Real Time With Bill Maher: New Rule: What if Barack Obama Said It?

Posted on August 5, 2017 by FredSchneiderUS
Attachment-1-814

Source: Real Time With Bill Maher

Source:The Daily Review

Just to at least sound serious for a minute. The reasons why the Republican Party are holding Donald Trump to a lower standard and perhaps low standard is not the right term and no standard at all would be more accurate, is because they weren’t expecting Donald Trump to be President.

And having to deal with President Trump’s narcissism, inexperience, immaturity, irresponsibility, lack of intelligence (at least when it comes to public affairs) , etc, and I could go on but it’s Saturday and I don’t want to spend my whole day on this. But having to deal with all of Donald Trump’s personal weaknesses like they were producers of a so-called reality TV show having to deal with an inexperienced, irresponsible cast that believes the whole world revolves around them and they are now the latest hot pop culture celebrity.

The GOP was expecting to Hillary Clinton to not only be the next President right now, but for her to defeat Donald Trump going away not just in the popular vote, but in the Electoral College as well. And that the GOP would hold the House, but perhaps Democrats would win back the Senate. And that the GOP would be spending the next two years trying to obstruct and investigate the Clinton Administration, but not having to actually govern themselves.

The other reason except for the Russia investigation where there’s a consensus both in the House and Senate with both parties, that this is a real investigation and that Congress and Special Counsel Robert Mueller should be investigating this and that President Trump shouldn’t be able to fire Bob Mueller simply simply because he might be investigating not just the 2016 Trump Campaign but the White House as well, is because they’re now in bed with Donald Trump and his administration politically. I realize the Washington GOP and Donald Trump are not natural bedmates. Sort of like a top model trying to sleep with a serial killer with hair all over his back and chest who belches as a form of communication.

But for the Republican Party to accomplish anything politically and on policy in 2017-18 before the Congressional mid-terms, they’re going to need a functioning Trump White House and administration to accomplish those things. That is at least popular enough for them pass their agenda. Both the GOP Congress and the Trump Administration, have similar policy agendas and are close enough to work together. For the GOP to at least hold the House and have no real risk of losing the Senate next year, they’re going to have to govern and govern successfully. And they’re going to have to work with the Trump White House to do that.

I mean if the House GOP and the Senate GOP abandons President Donald Trump and says they can’t work with the White House for laundry’s list worth of reasons and I’ve already mentioned several of them and being a potential puppet that was bought by President Vladimir Putin and Russia, would be another one and instead tries to work with House Democrats and Senate Democrats on issues like health care, infrastructure, tax reform, and tells the White House if President Donald Trump that if he vetoes their legislation they’ll just override his vetoes with help of House Democrats and Senate Democrats, because now the House and Senate have these huge majorities on their legislation, because everything they’re doing now has bipartisan support, what incentive would Trump voters and the Tea Party have to vote for Congressional Republican and candidates next year? Republicans would be labeled as RINOS. (Republicans in name only)

The Republican Party is now in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation. They’re damned if they stick with Trump (sounds like a campaign sticker) because if he goes down and has no popularity that he can use to govern and Americans aren’t listening to him, Republicans won’t be able to pass anything meaningful out of Congress, at least on their own. And as a result will depress their base and ignite the Democratic base and at the very least lose the House next year and might lose north of 40 seats as well. And perhaps lose the Senate as well.

If the GOP sticks with Trump and his popularity continues to slides or even holds between 33-38%, but because of his bad behavior and what comes out of the Russian investigation, that the Republican Congress is also divided and can’t work with each other and Congressional Democrats have no political incentive to work with Republicans, because they want to at least win back the House in 2018, the Congressional GOP will go down and we’ll have a new Congress in 2019 with Democrats controlling at least the House.

I agree with Bill Maher about the Republican hypocrisy when it comes to Donald Trump.

Had Barack Obama said that John McCain a Vietnam POW wasn’t a war hero, they would’ve called him an agent of the Communist Party of Vietnam. And perhaps the Birthers would then say that Barack Obama is from Vietnam instead of Kenya.

Had Barack said that he openly grabbed women’s pussies in public, Sean Hannity and many others on the Tea Party right would have said that Barack belongs in prison and called him a serial rapist from the ghetto or someplace.

If President Obama had taken as much time off for vacation at this point in his administration, the Tea Party and others would have labeled President Obama as a lazy bum from the hood who wasn’t raised right. And I could go on but I’ll spare you.

