to not look like complete a-holes ? All Democratic candidates (up for election in Nov. 2010) could have done intense and unified messaging on the bills. Hello Blue Wave in Nov. 2010.They had half a year to drag the Republicans on refusing to vote with them. The only problem with that: The Dems would have needed to put the voter's interests over that of their donors. And behind every major industry there is also big finance. That is the reason the networks "concern" troll so much about bipartisanship. I disagree with the professor btw: Norm abiding Republicans like Mitt Romney are hardly better. They would not send the mob n the Capitol. But they and neoliberal Democrats are the reason there is a mob. FDR kept the Amercian fascists of the 1930s at bay. With economic populism. But the big donors pay the Democrats for pushing THEIR interests, not for helping The people (which almost alwayws wins less profits for them or higher taxes for them. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK had no qualms to inconvenience the rich and profitable buisinesses. Democratic politicians would need to be content with the pay of the office (around 170k before taxes) and good healthcare. Plus a pension if they held office for longer (It used to be 6 years for federal office. Jimmy Carter does not get one at least not from the presidency). No campaign donations. No perks for sitting representatives (forbidden, but possible and of course they happen). Very important: No golden parachutes for former politiciains that want to leave politics, have a health or family issue or burn out - or lose an election or are forced to resign.
    1
  6. part 5 of 8 Let the parties be _different (and not only on issues that do not cost the big donors anything like abortion, guns, gay marriage) and let them do their thing when the voters give the parties a majority (a simple one) - Whenever one party would do something for The People, it pays off for the other party to stonewall to prevent them from becoming very popular (that system also favors the intersts of the big donors). Democrats used to be the party of workers, unions and the regular people and they had a blast (1933 until they escalated in Vietnam. Eisenhower was for economic populism, too, he was smart. Also defended Social Security. It is unpatriotic to be against SS.. - But typically Republicans badmouthed SS and the New Deal but that did not get them anywhere. Until the Surpeme court gave the big donors undue influence in campaigns. the 1976 decision.
    1
  7. bipartisanship "sold" as necessity while the system rewards stonewalling from one of the only ! two parties does not rhyme, it is a contradiction to require cooperation to get anything done (that helps The People) - when the opposite is rewarded. (why would Republicans want to make Dems look good ? Saving the economy in 2009 after the R president let big finance run amock. Getting Covid19 under control, or passing a reform that is groundbreaking. Many presidents tried healthcare reform, and Obama finally getting it done ? Nope, Repubs had sworn to make thim a one term president). It does not lead to good governance. It is also another tool to ensure that the big donor interests prevail over the interests of voters. It is a way to make sure the other party (the U.S. has very limited choice with only 2 parties to begin with) can water down or prevent good measures. Or making things so complicated that they are set up for failure, or sneaky defunding. That is a big one with financial regulation, healthcare, voting rights, .... Stonewalling of one party by the other Even when one of the parties (or more like: a part of that party) could be bothered to do something that would be very popular with voters, therefore ensuring the party gets elected again. Even when they have a clear mandate by the voters, controlling the presidency, Senate and the House. That is why all networks (incl. the "liberal" ones) demand "bipartisanship". 1) Only from Democrats 2) when they consider doing something for the masses. They already find a lot of common ground and easily - and quietly so voters do not notice, also because mainstream media will not report on it) on military budgets, wars, trade deals, handouts for big biz, the surveillance state (Patriot Act), ....  Republicans would not dream of doing something for the regular voters, they are the party of "small government". For The People, that is - they are all for big government for the big donors: Subsidies, handouts, insane military budgets, .... The only TWO U.S. parties only ! find ageeement (easily !) when it comes to big donor interests, excessive military budgets, trade deals (that the voters do not like but they are imposed on them anyway), bailing out big biz (donors) and often war. Making "bipartisanship" a requirement also neuters that part of the D party that would deliver for the voters. It gives plausible deniability for the neoliberals that only pretend: "We would like to ... but Republicans do not let us. No, the big donors (for R and many D) stand in the way.
