In the article "Voting in the absence of Choice", By Charles Sullivan, (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15540.htm), Mr. Sullivan states, what seems like a growing realisation, that it does not matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power. His reason is because US politics is already 'bagged' by corporate ties, manipulation and economic exclusivity. No Zionist influence is specifically mentioned. The swing of the article is very much in tune with what I stated in a previous post, in that, I accuse many Democrats of being in the pocket of dual-loyal Zionist lobby, as well mentioning the financial corruption of 'Washington', primarily through these same lobby groups and via their corporate arm.
Some chose to TOTALLY avoid these facts, and instead, hurled insults. I was said to be having a dig at John Kerry because he was i) in favour of pre-emptive war, ii) stated he would also have gone to war against Iraq, iii) that he wanted to send 40,000 more troops there. It seems like there is little stomach to discuss US politics from that angle, for whatever reason.
Can we discuss these points instead?
To those that don’t believe “it makes no difference who is in powerâ€Â, now that the Democrats are said to have control of both House and Senate:
a) The basis for people being pro-democrat?
b) The reasons for being happy at the outcome of these mid-terms? (partisanship aside which can be covered in point ‘a’)
c) What you think the democrats will do what is so different from the current political reality (are you familiar with their stated policies or know of their future policy announcements)
d) What difference will the new political scenery make, to US policy on the election of the next US president?
Your points are good ones, yes it is the "Twin Parties of Militarism", no doubt. However, having the Dems in power will make some difference.
1) I expect the noxious assaults on freedom, like revoking habeus corpus, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, CIA torture prisons, and torture in general will be rolled back. This is a seriously big deal.
2) The vote was an antiwar vote. The Dems may be forced to act because it's obvious the US is losing the wars and because the populace wants them ended. During the Civil Rights era, Dem senators strongly oppose it at first, then finally backed it and passed the Civil Rights act because that's where the votes were and they saw the handwriting on the wall. The same process may well happen on the wars.
3) Supreme Court nominations. Bush will not be able to get a right winger confirmed with a Dem senate. Another major big deal.
4) Investigations. The Dems will now control the committees, have subpoena power and be able to start investigations.
5) The neocon / Religious Right agenda is dead, as their power base in Congress is either gone or now longer in control.
On November 9th, 2006 Captain Swing (not verified) says:
I dont think anyone with a reasonable, net-sourced grasp of things really believes that the Dems are shining knights; past experience shows that yes, many of them have been bought and paid for. But there is a significant difference between this and past drubbing of the right, namely that the REAL progressive forces are not going to shut up shop and go back to sleep; we know that the fight goes on to roll back the dead, deadly hand of corporate greed and theofacism. So the Republicans have been dumped - good, now lets keep up the good work both in the States and over here. There are district elections in the UK next year, so we have to make it starkly clear that until the Blair cabal is gone NO election is just a local election.
On November 10th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
polizeros (and others) thanks for engaging
To discuss your 1), I would ask how can an the Dems prevent what's already happened? E.g. you say they will stop the GOP from e.g. revoking habeus corpus etc, but thats already gone, as are aspects of the Geneva convention, and otrture camps. Are you saying the Dems will repeal these laws/actions? I dont think they will becasue they will hoping to keep those powers for when Hellary Clinton becomes the next President? Its similiar to the UK Tories, why will relish the Fascism Tony Blair has helped create.
On November 10th, 2006 Cassandra (not verified) says:
You're right.
The differences are pretty minimal. We'll probably see a return to something like the 'Clinton doctrine' in foreign affairs. Intervention will take less overtly violent forms - air attacks and crippling sanctions rather than massive troop deployments and 'shock and awe.' Still, it makes a difference to the victims: There's likely to be less of a reliance on extreme and overwhelming violence, and a return to old fashioned subversion and manipulation of non-client regimes. Who knows..?
I don't see the Dems as neo-fascists, just garden variety imperialists. So I think they will repeal many of the Bush excesses, like ok of torture, no habeas corpus, etc.
If that's true it's great
If that's true it's great news indeed.
