Russia banning oil, petroleum product, coal exports to Ukraine – Medvedev

Posted by: TJ | Apr 18 2019 14:20 utc | 103

Posted by: vk | Apr 18, 2019 9:59:42 AM | 98
Let’s agree it is complex, expecially as authority was based on religion.
However, the concept of “wages” is capitalist, feudalism is about paying taxes and fulfilling obligations, not about receiving wages.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2019 14:23 utc | 105

Further to the issue of bankers that I brought up on the previous page, this from an article entitled “Embedded Internationalism” by David Adler at nakedcapitalism.com this morning dovetails nicely with that:
“A coup is underway at the World Bank, and no one is watching. On Friday, 5 April, the executive directors of the world’s most powerful multilateral bank voted unanimously to appoint David Malpass — a staunch supporter of Donald Trump and fierce critic of ‘globalism’ — as its new president… Malpass will begin his five-year term without a single street protest or a single press statement by a major political party.”
I take it that being a fierce critic of globalism means you are going to press for policies favoring ‘America First’ – which seems to be not the internationalism nationalists would be in favor of, sort of a paradoxical permutation there it would seem.
I guess it all boils down to how big a piece of the pie we get given.
Please sir, we want some more!

Posted by: juliania | Apr 18 2019 14:45 utc | 107

@ Posted by: somebody | Apr 18, 2019 10:23:03 AM | 106
In the English system, the only “tax” that existed was the once in a generation “inheritance tax” that should be paid (presumably, to the king)when the original “freeholder” died.
Taxes generally were in species or labor time, and was between the peasantry and the feudal lord, not between the feudal lord and the king (manorialism). That’s the general case at least, I don’t know how exactly it worked in the English system.
Feudal kings pretty much didn’t have any control over the fiefs outside his; it all depended on pure military might and convenience (hence European feudalism being constantly in war, albeit of much lesser intensity than in the Roman times).

Posted by: vk | Apr 18 2019 15:20 utc | 109

This is important and speaks to the real manipulation of the 2016 Presidential election: How Has Former MI6 Spymaster Richard Dearlove Dodged Scrutiny Despite Links To Russiagate?
One wonders if Halper, Dearlove, and Haspel ran the ‘op’ to initiate a new McCarthyism. Reinforced by US IC “findings” (17 intelligence agencies agree!! Except not – that was a lie) pushed by Brennan and Clapper.
Then consider what appears to be a cover-up by Mueller, Comey, and Barr (Note: Mueller is Comey’s mentor and Barr is close friends with Mueller) as outlined here: New VIPS Memo:

So, if it wasn’t the Russians, [then] who left the “Russian” bread-crumb “fingerprints?” We do not know for sure; on this question we cannot draw a conclusion based on the principles of science — at least not yet. We suspect, however, that cyber warriors closer to home were responsible for inserting the “tell-tale signs” necessary to attribute “hacks” to Russia….
Binney, a plain-spoken, widely respected scientist, began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. Pompeo reacted with disbelief, but then talked of following up with the FBI and NSA. We have no sign, though, that he followed through…. [Furthermore[ we told Attorney General Barr five weeks ago, [that] we consider Mueller’s findings fundamentally flawed on the forensics side and ipso facto incomplete. We also criticized Mueller for failing to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.
If, as we strongly suspect, Mueller is relying for forensics solely on CrowdStrike, the discredited firm hired by the DNC in the spring of 2016, he is acting more in the mold of Inspector Clouseau than the crackerjack investigator he is reputed to be….
You [addressing Pres. Trump] may be unaware that in March 2017 lawyers for Assange and the Justice Department (acting on behalf of the CIA) reportedly were very close to an agreement under which Assange would agree to discuss “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” in the leak of the DNC emails” and agree to redact some classified CIA information, in exchange for limited immunity. According to the investigative reporter John Solomon of The Hill, Sen. Mark Warner, D,VA, Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, learned of the incipient deal and told then-FBI Director Comey, who ordered an abrupt “stand down”and an end to the discussions with Assange.