And I’m not trying to excuse the GOP’s double standard for Donald Trump, because their hypocrisy is obvious and disgusting. And just trying to explain it in political terms and what they believe they can achieve with a Donald Trump in the White House and how bad a hand they have with him. And they’ve decided that sticking with him at all costs is the best decision they can make right now.

HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- New Rule: What If Barack Obama Said It?

Posted in Real Time, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition

Posted on August 4, 2017 by kireschneider
Attachment-1-811

Source: The Independent Institute– Social justice according to real Liberals 

Source:The New Democrat

According to Wikipedia the definition of social justice is, “justice in terms of distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society.”

People let’s say on the farther left (Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists) take the definition to mean that there should be distribution of wealth in society. That wealth should be distributed based on what people need to live well. Not based on what people earn. And of course the central government usually a unitarian government in most social democracies (one large government for the entire country) will collect most of the wealth in the country and dish it back out in the form of welfare state payments to the people based on what the government believes people need to live well in society.

So the people not just living above poverty, but living somewhat comfortably, but short of being wealthy and perhaps even upper middle class. Socialists (democratic and otherwise) don’t believe in rich or poor. They want equality of outcomes where no one is wealthy or poor, but able to live well. This type of economic system is how Scandinavia operates and the states there and to a certain extent even in Britain. (Even when the Conservatives are in charge)

The libertarian notion of social justice is to put it in plain terms is that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours, is yours. To paraphrase Libertarian Economist Walter Williams. Meaning what the people make for themselves is exactly that. And shouldn’t be subjected to taxation especially to help pay for the people who don’t have much to live on and are in living in poverty as a result.

To go back to the Wikipedia definition of social justice. Liberals (in the real and classical sense) concentrate on the opportunities portion of social justice. Liberals believe in an opportunity society. Where everyone has the ability to make a good life for themselves. Where everyone has access to a quality education even if they live in poverty. And if they live in poverty that their parents or parent, has the ability to finish and further their education so they can get themselves a good job and make a good living.

Get off of public assistance, buy a nice home and live in a nice community where they don’t have to worry about being physically harmed when they go to the grocery store, or are coming back or going to school. Where they have a basic fundamental sense and reality when it comes to their own economic and physical security. And then what the people make for themselves financially, they’re able to keep most of that and pay back in taxes what it takes for the government to function effectively and to do only what we need for government to do well for us, that is also consistent with strong economic and job growth so people are encouraged to be productive and make a good living for themselves and their families.

And yes you need an effective government to invest in what makes economies strong so as many people can benefit from capitalism and private enterprise as possible. Not to run the economy or to run business’s, or tax and regulate private business so much that the government essentially owns and runs those companies.

But to see that everyone can get a good education. Where kids aren’t sent to school simply because of where they live, but what’s the best school for them even if that might mean a charter school or private school all together.

Where economic development is encouraged so you don’t have ghost towns essentially where the only people who live there are people who can’t afford to live anywhere else. Where gangs and organize criminals run the communities.

Where you have an modern infrastructure system so companies can get their products to market (to use an old phrase) and also to encourage more private economic development.

A responsible regulatory state to protect consumers from predators and worker from abusive employers.

And a limited effective safety net (not welfare state) that serves an economic insurance system for people who are out-of-work, or lack basic skills to get themselves a good job. But also empowers low-skilled individuals to get themselves on their feet by finishing and furthering their education and learning a trade so they can get themselves a good job.

Where Liberals separate from Socialists has to do with government’s involvement in the economy. Socialists want government to take most of the national income and dish it back out based on what they believe people need to do well. Where Liberals differ with Libertarians is that Liberals believe that the people should be able to to keep most of what they earn. But that Liberals believe there is a real role for government even in a free society and that being part of a free society is like being part of a club. Where you end up paying for the services that you consume and even some of the services that don’t personally benefit you.

Independent Institute: Kyle Swan- Social Justice in The Classical Liberal Tradition

Posted in Classical Liberalism, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Crash Course: Craig Benzine: ‘The Golden Age of Hollywood: Film History’

Posted on August 3, 2017 by Rik Schneider
Attachment-1-808

Source:Crash Course– When Hollywood was Golden

Source:The Daily Review

“It’s time for the glitz and the glamour of big motion pictures that helped keep American spirits up during and after the Great Depression. Sound was a huge change to motion pictures, but there were still a few technological innovations to come, like color and aspect ration. Today, Craig walks us through the Golden Age of Hollywood.”