In the article "Voting in
In the article "Voting in the absence of Choice", By Charles Sullivan, (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15540.htm), Mr. Sullivan states, what seems like a growing realisation, that it does not matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power. His reason is because US politics is already 'bagged' by corporate ties, manipulation and economic exclusivity. No Zionist influence is specifically mentioned. The swing of the article is very much in tune with what I stated in a previous post, in that, I accuse many Democrats of being in the pocket of dual-loyal Zionist lobby, as well mentioning the financial corruption of 'Washington', primarily through these same lobby groups and via their corporate arm.
Some chose to TOTALLY avoid these facts, and instead, hurled insults. I was said to be having a dig at John Kerry because he was i) in favour of pre-emptive war, ii) stated he would also have gone to war against Iraq, iii) that he wanted to send 40,000 more troops there. It seems like there is little stomach to discuss US politics from that angle, for whatever reason.
Can we discuss these points instead?
To those that don’t believe “it makes no difference who is in powerâ€Â, now that the Democrats are said to have control of both House and Senate:
a) The basis for people being pro-democrat?
b) The reasons for being happy at the outcome of these mid-terms? (partisanship aside which can be covered in point ‘a’)
c) What you think the democrats will do what is so different from the current political reality (are you familiar with their stated policies or know of their future policy announcements)
d) What difference will the new political scenery make, to US policy on the election of the next US president?
Your points are good ones,
Your points are good ones, yes it is the "Twin Parties of Militarism", no doubt. However, having the Dems in power will make some difference.
1) I expect the noxious assaults on freedom, like revoking habeus corpus, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, CIA torture prisons, and torture in general will be rolled back. This is a seriously big deal.
2) The vote was an antiwar vote. The Dems may be forced to act because it's obvious the US is losing the wars and because the populace wants them ended. During the Civil Rights era, Dem senators strongly oppose it at first, then finally backed it and passed the Civil Rights act because that's where the votes were and they saw the handwriting on the wall. The same process may well happen on the wars.
3) Supreme Court nominations. Bush will not be able to get a right winger confirmed with a Dem senate. Another major big deal.
4) Investigations. The Dems will now control the committees, have subpoena power and be able to start investigations.
5) The neocon / Religious Right agenda is dead, as their power base in Congress is either gone or now longer in control.
I dont think anyone with a
I dont think anyone with a reasonable, net-sourced grasp of things really believes that the Dems are shining knights; past experience shows that yes, many of them have been bought and paid for. But there is a significant difference between this and past drubbing of the right, namely that the REAL progressive forces are not going to shut up shop and go back to sleep; we know that the fight goes on to roll back the dead, deadly hand of corporate greed and theofacism. So the Republicans have been dumped - good, now lets keep up the good work both in the States and over here. There are district elections in the UK next year, so we have to make it starkly clear that until the Blair cabal is gone NO election is just a local election.
"What you think the
"What you think the democrats will do that is so different.."
It's not what they will do, it's what their new majorities will prevent the barking right from doing...
polizeros (and others)
polizeros (and others) thanks for engaging
To discuss your 1), I would ask how can an the Dems prevent what's already happened? E.g. you say they will stop the GOP from e.g. revoking habeus corpus etc, but thats already gone, as are aspects of the Geneva convention, and otrture camps. Are you saying the Dems will repeal these laws/actions? I dont think they will becasue they will hoping to keep those powers for when Hellary Clinton becomes the next President? Its similiar to the UK Tories, why will relish the Fascism Tony Blair has helped create.
Tonys Akiller.
You're right. The
You're right.
The differences are pretty minimal. We'll probably see a return to something like the 'Clinton doctrine' in foreign affairs. Intervention will take less overtly violent forms - air attacks and crippling sanctions rather than massive troop deployments and 'shock and awe.' Still, it makes a difference to the victims: There's likely to be less of a reliance on extreme and overwhelming violence, and a return to old fashioned subversion and manipulation of non-client regimes. Who knows..?
I don't see the Dems as
I don't see the Dems as neo-fascists, just garden variety imperialists. So I think they will repeal many of the Bush excesses, like ok of torture, no habeas corpus, etc.
I don't even think they are
I don't even think they are imperialists by nature, rather they are liberals compromised by the need to pay off their sponsors.
***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".