Lastly, given the above, isn’t it curious that Trump himself happened to further Russiagate suspicions and the Wikileaks sting by: hiring Manafort, appealing to Wikileaks and Russia to release emails, frequently praising Putin?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
IMO the Deep State had two main objectives in the 2016 Presidential election: elect a nationalist President and initiate a new McCarthism. Discrediting Wikileaks ran a close third. And settling scores with Flynn was also important to them (Flynn had told the world that the Obama Administration made a “willful decision” to support ISIS).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 18 2019 15:29 utc | 111

Can’t agree with former President Jimmy Carter who said the US had spent 3 Trillion dollars on defence spending, several prominent economists at the Harvard Law School have estimated that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars costs, including long term costs for those injured amount to 6 Trillion dollars.
“Trump rang Jimmy Carter and asked why China is ahead of the US in many things ……
Carter pointed out that while China was building thousands of miles of high-speed rail, the US “wasted, I think, $3 trillion” on defence spending. “It’s more than you can imagine. China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that’s why they’re ahead of us. In almost every conceivable way,” the former president stressed.
“If you take $3 trillion and put it in American infrastructure, you’d probably have $2 trillion left over. We’d have high-speed railroad. We’d have bridges that aren’t collapsing. We’d have roads that are maintained properly. Our education system would be as good as that of, say, South Korea or Hong Kong,” Carter estimated. https://sputniknews.com/us/201904161074178711-jimmy-carter-us-warlike-nature/

Posted by: Harry Law | Apr 18 2019 15:32 utc | 113

Fitton on Mueller Special Counsel: Who was Leaking to the Media?

Posted by: TJ | Apr 18 2019 15:51 utc | 115

@ farm ecologist #61
My knowledge of “third parties” is really shaky, and the only “effective” one I can think of is Ross Perot’s 1992 run. Because of my general paranoia I strongly suspect he did it as a favor to Bush Senior to enable Clinton to take over the White House and to save his (GHWB’s) white heiny from prison. Billionaire Perot came out of nowhere in early ’92, thrashed around with lots of distracting drama, and took enough Republican votes to guarantee Bill would meet Monica. Did Pero get some perks from the Deep State for his heroics? No idea, but it wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
We have a more recent example of a Billionaire Rescue. When Snowden stole those NSA files, billionaire Pierre Omidyar swung into action to basically buy back those files.

In 2013, he announced that he would create and finance First Look Media, a journalism venture to include Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill.

It worked! I’d suppose Omidyar has not suffered any financial distress on account of his playing St. George in slaying the Snowden Dragon.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 18 2019 16:08 utc | 117

Russ,
You think you pulled the fast one on me, but I’m with Sanders or Gabbard. I don’t or ever would endorse Zionist compromised, corporate bribed Democrats. You know that from my prolific history here. So why the disingenuous snap-back? Could it be your too quick to defend a known Trump tool for a reason?

Posted by: Circe | Apr 18 2019 16:17 utc | 119

@ Zachary Smith 118
There is little practical difference between a 1-party political system and a 2-party system where the agendas of both are essentially the same. In some ways the 2-party system is worse since it’s possible to sequentially “blame the other guy” and thereby avoid accountability.
I am under no illusion that this will change any time soon in the US, nor do I have much hope that anybody who is capable of curtailing US aggression will find their way into the white house in the next couple of election cycles.
The vast majority of Americans seem to be unable to even imagine other possibilities (including some commenters within this highly enlightened forum), and thus many people don’t even bother to vote. But imagine if all of those nonvoters instead started to “throw away” their votes on alternative parties. Support for the duopoly would gradually erode, and eventually real change might come to fruition.
In the long run, strategic voting is a dead end that only perpetuates the problem. I have promised myself to stop doing it.

Posted by: farm ecologist | Apr 18 2019 17:00 utc | 121

Posted by: Circe | Apr 18, 2019 12:17:57 PM | 120
The main “Trump tool for a reason” I see here, which I define as anyone who thinks there’s anything to gain by accepting the Trump-system’s measure of what’s allowed and what’s not as far as political participation, is you.