From Crash Course

Damn, if Craig Benzine could only talk faster and not have to take breaths in-between words, he could get a lot done. But seriously, this guy must have a year supply of free Red Bull or Starbucks coffee, because he makes speed freaks sound like comatose patients. I’m not saying I’ve never heard someone else talk faster and for a longer period of time, I just can’t name anyone right now. I would have to go through all of my memory banks and cash all them out and I might not be able to come up with another time where I heard a faster, longer talker.

I’m not going to cover much of what Craig Benzine said there, because I don’t have slow-mo on my computer and he just went through all of these areas really fast. But the Golden Age of Hollywood really for me goes from the 1940s up until the 1970s or so. It was an era where movies were about writing, plot, directing, and acting. Not who swears the most and loudest and who is the biggest asshole in the movie. Catch phrases that make rookie no names actors stars overnight where everyone in country is using that catch phrase to describe whatever current situation they’re facing.

To succeed in the Golden Age of Hollywood, you really had to be able to write to make it as a writer. Unlike today where phrases and words are borrowed from other shows and movies and used for their shows and movies. The Golden Age of Hollywood wasn’t cookie-cutter, but originalist.

Movies like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington from 1939 with Jimmy Stewart and many others. You can’t really say there was a move like that before and there have been many attempts to make another great political movie and movie about Congress since, but most of them have come up weigh short. Mr. Smith came out in 1939 and almost either years later it’s still one of the best and most popular movies in Hollywood history.

North by Northwest- still my all-time favorite movie and I would argue at least is Alfred Hitchcock’s best movie, even though many others would argue for Notorious instead. There really isn’t another movie like North by Northwest. Yes it’s a Cold War movie involving the CIA trying to catch a traitor they believe is selling U.S. Government secrets to Russia and perhaps other communist states. So that by itself doesn’t make it original. But you have a movie where ordinary people become heroes. Again that doesn’t make it original, but it’s how it was done.

The closing action scene where the good guys defeat the bad guys takes place on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. Can’t believe someone other than Alfred Hitchcock would come up with that. And then you have Cary Grant as the lead actor who arguably is the most handsome actor of all-time, but he also happens to be the best actor and also one of the funniest actors with incredible comedic timing. James Mason very similar to Cary Grant as far as what he brought to his parts, as the lead bad guy. Martin Landau playing a supporting role. The beautiful and adorable Eva Marie Saint who was also a great actress, as the lead actress.

It wasn’t a suspense movie. It wasn’t a thriller. It wasn’t an action movie. It wasn’t a mystery. It wasn’t a comedy. North by Northwest was all of those things in an action-packed movie with a lot of humor in it. That again was sell well-written, directed and delivered. Where the actors and crew knew they were part of something really special and wanted to be there and do their best work.

Today where in an era of Hollywood where TV and movies are about style and appearance. Who is up and who is down, who looks and sounds the hippest and has the most pop culture and reality TV appeal. Instead of who can actually act, who can improvise and be themselves and come off as likable and as someone who not only knows what they’re doing, but can bring something different in value that perhaps hasn’t been seen before. Where the biggest jerk (to put it mildly) who not only swears the most and puts people down as the most tends to be the most popular. Even if they’re no better than your average reality TV star as far as their ability to act.

Today if the public likes the performer and they’re so-called viral on social media and the internet, they’ll continue to work and make a good living in Hollywood. Even if all their shows and movies are garbage as far as the material. Their shows and movies will continue to sell even if the critics are beating the hell out of their performances and not taking those performers seriously, let alone respecting their work.

The Classic Hollywood era was anti-reality TV. Of course they loved their beautiful, sexy, and adorable actresses. Women like Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, Ava Gardner, Lana Turner, Elizabeth Taylor, Joan Collins, and many others were all big stars back then. And Hollywood loved their big handsome studs. Actors like Rock Hudson, Cary Grant, Dean Martin, Sydney Poitier, and many others. But the difference being that the Hollywood goddess’s and gods, were more than their beautiful faces and bodies.

If you couldn’t act back then, if you didn’t show up for work, then you didn’t work. It wasn’t an era where Hollywood was trying to sell personality and popularity when it came to their characters, over substance. Classic Hollywood was a professional era where the professionals were in charge which is what makes it so great and classic. As long as reality TV is dominating TV and movies, we won’t see another great era in Hollywood again.