    1
  8. part 4 of 8 Almost all democracies have at least 5 - 10 relevant parties which allow also for nuance ! of positions. Voters CAN vote for new parties or small ones, if they get plus 4 or 5 % of the POPULAR VOTE they will get seats in the parliament. Theresa May could only hold on to being the PM of the Tory government wih the votes of a fringe right wing Irish party. Even those few seats can make all the difference for important votes - for or against a bill (like Susan Collins and John McCain's votes prevented the repeal of ACA. In hindsight: it would have been a blessing in disguise to get rid of ACA and expose the Republicans with having no plan at all, the voters would have slaughtered the Republicans in 2018). Germany has center right, center with a little left (the Social Democrats are a shadow of the solidly pro labor party they used to be), solidly left, green party, far right party, and libertarian party. The far left and green party gained some traction in the 1990s. The far right is more recent. And all have been in government at the state level, have seats in parliament, and were at least a consideration for federal coalition government. Netherlands or Denmark have government coalitions with more than 2 parties - so you have 3 or even 4 parties that have to agree while they govern together and then there are several opposition parties on top of it all. Typically coalition governments have 2 parties, more is hard to pull off, and it needs a special culture in a country to make that work with 3 or more parties in government. But most nations have at least 6 parties that have a chance to end up in government, and a small party can as well become the hinge that swings big doors, if they give a more mainstream party the necessary plus 50 percent majority of seats in the parliament. And with 50 % plus they can get a lot done - they do not wait for the opposition to get along with them (why would they). Constitutional amendments will need 60 - 70 % of the vote. But with a simple majority they CAN govern and they do. Voters can judge them on that. Which forces the other parties to be critical of the government (not to be bipartisan with them) the government. A lot of that criticism will be self serving - but if government messes up, they have a platform. Democrats chose to politely gloss over the massive failures of the Cheney / Bush admin that made 9/11 possible. As thank you the Republicans vicisouly attacked Obama from day one (they could not claim he had not won it was a very convincing win). bENgHaZi was the worst thing that has ever happened. They did several investigations on that. Bipartisanship is only brought up (by media owned by rich people and eager to please the large advertisers) and demanded from Democrats whenever they would mildly try to do something for the regular people. Republicans do not experience taht, they do not even try to push legislation FOR The People. If they are in power they are not cooperative, they push their agenda with every underhanded or procedural trick they have. Remember when they shut down the government under Obama ?? years of investigation against Bill Clinton and then they impeached him: not because of the affair, but because he lied about it.
    1
  9. part 3 of 8 Since the U.S. has only 2 parties (a problem in itself) you would at least expect them to offer 2 different options (and not only on issues that do not cost the big donors profits like gay marriage or abortions, or guns). As opposed to "kinda the same" which would be the necessary condition for cooperation / bipartisanship. They only ever find biparisanship when they pass bills that serve the common big donors. And the incentive system prevents that either or both parties would come up with good ideas that are liked by the masses of voters (which would make them so popular that the other party would be in the wilderness. SEE the New Deal Era and after WW2. The Republicans and the U.S. oligarchs have learned from that). The U.S. voters and candidates are allegedly sorted into two parties * but the legislators widely agree (or the system forces that on them) - that is a massive contradiction. Have a "unity" party (the big donor party) with a R and D wing and be done with it ! * which in itself does not allow for a lot of nuance or choice. Not for voters OR aspiring candidates.
    1
  10. part 1 of 8 bipartisanship as necessity while the system rewards stonewalling (so the party in charge does not score with voters even when they have presidency, Senate and the House) does not rhyme, it does not lead to good governance. The only TWO U.S. parties only ! find ageeement (easily !) when it comes to big donor interests, excessive military budgets, trade deals (that the voters do not like but they are imposed on them anyway), bailing out big biz (donors) and often war.