Posted by: Russ | Apr 18 2019 17:30 utc | 123

In #125 I meant other possibilities besides voting, besides theological belief and faith in electoralism, surrendering oneself to system “elections”, defining one’s life according to one’s fandom for elections.
(It’s true a major definition of my life is against electoralism; but then that’s bound to happen for dissident atheists living amid a 24-7 Holy Roller rally. On the other hand those who are so fervent for elections and the establishment parties centered upon them yet who shriek so shrilly about them seem to be displaying a lack of confidence, given their objective preponderance of power.)

Posted by: Russ | Apr 18 2019 17:45 utc | 125

I’m with Circe,
There’s one hell of a lot of truth coming from this one poster !
They need support, respect and unity.
How will we win by the devide and rule bickering ?

Posted by: Mark 2 | Apr 18 2019 17:51 utc | 127

ADKC @ 28. Richard Hall had done Jo Cox, interesting, thx, I will look. You no doubt know about his M. McCann series – which are v. convincing but BS.. and I can almost ‘prove’ it, meaning only ! 🙂 put forward a highly convincing argument. I have long wondered who killed Jo Cox. (see Brian Cox and his dodgy activities.. nasty murk ..)

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 18 2019 18:08 utc | 129

In case the point wasn’t clear, at 131, we are hovering here around criminal and totally corrupt networks, removed from what one might imagine an ‘elected’ official, even at a local level, would touch with a ten-foot pole.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 18 2019 18:37 utc | 131

Thanks, Zachary, for the two Magnier articles.
The one talks about billions and billions being paid as bribes to Palestinian neighbors for Kushner’s Deal. You have to wonder where that will come from. Maybe the Fed will just advance the money out of thin air.

Posted by: Bart Hansen | Apr 18 2019 19:28 utc | 133

One of the Magnier pieces refers to an article by a State Dept advisor to Pompeo –
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/opinion/iran-united-states.html
Comments were never enabled, and one can understand why. At least two paragraphs condemning Iran’s foreign actions can best be described as projection. In each the word Iran can easily be changed to the U.S. In short, the pot calls the kettle black.

Posted by: Bart Hansen | Apr 18 2019 19:40 utc | 135

re my 135.
Actually things are getting worse in France, more local businesses are closing, but it’s no different from elsewhere and not the fault of Macron, who is a recent arrival. The economy is changing. If it’s easier to order from Amazon, people will do it, rather than going to their local shops. Me, I support local businesses, but how many others?

Posted by: Laguerre | Apr 18 2019 19:47 utc | 137

Laguerre @ 135, 138:
If there is one thing that Emmanuel Macron will never be able to live down, and people in France are going to remember him by, it is the fact that the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris lost the whole of its roof and its entire wooden framework to fire on his watch.
The fire may have been caused in part by renovation work currently being done there. Word has been getting out though that the French government in recent years has not been allocating enough money to the restoration that the Cathedral needs and to restoring other significant historic buildings. According to an article at the World Socialist Web Site, Church officials had requested 100 million euros two years ago to restore the Cathedral but ended up having to make an international appeal for donations after the French government decided to allocate just two million euros a year to the restoration.
Macron has been President of France since May 2017 so his policies by now may very well be affecting small businesses in France. Local businesses need a lot more than a loyal client base to survive: the very essence of being a local business is in having physical presence close by, which means probably paying a great deal of rent to landlords in areas where property prices may be rising rapidly or in areas where young people are leaving in search of jobs so that the people left behind are elderly folks on fixed incomes (like pensions) whose patronage is not enough for local businesses to pay their rent, their bills, their staff, buying supplies, maintaining equipment and having enough for owners and their families to live in.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 18 2019 21:47 utc | 139

Noirette, Laguerre
I think Noirette’s outrage is well justified. Macron represents the very distillation that produced him.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 18 2019 22:39 utc | 141