Posted in Crash Course, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Week: Ryan Cooper: ‘Democrats Should Embrace The Freedom Not To Choose’

Posted on August 2, 2017 by Ederik Schneider

Attachment-1-803

Source:The Week– this could be you, if you listen to Ryan Cooper too much.

Source:The New Democrat

“Democrats came out Monday with their agenda for the 2018 election, and to everyone’s surprise, it’s not terrible. In fact, it’s sorta half-decent!

The slogan is “A Better Deal,” and the agenda includes anti-trust reforms, cheaper prescription drugs, and a plan to create 10 million jobs with infrastructure spending and tax credits. There’s a lot to like here, particularly in the clever and true way Democrats cast anti-trust reforms as a way to increase Americans’ freedom. But Democrats are also missing the chance to sell universal social programs this way. These programs also increase freedom — the freedom to not have to choose.

Republicans (and a significant fraction of neoliberal Democrats) often fetishize choice. They use blatantly circular reasoning to present any free-market system as evidence of free choices being freely made. But this is nonsense. Market concentration often reduces freedom.”

From The Week

I’m not trying to sound insulting here (but don’t mind if I do) but what Ryan Cooper wrote in The Week this week (ha, ha get it) could’ve been written over at The American Prospect, Salon, The Nation, AlterNet, or even over at In These Times and Common Dreams. Where the writers there are not just Socialists, but proudly so and proud to be Socialists. One of those New-Left (to be kind) publications that have argued that problem with America is economic freedom and capitalism in itself. That we expect Americans to make their own decisions with their own lives, at least once they’re grown up and are out-of-school and then hold them personally accountable for their own decision-making.

Their argument being that Americans simply have too many decisions to make and as a result make too many bad decisions that the rest of society has to deal with. And that you need that big centralized welfare state big enough to manage the economic affairs of everyone and in some cases even personal affairs financed through high taxes. That Americans supposedly would get back in those so-called generous welfare benefits. That individuals are somehow too stupid to make their own decisions. But big government has all the right answers for them.

The Democratic Party led by their Congressional Leadership led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, did release an economic agenda that Democrats will be pushing for the 2018 mid-terms in hopes of winning back the House or Senate and perhaps even the entire Congress next year. And it was about economic development that included infrastructure investment, tax credits to incentivize more economic expansion, and anti-trust laws to break up current corporate monopolies so Americans would have more consumer choice, because there would be more competition and Americans would actually have to make more personal decisions on their own. (What a terrifying thought!)

But this is the Democratic Party and not the Green Party. Because if they were the Green Party or Democratic Socialists USA, they wouldn’t be the opposition party in America and within reach of becoming the majority party in both the House and Senate. And instead would be in court simply trying to gain ballot access so they could be on the ballot in more elections. Let alone actually holding any seats in Congress.

If you want to be part of a party that is anti-individualism, thinks choice is a bad thing and that somehow economic freedom is not only dangerous, because leave millions of Americans to have to manage their own affairs and make their own decisions and that is also selfish, because a lot of people actually make very good decisions with their own lives and end up becoming very successful in life, the Green Party is for you. Just don’t ever expect your party to ever hold any real power in America.

But the Democratic Party at it’s best is the party that doesn’t bash capitalism, economic freedom, and wealth. But instead says that those things are good, but the problem with it is not enough people benefit from capitalism and not enough people have economic freedom and have achieved economic independence. Because quality education is not available to enough people and our infrastructure system is underdeveloped and because of that there isn’t enough economic development in the country. Which is why Congressional Democrats are pushing for infrastructure investment in America.

As a JFK Liberal Democrat (a real Liberal Democrat) I believe once people have the skills and education to make their own decisions that they’ll end up doing that. And be able to get good jobs and be very successful at them and in life in general. Which is a much better economic plan and better financial outlook for the country, because not only more people will be working, but with good jobs and paying income taxes. Which would also make government cheaper in America lessen the need for taxation, because you’ll have all of these educated Americans with the ability to pay their own way in life.

And as a result government will end up collecting more in taxes that they can use to see that as many Americans as possible can get the skills that they need to do well in life. As well as to see that as much incentive as possible is there to incentivize the most economic development as possible. An educated society is an opportunity society that produces a free society. People with the ability to make their own decisions and then be held personally accountable for them. For better or for worse. Enjoy the fruits of their own labor and pay for their own mistakes.