    1
  11. It goes w/o saying that Dems will not play nice with THIS Republican party. Nor should they make concessions to the likes of Mitt Romney, Eddie Glaude gets that wrong. No, the norm abiding Republicans and neoliberals (the fiction of the need of bipartisanship helps them to protect the big donors) are almost as bad as the openly rabid politicians. They did not send the mob, and they have manners - but they created the conditions that there would be a mob. Yes, also the neoliberal Democrats, the spineless shills of big donor interests. ECONOMIC POPULISM helped FDR to keep the (plenty and active) American fascists at bay. But for that the Dems have to grow a spine and show some integrity (screw big donors) and work for The People. Abandoning all pretense of so called "bipartisanship". WHY would Republicans help Democrats become very popular, win back rural areas and the South and kill it in the elections ? Of course they are not going to do that. Bipartisanship has been working very well even among the rabid attacks on Obama. it is very telling where they can easily and widespread common ground. Nothing of that helps voters or is liked by the voters. Trade deals Insane military budgets. Mass surveillance / Patriot Act and even wars But FIERCE (and secretly welcomed) opposition of Republicans to anything that could help the masses. See 2009 and 2010. And colluding ! neoliberals like Obama let them stonewall, and water down their own ideas (THEIR immigration reform. The rightwing Heritage Foundation created the proposal in the 1990s for Romneycare / Obamacare). First thing: Obama got effing Larry Summers and a few others like that into the cabinet. The wolves guarding the henhouse. I asume the idea was to give the voters only crumbs, to bail out big finance, to do a little bit on a stimulus - and to complain how much more they could have done if only Republicans let them.  Pretended ! to be weak (much weaker than they were). Only that rabid Republicans could not resist the temptation to leverage racial resentment. They may or may not be racist but they knew their base would react to it, and they knew Fox would play along just nicely. So Repubs may have taken it too far, farther then colluding Dems expected. The racially motivated attacks in a weird way helped Obama, the base rallied behind him no questions asked, "liberal" media could talk about something (other than the economic issues !) and most voters did not realize how he sold out. Many were vaguely disenchated - thus the losses in the midterms 2010, in 2012 and 2014. Only Obama could win the presidency based on personal popularity and likely some hope he might deliver in his second term (these voters had not realized the sick game that went on in 2009 and 2010, of course thanks to the good cop / bad cop routine Romney was slightly worse than Obama. That had to suffice for D voters and it did. But Democrats lost 1000 seats under Obama on all levels of government. it is telling that he won Florida and Ohio twice. Then Trump won both states. Twice. Improved in Florida from 1.2 to over 3 % and in Ohio 8 percent margin each times. Democrats should win Ohio by 8 %, or at least 3 - 5 % that should be a no-brainer after 4 years of Trump. Same with WI, WI, PA ... not the cliff hanger of Nov. 2020, but solid wins to wrap it up on Nov. 4th. In hindsight - that Biden limped over the finish line, made republicans show their true colors. The uglies showed up in full force.
    1
  12. part 8 of 8 "How will you find the votes" was considered to be a valid "concern". When Sanders spoke about his very common sense healthcare proposal (emulating what other nations have been doing since WW2. The rich nations SPEND HALF per person compared to the U.S.) There should have been a discussion right there, WHY a bill that polls well even among Republican voters is painted as impossible to pass. What is wrong with the system that is so unresponsive to the needs and will of The People ? Big donors controlling both parties and "bipartisanship" even if Democrats could pass good reforms. Dems passed ACA w/o any R votes AFTER they had allowed Republicans and some D Senators to water down the initial weak big donor friendly proposal. Some D Senators were allowed to kill the public option in the Senate (Joe Lieberman was one of them). And obama let them. The P.O. was a campaign promise. A weak second best to single payer (which is what the other nations are doing) but it would have been a good start and in the transition pahse it would not have mattered that much. the big donors knew full well why they were so against the voters having a good choise with a public non-profit insurance agency. With proper funding the same, reeasonable budget (so roughly half of what the U.S. spends per person ** on average) - the non-profit public insurers always beat for profits, it is not even close. ** per capita healthcare expeditures of nations It means ALL that is spent in the country no matter who pays (citizens, employers, government, in the U.S. also charities). Divided by ALL people in the country. "per capita" in the U.S. (but not in other nations) includes persons that do not have insurance, go broke over medical bills, get too little treatement too late, suffer preventable damages or die too early.
    1
  13. part 6 of 8 There is a built-in incentive into the American system to NEVER do anything for the regular people, and a party trying has a hard time. Only now with the grassroots organized via the internet (evading the control of the large media outlets that represent the interests of rich people and big biz) and with the second major crisis within 12 years there is some push for economic populism. A party cannot make good on the promises they won the elections on. Not even when the voters give one party a clear mandate - the naysayers that did not win on the different message can stonewall if their cooperation is necessary.
    1