Imran Khan has a curious if somewhat cryptic (when machine translated from Urdu to English) tweet followed by a poster with a picture presumably of the citation’s reciter, Fredric Bastiat, a French political-economist who wrote a seminal text La Loi [The Law]. Khan’s tweet:
“Money laundering people involved in with grit keep going demeanor and questions asked on their response (the manner in which they rage from red to yellow are broken) from this saying lay in the authenticity clean reflected.”
Bastiat’s maxim:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” [Emphasis Original]
The resulting thread’s almost totally in Urdu, but the few responses in English give a clue that Khan’s referring to the currently established system within Pakistan being corrupt and requiring discipline and change. This has potentially serious ramifications for the South Asian political scene, not just politics within Pakistan as corruption’s rife in neighboring India and elsewhere.
Of course, Bastiat’s maxim applies to numerous nations. The Law linked is translated into English and begins thusly:
“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
“If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.” [Emphasis Original]
Makes one wonder what he’d say about today’s world. Thanks to Imran Khan for tweeting!

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 18 2019 23:19 utc | 143

Circe,
Sanders says very different things than President Trump. But so did Candidate Trump. And so did Candidate Obama. What individual D or R actors say to the masses has a mildly inverse relationship with what The Regime wants to implement. In practical terms, I predict “Bernie” loses again or “Bernie” becomes a “weak president” with a zillion excuses for why he can’t do what he promised. (Just like his “for better or worse, the F-(POS) is the plane of record” statement.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump attacks Iran and then a D — be it Bernie or Tulsi — continues the occupation with another variation of “these are the cards I was dealt; but I’ll make good on campaign promises if you’re patient and vote for me in 2024”.
That’s how I see it. No one who fraternizes with the D’s or R’s or who is allowed on TV is up to any good.

Posted by: oo goo gachoo | Apr 19 2019 0:35 utc | 145

ADKC @147–
Yes, once upon a time, voters voted for what the candidate proposed via the Party Platform arrived at during the nomination convention. Unfortunately, that fundamental, longstanding basis for determining who/what to vote for has diminished since the “Selling of the President” began with the 1980 election–and–with election meddling done by the CIA, which also began in 1980. The change in electoral politics since then is as revolutionary as replacing the horse with the automobile and the vast sums of money required to “sell” the candidate. Sanders recently upped the ante considerably, and it’s fairly clear that DNC and its Corporate Democrat allies like Pelosi, Clinton and Obama will do whatever it takes to deny him the D Party nomination, just as in 2016. And “only the American people, collectively, can stop it.”

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 19 2019 1:26 utc | 147

Can you believe that Pete Buttigieg, the foil for Trump, surged 15 points in one month? He now has 17% of the vote to Bernie’s 20% and Biden’s 21%. This is very suspect.
oo goo gachoo @146
I think you’re being unfair with Sanders. I never said I like everything he stands for. I’m a purist, but this year I’m much more realistic. Bernie Sanders is not the perfect candidate, but is good enough in a time when getting rid of Trump is imperative.
Bernie is capable of changing his positions for the better. He did so with the anti-BDS Act. He changed his position on Afghanistan. He voted to end U.S. involvement in Yemen. He wants to reinstate the Iran deal he voted for and normalize relations with Cuba and Iran, and while he doesn’t like Maduro, he’s against intervention in Venezuela and definitely doesn’t want war with Russia. Yes, he voted for sanctions but I think he would become more pragmatic with time on Russia. It’s not like Trump did Russia any favors either.
It’s as I said, he’s not perfect, but he’s much safer than Trump, and capable of modifying his positions for the better and he’s a viable candidate.