Posted in The New Democrat, The Week | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Joan Collins Archive: Mark McMorrow- ‘Legendary Dame! Film Flashback: Seven Thieves 1960’

Posted on August 1, 2017 by Derik Schneider
Attachment-1-798

Source: The Joan Collins Archives– Joan Collins in Seven Thieves

Source:The Daily Review

“This exciting heist caper from 1960 features Joan with a cast of Hollywood heavyweights including Edward G Robinson, Eli Wallach & Rod Steiger.. Read more in my film archive here!!”

Seven Thieves

Source:The Daily Review– Edward Robinson, Rod Steiger, Joan Collins, and Eli Wallach 

From Joan Collins Archive

Just to be personal for a minute: I’ve been thinking about this movie a lot lately, because I really love Joan Collins the entertainer. The great actress, the great wit, etc. The beautiful baby-face, voice, keen intelligence, and honesty as well. She reminds me a lot of Ava Gardner and Elizabeth Taylor who all had those qualities as well. I have 3-4 Joan Collins movies on DVD and got the urge to see one of her movies and was also thinking about Ocean’s Eleven from 1960, (the original and best Ocean’s) and decided to look at Seven Thieves again. Saw the movie about two weeks ago and saw this blog piece about it on Joan’s blog and that is why I’m writing about it now.

I swear other than maybe Brigitte Bardot, Joan Collins must have been the cutest woman in France when this movie was made. She’s her always beautiful, adorable, and witty self in this movie. And she relates very well with Rod Steiger. (The lead on the caper in the movie) If you’re familiar with Ocean’s Eleven 1960 and like that movie, you’ll like Seven Thieves as well. Except this time in Seven Thieves the beautiful lead actress (Joan Collins) has a major role in the movie. Angie Dickinson had an important, but fairly small role in Ocean’s. You only see Angie for maybe 10 minutes in Ocean’s.

Joan is not just the lead actress in Seven Thieves, but she’s in most of the movie. She’s part of the planning of the caper and in on the caper, as well as escape later on in the movie. With Edward Robinson playing the mastermind of the caper and Rod Steiger as his director sort of like a head coach for a football team reporting to a general manager.

If you like a movie full of stars, a star-studded affair (so to speak) then you’ll also like Seven Thieves. Ed Robinson as the mastermind of the caper. Rod Steiger playing the manager of it. Eli Wallach as the top lieutenant. And of course Joan Collins as the beautiful and adorable distraction and serving as the lookout so the men can get into the safe and get the money out of it before they’re caught.

And again to get back to Ocean’s Eleven where in Ocean’s the crew there is in Las Vegas to rob several casinos all on the same night, which granted let’s say takes a lot more balls and more ambitious (to be cleaner) Seven Thieves takes place in South France on the Mediterranean. Where all the members of the crew are from somewhere other than France. But the crew other than Rod Steiger has been there for a while specifically to case the joint (so to speak) and prepare for this job. And like in Ocean’s where the whole crew is from somewhere other than Las Vegas and even Nevada, the crew in Seven Thieves are not even French.

I believe Seven Thieves is a great caper heist type movie. One of those movies where the brains of the operation (played by Ed Robinson) where the crew that is put together is working with each other for the very first time and you have the lead character as far as the man running the operation (played by Rod Steiger) who doesn’t know anyone in the crew other than the man who hired him and is put in a tough situation. Doesn’t know who he can trust and what each member brings to the operation. And keep in mind all the crew members are criminals. Which is never the most trust worthy bunch. (To say the least) Not even criminals tend to trust criminals.

And the manager of the crew is having to get to know all his members while the process of the caper is put in place. The preparation and then the execution of the caper. And also any movie that has Ed Robinson, Eli Wallach, Joan Collins, and Rod Steiger as well, you’re going to get a lot of good humor in. (The nature of the characters) Which makes for a very entertaining movie.

 

Posted in Classic Movies, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Washington Post: Sheri Berman: ‘Some Argue That The West Should Limit Democracy To Save Liberalism: Here’s Why They’re Wrong’

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Erik Schneider
Attachment-1-791

Source: The Washington Post

Source:The New Democrat

America and to a certain extent Europe, has a long history of subsidizing authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and Africa (specifically) for their own national interests. The thinking being that if they don’t subsidize these authoritarians whether they’re monarchs, theocrats, or Nationalists and let those regimes collapse with democracy taking over, that the opposition would be worst for Western interests than the current regime. The thinking being that the current regime is the best that they can do as far as the West. And at least the West would be able to work with these authoritarians on issues relating to terrorisms and combating other states where they share mutual enemies.