Posted by: Circe | Apr 19 2019 3:24 utc | 149

Here is a new article about the Boeing 737-MAX.
How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer

In the 737 Max, only one of the flight management computers is active at a time—either the pilot’s computer or the copilot’s computer. And the active computer takes inputs only from the sensors on its own side of the aircraft.
When the two computers disagree, the solution for the humans in the cockpit is 
to look across the control panel to see
 what the other instruments are saying and then sort it out. In the Boeing system, the flight
 management computer does not “look 
across” at the other instruments. It 
believes only the instruments on its side. It doesn’t go old-school. It’s modern. It’s software.
This means is that if a particular angle-of-attack sensor goes haywire—which happens all the time in a machine that alternates from one extreme environment to another, vibrating and shaking all the way—the flight management computer just believes it.
It gets even worse. There are several other instruments that can be used to determine things like angle of attack, either directly or indirectly, such as the pitot tubes, the artificial horizons, etc. All of these things would be cross-checked by a human pilot to quickly diagnose a faulty angle-of-attack sensor.
In a pinch, a human pilot could just look out the windshield to confirm visually and directly that, no, the aircraft is not pitched up dangerously. That’s the ultimate check and should go directly to the pilot’s ultimate sovereignty. Unfortunately, the current implementation of MCAS denies that sovereignty. It denies the pilots the ability to respond to what’s before their own eyes.
Like someone with narcissistic personality disorder, MCAS gaslights the pilots. And it turns out badly for everyone. “Raise the nose, HAL.” “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 19 2019 5:12 utc | 151

Noirette
All true. Watch the video of Macron and Podvin (le bien-nommé!!), the “porte-parole des évêques de France” coming to ND at midnight on the evening of the fire. Last time we heard of a French évêque in the news it was Mgr Barbarin, who has been convicted(without sentence of course) by a court for not denouncing acts of pedophilia while he was aware of them. Since them, the media have been more shy at inviting representatives of the Catholic Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Barbarin
https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/incendie-de-notre-dame-de-paris-cette-cathedrale-nous-la-rebatirons-promet-emmanuel-macron-1555364998
Mafias can help each other in times of need.
https://www.liberation.fr/france/2019/04/16/devant-notre-dame-devastee-macron-appelle-a-rebatir-ensemble_1721608
He was supposed to deliver a speech for the YJ and “unifying the people”, what he offered instead is to call for unity the catholics and the army!! (the chief of the reconstruction project is a 70 years old general, Georgelin)… le sabre et le goupillon, no way out…

Posted by: Mina | Apr 19 2019 7:41 utc | 153

Laguerre @ 135, the Center-Left (Socialists) under Hollande were neo-liberal, oh yes, we agree, I suppose? Valls! and the Loi El Khomri!
This all goes back to Mitterand, who after about a year (?) into his Presidency turned into a ‘lib’ reformist of that time, by for ex. – and it is a telling one – abolishing the F equivalent of Glass-Steagall.
There is an clear continuity, Macron’s ‘roots’ being undeniably in the Socialist camp, though his ‘team’ are ‘new’ and he ran on a version of the neither left nor right flag, in fact a radicalism of the center, which is a characteristic shared with fascism.
In the few (vague, unclear) proposals for internal policies put forth by Macron, he was the outlier, as compared to Mélenchon and Le Pen, who while divided on one issue (say, immigration to make it v. short), made identical or v. similar proposals concerning minimum wage (I seem to recall they proposed an identical ++!), housing for the poor, family protection, “allocs” etc.
Le Pen, as you know, is not right-wing as it was defined in her father’s time: pro-biz, pro-free market, pro European integration, exchange, anti-semetic — she made 180 d. turns on all of that, so is very strongly for State intervention /control, necessary to keep the voter base.
The reformist – modernizing force hurtling towards neo-liberalism in F is from the Center Left, and Macron is the epitome, the golden poster boy, afforded a one-time opportunity to reign.
Not a fundamental change in policy, but sliding down a slippery slope at accelarating speed, Laguerre, don’t you think? – I do.
The various measures as they ramp up, trigger reactions, as thresholds are breached … result > the Yellow Vests.
— One thing that struck me was the reduction of 5 Euros per month of the APL (help for housing) – how petty and mean can one be? What is that about except a kind of miserly punitive sneering elitism, akin to – I won’t give a tip to that waitress her speech is lispy / her legs aren’t great / the pepper mill wasn’t there?
— Cancelling the ISF (extra tax on ‘fortunes’ of the v. rich.)
— Selling off the Paris airports? (post too long, but once a country sells its airports..much could be writ..) that is a deathly stab at nationalism of any kind..
Mina 154, I will look at that, thx.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 19 2019 14:54 utc | 155

James Holzhauer?for POTUS.hoorah!

Posted by: dahoit | Apr 19 2019 16:07 utc | 157

The Sudanese and the Algerians have shown a remarkable courage lately with their sit-in and protests. What makes the whole situation a momentum is that we are two weeks from the beginning of Ramadan and no military state calling itself “Muslim” can afford a bloodbath. If a bloodbath occurs, further protests will blaze all over the Muslim world.

Posted by: Mina | Apr 19 2019 17:17 utc | 159

“China’s road to a win-win ahead of BRI forum” is Pepe Escobar’s latest recap on BRI progress which continues apace despite Outlaw US Empire projection cloaked as warning: “… that the New Silk Roads, or the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), are a perfidious neo-imperial debt trap set up by Yellow Peril 2.0 are vastly exaggerated.” The recap links to a 17+1 statement that immediately puts forth its opposition to Outlaw US Empire behavior:
“The Participants hold that 16+1 Cooperation is an embodiment of the 17 countries jointly supporting the development of a sustainable and open world economy, and a rules-based multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its core. The Participants reaffirm their commitment to uphold the UN Charter and international law, the three pillars of the UN and transparency, inclusiveness, fairness, justice and pragmatism. The Participants express their commitment to fight corruption and bribery in all their forms. The Participants are determined to promote economic globalization, help realize the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, and encourage full implementation of the Paris Agreement.” [My Emphasis]
You can be certain the upcoming BRI Forum in Beijing will be sparsely covered in English language media if it gets noticed at all. As for comments by the Outlaw US Empire, Tom Luongo makes this observation: “If a US Secretary of State bloviates in public and no one actually listens to him does he even matter?”
It seems apparent that Outlaw US Empire efforts to keep the world from becoming involved with BRI/EAEU have utterly failed, its desperate gambits pushing potential BRI partners together instead of apart. That China’s making BRI progress in Latin America despite the Empire’s imposition of supposedly “friendly governments” says a lot about the Empire’s overall weakness. This was further emphasized today by Lavrov at a meeting of the International Council on Cooperation and Investments:
“We see here the direct abuse of the status of the US dollar, which in the long run will negatively affect this currency. Everyone understands its insecurity, at least in the conditions that are now formed on world markets as a result of the US position.”
Once the UK and other European Colonial nations imposed extraterritoriality onto others, but they suffered blowback and no longer try since such unilateral actions are illegal. Soon, the Outlaw US Empire will suffer similar consequences to its behavior as it continues to exclude itself from the family of nations despite its continuing attempt to keep its patriarchal hegemonic position.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 19 2019 18:22 utc | 161

ADKC
Obama pledged to have a “public option” in his health reform. “Public option” would likely have been Medicare or very much like Medicare. It was part of “Change You Can Believe In” promise.
Republicans smeared Obama as a “socialist” but Obama was actually a faux populist servant of the establishment. So no “public option” ever appeared. Obama later claimed that he decided not to have a “public option” because it was “unAmerican”.
So why should we trust Sanders? Sanders, like “socialist” Obama before him, has already proven his preference for the establishment when he:

>> supported his “friend of 25 years” Hillary despite DNC-Hillary collusion;
>> refused to lead a Movement for real change (as many urged him to do).