Well, anyone familiar with the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis and what led up to that Iranian authoritarian monarchy under the Shah of Iran knows that subsidizing dictators and authoritarians has it’s limits. The 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Tehran was partially to the American and British subsidization of an unpopular authoritarian regime in Iran.

Democracy has it’s limits and everyone familiar with democracy knows that. Which is why democracy in itself is not a strong form of government, because it would always be held hostage to the popular will of the time and people would have a very hard time governing and making tough decisions for fear of losing their jobs. Which is why I don’t believe in majoritarian or social democracy, with no set constitutional rights that can be thrown out simply because one person no longer believes in them or supports one of them, more than the people who do support those constitutional rights.

Which is why I’m instead a Liberal Democrat who of course believes in free and fair democracy to choose our leaders, but that goes along with the rule of law and checks and balances that protects our liberal individual rights and liberty in general. Liberal democracy and social democracy, are not the same thing. Once you put basic constitutional and individual rights at the will of the current majority, is when those rights can be put in jeopardy. Especially when there’s a rise of populism from either the Far-Left with Socialists who do don’t believe in the rule of law and checks and balances, because it limits their big government agenda. Or Nationalists who don’t believe in the rule of law either and oppose individuals rights and the ability for people to protest their politics and policies.

The rise of right-wing authoritarian nationalism whether it’s the Donald Trump movement in America , or with Vladimir Putin in Russia and other nationalist government’s in Eastern Europe like in Hungary and Poland, doesn’t mean that liberal democracy and liberalism in general is failing. Or with the Neo-Communist rule in Venezuela and the liberal democratic opposition there just goes to show you that liberalism and liberal democracy is still strong and people still want it. Especially after watching the illiberal Socialists there destroy the economy in Venezuela. A country that is energy independent by the way.

What America should being doing instead is taking a stand against authoritarianism, whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right and stand with the people in those countries that simply want their freedom, as well as check and balances and the rule of law. Instead of having a strongman and regime with most of the power in the country and be held accountable. With the nationalist Donald Trump Administration in Washington, don’t expect America to do that anytime soon. But that is what America and Europe could be doing to expand liberal democracy and liberalism. And not watch leftist and rightist populist Nationalists, try to takeover once democratic Western countries.

Back to the old argument of who America should be backing with the choice being the devil that we know as far as authoritarian regimes that can work with us on national security issues and help us against terrorists and other authoritarian states, or the people on the ground who want the current regime out-of-power and a chance to form a democratic government.

America is supposed to be the beacon on the hill that stands up for individual rights and liberal democratic values. “The city on the shining hill’, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan. And I’m not a Neoconservative looking to replace every authoritarian regime that I don’t like. And again democracy has limits and you could literally end up replacing one authoritarian regime with another, which is what happened in Iran in 1979.

But once you go down the road of subsidizing authoritarians over the people that have to live under that form of authoritarianism, you put yourself at the mercy of those people there. And then they rise up and perhaps replace the authoritarian regime that you’re backing.

Which is why America should be pushing for democracy, but pushing for liberal democracy that comes with rule of law, checks and balances, and individual rights. And backing oppositions and government’s that believe in those liberal democratic values as well.

Salvester: 11 Aspects of a Liberal Democracy

Posted in The New Democrat, The Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ABC News: Hillary Clinton’s Full Concession Speech

Posted on November 9, 2016 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

I’m going to start with Hillary Clinton’s speech here and then go through the election. As Senator Tim Kaine put it, no one ever thought for a second whether or not Hillary Clinton would concede if she lost the election. (Not a partisan statement, just a fact) Because Secretary Clinton respects and loves American liberal democracy. Secretary Clinton said she hopes that Donald Trump is a successful president. And whether you like that fact or not and I and over fifty-million people who voted against Mr. Trump including Republicans, we hate this fact, but if he turns out to be a bad president which a lot of the country fears, it won’t be just President Trump who suffers, but America will suffer. If the country goes into recession, sure President Trump will take a hit. But he’ll still have a job at least until January, 2021, but millions of Americans will be out of their job wondering what they will do now. If he makes any foreign or national security policy blunders, the country will suffer not just President Trump. So I believe Secretary Clinton had the perfect tone here.