————
This is what Russ means when he complains about “electoralism”. Promises made by duopoly candidates are meaningless. Even academic studies have shown that the public’s wishes are ignored.
But the establishment gets away with it because the economy is not terrible and they own the media.
———–
Sanders got more support than expected in 2016. In 2020 that support will be watered down because there are multiple progressive candidates. That will likely allow an establishment candidate to be the nominee.
Although Trump is likely to win a second term, the Democratic nominee will be able to get loads of media attention that sets him/her up to win the Presidency in 2024.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 19 2019 18:52 utc | 163

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 19, 2019 2:08:52 PM | 161
“Sanders may not ever even be in a position to deliver what he promises..”
I think that’s by design. Certainly senator F-35 had no default change mechanism.
“so it’s a hopeless individualistic position and has no collective movement behind it.”
We’ll see whether Gaia extrudes an anti-destruction movement, or whether she purges this purely destructive civilization directly.

Posted by: Russ | Apr 19 2019 19:50 utc | 165

ADKC: I did say that, until something else emerges …
Well, you’re missing a pretty important point, which Russ and I know implicitly:

Electoralism is designed to ensure that no alternative emerges.

Here is electoralism at work:

You gotta vote!
But don’t waste your vote!
Vote for {favoriate Republican or Democrat candidate} !

Same shit, different day, in the land of the free to be bamboozled.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Also I take issue with your characterization of Russ and I as “individualistic” and lacking collectivist vision. We advocate MOVEMENTS (like Yellow Vests) or third-party voting as the best way to counter the establishment voting con. And, in fact, there are hundreds of thousands of third-party voters and millions don’t vote at all because … get this … THEY DON’T THINK IT CHANGES ANYTHING.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 19 2019 20:35 utc | 167

Jackrabbit @168
Again, you fail to appreciate it is the collective engagement with your fellow Americans that the election affords that is the issue I am concerned with.
The gilets jaunes are, as have explained elsewhere, utterly different to that which you imagine and are just ordinary French people (who voted) and are defending the French culture and way of life which they feel is under attack.
Third party voting is completely in line with the views I have expressed. I have no problems with third-party voting and I have voted for third parties.
People who don’t vote, do not do so as a collective act, they do it because of despair, isolation, alienation, individualism, exclusion, etc – Not voting, or rather not collectively engaging to formulate what policies they want, is definitely against their interests. You are deluding yourself if you believe that not voting is an act of collective defiance (I’m not saying it couldn’t be, but if definitely isn’t the case in the US).
Engaging in the process, including voting, can make a difference. Not voting definitely has no effect.

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 19 2019 21:14 utc | 169

Wow! UK newspapers finally start telling truth about Corbyn instead of beating about the bush with lies. Torygraph:
“The momentum in British politics is with Jeremy Corbyn. He must be stopped.”
The Times:
“The Times there, starkly exposing why elites are so hostile to #Corbyn’s Labour. Not bogus ‘anti-Semitism’ charges, not respect and support for democratically elected ‘dictators’ like #Maduro, but the threat they pose to corporate profits driven by death and destruction.”
Seems rather good press to me as it appears the fake news, smearing and false issues have all failed to do the job so the only tool remaining is direct confrontation. I’m reminded of Captain Hook as the tick-tock of the clock keeps coming closer for May’s government.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 19 2019 22:56 utc | 171

Something for barflies to do over the weekend, watch Empire and Economics: The Long History of Debt-Cancelation from Antiquity to Today a 2 hour long in-depth discussion with “Dr. Michael Hudson, New Testament Scholar Dr. Aliou Niang and Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, Biblical Scholar and co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, for a discussion on the history of debt and what it means for our context today. Moderated by Shailly Gupta Barnes and the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights and Social Justice.”
Seriously. Get a beverage, a snack and note taking material, get comfortable and watch Hudson provide a far deeper explanation of his work than what’s been provided so far. What he’s presenting is potentially revolutionary, and he knows it. His challenge is to disseminate his findings as far as he can before the Money Power shuts him down–and he knows they will try as that power bloc has a very long and sordid history of doing so.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 20 2019 0:58 utc | 173

Below is a posting at Xinhuanet about Korea
Pompeo says U.S. to continue negotiation after DPRK’s tactical weapon test-firing
The take away quote
”
Pompeo swept aside Pyongyang’s demand about replacing him by someone “more careful and mature” to deal with the talks.
“Nothing’s changed. We’re continuing to work to negotiate. I’m still in charge of the team,” he said.
”
I have posited before that Korea will reunify w/o US involvement and then tell the US to get out. I still stand by that potential scenario

Posted by: psychohistorian | Apr 20 2019 5:07 utc | 175

thecelticwithinme asked:

Anyone know what Malta’s airspace looks like?

I do not know enough about this but I have taken a screenshot of ICAO FIR WORLD where the blue lines delineate FIRs and you can see FIR MALTA LMMM which is controlled by Malta (or the US it would seem :P). The green lines delineate the median lines between the exclusive economic zones.
I am guessing the news is about the FIR but I could be wrong (again I don’t know enough about this). The US thinks it can force more places than Malta to not allow Russian planes but I doubt it can because air travel and transport between Asia and Europe requires being allowed by Russia to fly across Russia to have any competitive advantage.
Here’s the link to the ICAO GIS I used to take the screenshot, it requires permitting Flash to work.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Apr 20 2019 5:58 utc | 177

Also while this can be done at the ICAO FIR GIS thing it’s sort of messy so instead one can take a look at this easily linkable map result showing the Maltese territorial seas in red.
One possible definition or interpretation of “airspace” would be that and the land mass it encloses which is why I doubt that’s what they’re talking about since it’s a very small area (or rather volume) compared to the FIR seen in the previous screenshot.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Apr 20 2019 6:24 utc | 179

Mina, I did watch the Todd and Gauchet conf.
Yes, that was a good remark! (re. Mussolini.) Fascists like Musso saw a Mega-Nation (centrist, beyond stupid left-right quarrels) melded with Corporations in a Fantastical Impulse of National Renewal and Communal March Forward. (apologies for the caps, attempt at flavor.)
Macron, conversely, is concentrated on pillage – in the form of asset stripping – for his friends, patrons, and parts of the upper-classes, which is not an economic program for a country. (Not to mention his own self-gratification!) I don’t think Macron is a fascist – not really – but a radical Center stance can function as a cover up for mulitple ‘sins’. Basically, the populace is de-politisised, the media are controlled, etc., only the Leader counts, etc.
Re. other links you posted, I have watched them now, what can one say. Barbarin est également bien-nommé..

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 20 2019 13:56 utc | 181

donkey
You’re still spinning sh*t and trying to discredit me in the process.
I’ve described the case for Sanders as sheepdog many times. I’m not the only one to make the ‘sheepdog’ accusation, and Bernie’s failings as a candidate is both well-known and readily available online.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
AFAIK, Black Agenda Report was the first to call Bernie a sheepdog: Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders: Sheepdogging for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016. I’ve linked to that post many times. It describes what a sheepdog is and makes a solid case for Bernie’s being one.
– – – –
In October 2015 Sanders dismissed concerns about Hillary’s emails saying, “enough of the emails”. This was an amazing gift to his opponent – unthinkable for any real candidate. Despite the fact that Hillary’s email troubles would almost certainly be an issue in the general election, Sanders never pressed her on the issue, even after the FBI released a determination that secrets had been sent via the Clinton home email server.
Sanders also refused to bring up other “character issues” from Hillary’s past that might improve his chances to win the election but would damage Hillary.
– – – –
During the crucial NY debate (the last debate between the candidates which Bernie HAD TO WIN), Bernie failed to counter Hillary’s declaration that she NEVER changed her vote for money by citing the well-known example of her doing so.
Sanders failure to bring it up in the crucial debate even more strange and disturbing given that in February 2016 Bernie’s campaign had objected to Hillary’s assertion that she was never influenced by money (see: The Vote for Bankruptcy Reform that Haunts Hillary Clinton)!!
– – – –
Then, of course, there’s the fact that Bernie continued to support Hillary despite DNC-Hillary collusion and Hillary’s REWARDING Debra Wasserman-Schultz with a top position in her campaign after the scandal broke.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 20 2019 16:24 utc | 183