As far as the election 2016 itself, CNN commentator Van Jones who has taken a lot of heat today about the so-called whitelash in the country as he put it, I believe he had the best comment for why Hillary Clinton lost last night. I’m going to paraphrase here but what Mr. Jones said was essentially that the Clinton Campaign was expecting Donald Trump himself would bring African and Latin-Americans to the polls himself against him. And vote overwhelmingly with a huge turnout against the Trump Campaign simply because of the campaign that he ran. And not what the Clinton Campaign offered them and a positive vision for why they should vote for her. That they didn’t do a major investment in Latino and African-American turnout. Unpopular president’s can drive the other party to the polls against them during Congressional elections and vote for whoever the opposition party candidate or incumbent is for House or Senate. If you don’t believe me, just ask GW Bush and Barack Obama. But when it comes to the presidency, Americans have to have positive reasons why they should vote for someone. And saying the other guy is horrible is not a good enough reason.

So this election to me is about turnout. The Trump Campaign found whatever is left of the Reagan Democrat coalition in Pennsylvania and the Midwest and that is how they won Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. States where Secretary Clinton had clear leads pre-election day. And the Clinton Campaign didn’t get their African and Latino-American base to the polls, as well as Millennial’s. That great get-out-the-vote operation that the Clinton Campaign supposedly had, apparently took the night off or fell asleep, perhaps because of how long election 2016 felt. It just wasn’t there. 2016 looks like 2004 to me with the Kerry Campaign expecting millions of Gen-Xers and Millenia’s, to come to the polls and vote against President Bush. Which was how they expected to win Ohio. But President Bush won Ohio with a hundred-thousand plus votes. When 2016 could have easily had been 1988 where Americans by enlarge thought things were going well and weren’t ready to take a chance on a governor with no Federal experience in Mike Dukakis. And stuck with the status-quo in H.W. Bush.

ABC News: Hillary Clinton’s Full Concession Speech

Posted in ABC News, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Emi Music: Tom Cochrane- Life is a Highway

Posted on November 5, 2016 by FredSchneiderUS

48fafa63-c003-4be0-a21f-9476b4afa107-2

Source:The Daily View

“Life is a highway, I want to ride it all night long! Tom Cochrane is really on to something with those lyrics. To use a cliche, “life is a marathon and not a sprint.” Meaning you’re going to around a long time, you might as well enjoy it and not try to accomplish everything at once, or let one setback and negative thing destroy you. So you should make out of life as much as you can and live your own life instead of trying to live someone else’s, or trying to live like someone. You your favorite celebrity (if you have to have one) should be just that. The famous person you like and admire most. But remember they have your life and you have yours. And not everything they do in how they live their life will work for you. And in many cases work against you and get you into trouble. So we should all be ourselves and be the person we can be and make ourselves happy, but not try to be something we’re not simply because we think that would make us cool or awesome or whatever, at that time.

Posted in Life, The Daily View | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PBS: NewsHour- Paul Solomon- ‘Charles Murray- ‘Why Economic Anxiety is Driving Working Class Voters to Trumpism’

Posted on October 29, 2016 by FredSchneiderUS

Source:PBS– AEI Scholar Charles Murray, being interviewed by PBS News’s Paul Solomon, about Donald Trump and working class voters.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Economic anxiety has taken center stage in this year’s election, driving many angry voters to rally behind Donald Trump. According to conservative Charles Murray, this anxiety can be traced back to deep-seated feelings of marginalization among working class families, exacerbated by the perceived disconnect between themselves and the political elite. Economics correspondent Paul Solman reports.”

From the PBS NewsHour

The American middle class and you could go down half of a class and look at the working class in America who tend to be blue-collar and perhaps just have a high school diploma and perhaps some college and are people who probably make somewhere around 30-60 thousand-dollars a year and would be the lower middle class in America as far as income. These people have seen an economic decline in America who think the rich have been screwing them and sending their jobs oversees. And the poor get to live off of taxpayers for free.

So they’ve seen the rich get richer and the poor getting more free taxpayer funded benefits. And they’re thinking how about them and whose going to look out for them and empower them to do better in America. And here comes this rich guy someone who is perhaps even a billionaire in Donald Trump saying he’s their champion and fighter. Talks about bad trade deals and tells them immigration is costing them their good jobs. Someone who labels Mexicans as rapists and criminals and Muslims as supporters of terrorism.

As I said in my piece Sunday about Donald Trump, Trump voters 30-40 years ago would have been called Reagan Democrats and are now Trump Republicans. Southern and Midwestern blue-collar Republicans who tend to Anglo-Saxon and Protestant and have other European backgrounds and are also male. The so-called angry white-males that voted heavily against Bill Clinton and other Democrats in the 1990s. Donald Trump has as much in common with working class voters as the Christian-Right has in common with Communists.

But one thing that the The Donald has been successful and good at in his career has been as a salesman. The man could sell water to fish if given the opportunity and I and many other people would say he’s a great con-man in the amount of success he’s had at coming on fifty-years in business.

And The Donald loves power and what’s more powerful than the President of the United States. And decides he’ll try to convince millions of Caucasian working class voters in America who perhaps have never heard of Donald Trump before he ran for president that he’s one of them. And so far he’s had great success with this voting block.

Posted in NewsHour, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Al Jazeera: US Election 2016- Donald Trump Woos Working-Class Caucasians

Posted on October 24, 2016 by FredSchneiderUS

Courtesy of Democracy Journal-  http://democracyjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/20826825753_0e6a51a127_z.jpg- When you think of …

Source:The New Democrat

When you think of the Republican Party generally you think of country club Republicans, people who tend to be very conservative when it comes to economic policy and believing in low taxes and low regulations, but tend to be moderate to tolerant on social issues, perhaps even neutral. And then there’s another faction of Republicans the Christian-Right. Anglo-Saxon Southern working class Protestants, who looks at politics especially social issues from their very conservative if not theocratic religious values. And there’s their still solid, but no longer dominant conservative-libertarian base that came to power in the GOP thanks to Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and others. But there’s another base in the GOP that use to be a solid part of the Democratic Party. The so-called Reagan Democrats that first voted overwhelmingly for Richard Nixon in 1968 and 72 and then later Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 84. European ethnic Catholics people of Eastern European, as well as Irish background, who tend to be Midwest and working class.

Reagan Democrats are now Trump Republicans. People who tend to be blue-collar, Catholics, as well as Protestants, who tend to have Anglo, as well as Irish and Slavic backgrounds. Who come from working class areas of the Southeast and Midwest, who are very conservative, but in a traditionalist and nationalistic and religious sense. (Not so much political) who came of age when their people (so to speak) were in charge in America. Where only needed a high school diploma earn a middle-income and live well. Where women weren’t expected to work. Where you stood out if you didn’t go to church every week. People who hang out at sports bars, bowling allies, drink beer and not wine. Who now live in a country where they’re becoming a minority if not are already there. And are seeing their wages and economic security decline in an era where education is the key to being successful in America. Not just a high school diploma and a little college perhaps at a community college, but a college degree and then re-trajing later in life in order to be successful.

It’s not just Trump Republicans, working class religious conservative Caucasians who’ve been left behind in the New America. But they’re the voters that Donald Trump represents. Whose been running on this theory that if he can dominate the Caucasian working class in America in the votes, he’ll win the presidency without having to appeal to anyone else. The polling and numbers don’t show that when you look at the fact that Donald Trump’s base is somewhere around 35-42% depending on the polls. But that is what he believes he needs and all he needs to be the next President of the United States. Essentially blue-collar Tea Party Republicans, who oppose free trade, immigration, internationalism, integration and even equal rights. The so-called Alt-Right in the Republican Party that is now the new term for Far-Right Nationalists. Who again believe there America is disappearing and there America is the 1940s, to be frank about it. When women and ethnic and racial minorities, were not prevalent in America.

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he’s not a dumb man. He even has political skills and real sense of politics and what he can do and how to appeal to his own base. Which is by speaking their game even though he represents nothing as far as what this community represents in lifestyle and everything else, other than a similar complexion. But he’s getting away with it at least in the sense that he’s never lost this lost place in America, because they’ve been losing and have been falling behind for decades now as the New America has become prevalent and we’re now a very diverse country ethnically and racially and where higher education post-high school is the key to how well you’ll do in this country economically. The Lost America now wants that country back the country they grew up in, a country that overwhelmingly looks and thinks the way they do and they want their lifestyles back and those blue-collar jobs back that funded their lifestyles. And they see Donald Trump as their savior even as he goes down in a landslide to Hillary Clinton.

Posted in Al Jazeera, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment