#what they should do is stage a hostile takeover of the democratic party | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

What Are The Main Platform Ideas Of Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-are-the-main-platform-ideas-of-republicans/

What Are The Main Platform Ideas Of Republicans

National Republican Platform Adopted By The National Republican Convention Held In Chicago May 17 1860 Chicago Press And Tribune Office Chicago Illinois 1860 Library Of Congress Rare Book And Special Collections Division Alfred Whital Stern Collection Of Lincolniana Https://googl/lcbfpa

Resolved, that we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States in Convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations:

That the history of the nation during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.

That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, “That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States must and shall be preserved.

. . .

Republican Platform Of 1860. A reprint of the original broadside containing the Republican Platform of 1860, adopted by the National Republican Convention held in Chicago, 1860. Library of Congress, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rbpe.0180010b.

Study Questions

Apply Special Scrutiny To Refugees Foreign Nationals From Countries Linked To Islamic Terror

Similar to Donald Trump’s proposals for “extreme vetting” of any immigrants and refugees from countries plagued by extreme terror groups, the Republican platform calls for “special scrutiny” to be applied to those seeking entry into the U.S. from “regions associated with Islamic terrorism.” The document, however, did not call for a temporary ban on Muslims stepping foot on U.S. soil — a proposal made by Trump during his presidential campaign.

“To ensure our national security, refugees that cannot be carefully vetted, cannot be admitted to the country, especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism,” the GOP wrote in its platform.

It goes on, “To keep our people safe, we must secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws, and properly screen refugees and other immigrants entering from any country. In particular we must apply special scrutiny to those foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States from terror-sponsoring countries or from regions associated with Islamic terrorism.”

In 2012, the party platform only made one mention of refugees:

“We affirm our country’s historic tradition of welcoming refugees from troubled lands,” it read. “In some cases, they are people who stood with us during dangerous times, and they have first call on our hospitality.”

How Different Are The Policies Of The Republican And Democratic Parties

The public sees a clear distinction between the policy positions of the Republican and Democratic parties: About half say the positions of the two parties are very different, while another 34% say they are somewhat different. Just 14% say they are either not too or not at all different.

Partisans are especially likely to see the two parties as holding different views: 60% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats say the parties take very different policy positions.

Republicans and Democrats also do not see many good ideas coming out of the other party. Among Democrats, just 21% say the Republican Party has either a lot or some good ideas; 43% say it has a few and 34% say it has almost no good ideas. Views of the Democratic Party’s ideas among Republicans are similarly skeptical: Only 16% say the Democratic Party has a lot or some good ideas, while 40% say it has a few and 43% say it has almost none.

Why Trumps Team Initially Wanted To Rethink The Gop Platform This Year

Back in 2016, most of the delegates to the Republican National Convention were chosen while Trump’s hostile takeover of the party was still in progress. And as Trump started to clinch the nomination, he mostly ceded the platform-drafting task to those delegates, a process that was dominated by conservative activists.

This resulted in embarrassing stories about how, for instance, the Republican platform had language “conversion therapy”— sending a child to therapy to try to change their sexual orientation. There was also a messy controversy involving a proposed amendment in support of providing lethal aid to Ukraine. Trump advisers helped defeat the amendment, and critics argued that showed they were too supportive of Russia.

Overall, Republicans had a fairly typical platform-drafting process, one in which various delegates are named to a committee and negotiations take place in a way that’s guided but not always controlled by the presidential campaign. It’s a process that seems a bit antiquated. The end product is certainly not optimally designed to serve the interests of the presidential candidate or to speak to voters.

So this May, Axios’s Jonathan Swan reported that Kushner wanted to change all that.

Kushner was probably acting at Trump’s behest, if this later tweet from the president is any indication:

The Republican Party has not yet voted on a Platform. No rush. I prefer a new and updated Platform, short form, if possible.

— Donald J. Trump June 12, 2020

Exclusive: Dozens Of Former Republican Officials In Talks To Form Anti

5 Min Read

– Dozens of former Republican officials, who view the party as unwilling to stand up to former President Donald Trump and his attempts to undermine U.S. democracy, are in talks to form a center-right breakaway party, four people involved in the discussions told Reuters.

The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump, ex-Republican ambassadors and Republican strategists, the people involved say.

More than 120 of them held a Zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of “principled conservatism,” including adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law – ideas those involved say have been trashed by Trump.

The plan would be to run candidates in some races but also to endorse center-right candidates in others, be they Republicans, independents or Democrats, the people say.

Evan McMullin, who was chief policy director for the House Republican Conference and ran as an independent in the 2016 presidential election, told Reuters that he co-hosted the Zoom call with former officials concerned about Trump’s grip on Republicans and the nativist turn the party has taken.

Three other people confirmed to Reuters the call and the discussions for a potential splinter party, but asked not to be identified.

‘THESE LOSERS’

“The only way we’re going to win is if we come together,” she said.

Greater Agreement With Partys Positions Among The Politically Engaged

Republicans and Democrats who are highly engaged with politics are more likely to agree with their own party’s positions on issues than those who are less engaged.

Among Republicans who are highly engaged with politics , 88% say they agree with the Republican Party’s positions on at least five of seven major issues. Republicans who have medium or low levels of political engagement are less likely to express agreement with their own party on these issues .

The same relationship between political engagement and in-party issue agreement is seen among Democrats. Nine-in-ten highly engaged Democrats agree with their own party on most of the seven issues, compared with 72% of Democrats with medium levels of political engagement and 63% of Democrats with low levels of political engagement.

More politically engaged Republicans and Democrats also are more likely than the less engaged to see large differences between the policies of the two parties and to say the other party has almost no good ideas.

Why Republicans Didnt Write A Platform For Their Convention This Year

TEAM BEPINKU.COMSomething Special

The Republican Party took an unusual approach to writing its convention platform for 2020: It decided not to write one.

Rather, the GOP is reusing its platform from four years ago, which was written before Donald Trump became president. That means Republican delegates will not go through the usual process of deliberating over policies and principles to determine what the party stands for in 2020, as Democrats recently did.

A Republican National Committee resolution on the topic says the reason the party has no new platform is the Covid-19 pandemic, which has necessitated a scaled-back convention this year. Since all the delegates couldn’t gather in person, they claim, they’re not doing a platform.

But that’s not all there is to the story. Just a few months ago, word leaked out that Trump’s team, led by his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, had big plans to shake up the platform by dramatically shortening it — plans that drew the ire of some conservative activists, who were used to exerting their influence on the lengthy document.

So, back in June, the party made the decision to skip platform-drafting entirely and just reuse the 2016 document, citing the pandemic as the reason. It’s unclear if this was done deliberately to avoid messy party infighting over the platform, but it certainly had that effect.

Studying The Bible Should Be Offered In Public School Curricula

“A good understanding of the Bible being indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage state legislatures to offer the Bible in a literature curriculum as an elective in America’s high schools,” the platform reads.

The 2012 platform made no such push for the Bible in public schools.

Why Did The Democratic And Republican Parties Switch Platforms

02 November 2020

Around 100 years ago, Democrats and Republicans switched their political stances.

The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States didn’t always stand for what they do today.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures.

After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice. And again, Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.

Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, the founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the party of small government became the party of big government, and the party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.

In A First Republicans Solicit Ideas For Party Platform Online

Save Story

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

Republican leaders on Friday launched an innovative new effort to solicit ideas from and gather information about its grassroots cohorts through a new website designed to build its party platform.

The move is a sharp departure from the party’s traditional top-down, one-voice messaging techniques, and is a bold one at a time when there is plenty of dissent within its ranks.

The web site GOPPLatform2008.com, was launched Friday morning, but news of its first broke on the microblogging service Twitter, where the RNC’s eCampaign Director Cyrus Krohn quietly announced it.

The site requires users to register, and offers them the ability to submit their ideas either through text or via video.

Voters can view each others’ submissions online, and they can discuss their ideas with each other on a .

The site offers users the choice of submitting ideas on any subject they choose, or on a pre-selected group of top issues that include: accountability in education; energy and gas prices; healthcare reform; the economy; judicial nominations; national security and “protecting American values.”

Republican leaders sounded several of this presidential campaign cycle’s popular themes in their video welcome messages.

“This web site really is about you: Your ideas, your issues, and most important of all, your aspirations,” said RNC Chairman Mike Duncan in a pre-recorded online video.

Government Is Not The Solution To Domestic Social Problems

This is pretty universal among Republicans. Government should not be providing solutions to problems that confront people . Those problems should be solved by the people themselves. A Republican would say that relying on the government to solve problems is a crutch that makes people lazy and feel entitled to receive things without working for them.

Religion And The Belief In God Is Vital To A Strong Nation

Republicans are generally accepting only of the Judeo-Christian belief system. For most Republicans, religion is absolutely vital in their political beliefs and the two cannot be separated. Therefore, separation of church and state is not that important to them. In fact, they believe that much of what is wrong has been caused by too much secularism.

Those are the four basic Republican tenets: small government, local control, the power of free markets, and Christian authority. Below are other things they believe that derive from those four ideas.

The Racist Theory That Inspired Murderers Is Now Gop Dogma

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty

Newt Gingrich, Stephen Miller, Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene, among others, all keep alluding to the same vicious, violent idea.

The hoods are off, and Republicans are embracing the white supremacist “replacement theory.”

If you’re dismissing this as fear-mongering or click-bait, you probably missed Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House and renowned adulterer, espousing replacement theory rhetoric on Fox News earlier this week while talking to host Maria Baritromo, who always has time to offer a platform to dangerous conspiracy peddling. Speaking about Mexican immigrants coming to America during the pandemic, Gingrich said the “radical left” wants to “get rid of the rest of us” and would “love to drown traditional, classic Americans with as many people as they can who know nothing of American history, nothing of American tradition, nothing of the rule of law.”

He wasn’t talking about Donald Trump, notorious for being historically ignorant and profoundly incurious, but about those of us with darker skin, who are never seen as “traditional” or “classic” or “real Americans.” Gingrich, a craven political opportunist, parroted the talking points associated with “the great replacement” theory, also known as “white genocide,” which stipulates the white race and “Western civilization” are in dire threat of being weakened and ultimately usurped by immigrants of color, Muslims, feminists, and gays.

For Many Political Compromise Means Their Party Gets More

Most partisans say that, when it comes to how Democrats and Republicans should address the most important issues facing the county, their party should get more out of the deal.

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means their party gets everything it wants and 0 means the other party gets everything it wants, about six-in-ten of those in both parties think their side should get more on the key issues facing the nation. Roughly three-in-ten Republicans and Democrats say both parties should get about half of what they want .

Partisans with colder feelings toward the other party are more likely to say that their own side should get more. Among Republicans, 44% of those who feel neutral or warm toward Democrats say their own party should get more than half of what it wants on key issues facing the country. That share rises to 62% of Republicans who give Democrats somewhat cold ratings, and 69% of those who rate Democrats very coldly.

The same pattern is evident among Democrats. Among those who give Republicans a very cold rating, 71% say Democrats should get more in partisan dealings; 69% of those who rate Republicans coldly say the same. By comparison, a smaller share of those who rate Republicans neutrally or warmly say their own party should get most of what it wants.

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states’ and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

The Democratic Party General Policy And Political Values

The Democratic Party generally represents left-leaning, liberal and progressive ideological values, thus advocating for a strong government to regulate business and support for the citizens of the United States. Thus, one of the key values emphasized by Democrats is social responsibility. Overall, Democrats believe that a prominent and powerful government can ensure welfare and equality for all. Much like the Republican Party, political opinions within the Democratic Party stretch across a wide spectrum, as both parties are, to a large degree, decentralized. However, from a general point of view, Democrats tend to support heavy taxation of high-income households. In comparison to Denmark, where taxes are generally high, the Democratic taxation policy may not seem excessive, but on a U.S. taxation scale these tax percentages are in the heavy end.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Republicans and Democrats are the two main and historically the largest political parties in the US and, after every election, hold the majority seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the highest number of Governors. Though both the parties mean well for the US citizens, they have distinct differences that manifest in their comments, decisions, and history. These differences are mainly ideological, political, social, and economic paths to making the US successful and the world a better place for all. Differences between the two parties that are covered in this article rely on the majority position though individual politicians may have varied preferences.

Civil Rights United States Citizens In Puerto Rico

The 2016 Republican Party Platform declares: “We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. We further recognize the historic significance of the 2012 local referendum in which a 54 percent majority voted to end Puerto Rico’s current status as a U.S. territory, and 61 percent chose statehood over options for sovereign nationhood. We support the federally sponsored political status referendum authorized and funded by an Act of Congress in 2014 to ascertain the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. Once the 2012 local vote for statehood is ratified, Congress should approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico’s future admission as the 51st state of the Union”.

Which Republican President Inspired The Teddy Bear

Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican U.S. president from 1901 to 1909, inspired the teddy bear when he refused to shoot a tied-up bear on a hunting trip. The story reached toy maker Morris Michtom, who decided to make stuffed bears as a dedication to Roosevelt. The name comes from Roosevelt’s nickname, Teddy.

See all videos for this article

Republican Party, byname Grand Old Party , in the United States, one of the two major political parties, the other being the Democratic Party. During the 19th century the Republican Party stood against the extension of slavery to the country’s new territories and, ultimately, for slavery’s complete abolition. During the 20th and 21st centuries the party came to be associated with laissez-fairecapitalism, low taxes, and conservative social policies. The party acquired the acronym GOP, widely understood as “Grand Old Party,” in the 1870s. The party’s official logo, the elephant, is derived from a cartoon by Thomas Nast and also dates from the 1870s.

Writing Activity For What Is A Political Platform:

You are becoming disillusioned with the two major political parties. You and your friends have decided to form a third party. You are in charge of developing the party’s platform. After reviewing the respective platforms of the Republicans and Democrats , write a platform that you think will serve your party well. It may be useful to pick three hot topics/issues and focus on them in your platform. For instance, you could choose topics such as student debt, healthcare, and gun rights.

The 2020 Republican Party Platform: Letat Cest Moi

As published on the party’s official web site, the “Resolution Regarding the Republican Party Platform” states:

“RESOLVED, That the Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention.”

We all know that party platforms are traditionally about mom and apple pie—but at least they tell us the party is in favor of apple pie rather than cherry pie. I was on the drafting committee for the 2012 Democratic platform; the process is one of grappling with diverse interests and priorities. The diversity of those issues and interests reflect the challenges of governing.

The Republican resolution cites COVID-19 as a reason for cutting back on platform development. Yes, “strict restrictions on gatherings and meetings” have changed the nature of the 2020 political conventions. Such restrictions, however, did not stop the development of the 2020 Democratic platform to address the issues of the day and let Americans know what the party stood for.

There will be no grappling with the issues raised by our current national crisis by the Republican Party, however. There will be no forward-looking agenda to define what the party stands for.

Views Of Parties Positions On Issues Ideologies

Republicans and Democrats see little common ground between the two parties when it comes to issues, ideas and ideology. Majorities of partisans say the policy positions of the Republican and Democratic parties are very different, and neither Republicans nor Democrats say the other party has many good ideas.

In general terms, both Republicans and Democrats agree with their own party’s policies. In-party agreement extends to specific issues, such as policies to deal with the economy, health care and immigration.

However, there are some issue areas – climate change for Republicans and policies to deal with ISIS for Democrats – where somewhat smaller majorities of partisans say they agree with their own party’s approach. Even then, few partisans express agreement with the other party on these issues.

Overall, about seven-in-ten Republicans and Democrats say they generally agree with their party’s positions almost always or more than half the time. Even larger majorities – 84% of Republicans and 82% of Democrats – disagree with the other party’s positions at least most of the time.

Most Republicans and Democrats also agree with their own party’s policies on a range of specific issues, including the economy, immigration, health care and policies to deal with the Islamic militant group in Iraq and Syria.

However, the shares agreeing with their own party vary by issue, and the patterns of agreement are different within the two parties.

The Platform: A Road Map For A Political Party

One of the most common complaints about politics these days is that the two major parties seem almost indistinguishable. Of course, everyone knows this isn’t really so – it’s clear they’re not ‘exactly’ the same, since they’re fighting all the time – but the policy differences between the two parties can sometimes be hard to figure out.

But it’s not actually that hard to understand what Republicans and Democrats believe about the nation and its future. There are easy-to-find documents that explain their views in great detail. Each party produces a platform. The platform is something like a roadmap; it’s the path the parties would like to follow if they can find their way to a place where they can make those decisions. The platform usually contains a list of the party’s beliefs, policy choices, and ambitions. These are often a lot more specific than candidates tend to be when they’re running for office.

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Contrasting Perceptions Of Parties Ideologies

Republicans and Democrats tend to view the opposing party as highly ideological, while viewing their own party as less ideological.

On an 11-point scale where 10 is very liberal and 0 is very conservative, a 34% plurality of Democrats use the most conservative option to describe the ideology of the Republican Party. Fully 58% of Democrats select one of the three most conservative points to describe the Republican Party’s ideology.1

While most Republicans describe their party as conservative , just 11% of Republicans select the most conservative option. About a third of Republicans rate their party one of the three most conservative points , while about as many give their party a conservative rating that is closer to the midpoint . Just 16% select the midpoint of the scale and only about one-in-ten place themselves on the liberal side of the scale.

A similar pattern is seen in views of the Democratic Party’s ideology. Fully 45% of Republicans select the most liberal option to describe the Democratic Party, and nearly seven-in-ten Republicans use one of the three most liberal points on the scale to describe the party.

Politics & PolicyPolitical PartiesPolitical PolarizationPolitical AnimosityElection 2016

The Platform The Gop Is Too Scared To Publish

What the Republican Party actually stands for, in 13 points

About the author: David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of . In 2001 and 2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Republicans have decided not to publish a party platform for 2020.

This omission has led some to conclude that the GOP lacks ideas, that it stands for nothing, that it has shriveled to little more than a Trump cult.

This conclusion is wrong. The Republican Party of 2020 has lots of ideas. I’m about to list 13 ideas that command almost universal assent within the Trump administration, within the Republican caucuses of the U.S. House and Senate, among governors and state legislators, on Fox News, and among rank-and-file Republicans.

Once you read the list, I think you’ll agree that these are authentic ideas with meaningful policy consequences, and that they are broadly shared. The question is not why Republicans lack a coherent platform; it’s why they’re so reluctant to publish the one on which they’re running.

Annie Lowrey: The party of no content

1) The most important mechanism of economic policy—not the only tool, but the most important—is adjusting the burden of taxation on society’s richest citizens. Lower this level, as Republicans did in 2017, and prosperity will follow. The economy has had a temporary setback, but thanks to the tax cut of 2017, recovery is ready to follow strongly. No further policy change is required, except possibly lower taxes still.

Democrats Plan To Keep Their Primary Strategy

Morgan Carroll, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party and a former state Senate president, said a proposal to forgo primaries would never receive serious consideration among state Democrats.

She called the idea “ridiculous and undemocratic.”

“If we had a candidate that recommended it, I think they’d be driven out of town,” Morgan Carroll said.

She sees the push as part of a larger pattern “by Trump and his loyalists to basically move in an authoritarian direction, take away choices from voters, make it harder to vote, make it hard for the people to decide, and make it easier for them to install whoever they want in whatever position they want.”

Want exclusive political news and insights first? Subscribe to The Unaffiliated, the political newsletter from The Colorado Sun. That’s where this story first appeared. Join now or upgrade your membership.

If the Republican proposal passes, she said it’s hard to know whether more unaffiliated voters would participate in 2022 Democratic primaries because they would be the only primary left they could vote in.

She thinks the move would backfire for Republicans as they’ve struggled to win elections in Colorado in recent years. “If I were a rank-and-file Republican person, I’d be furious.”

Colorado Sun staff writer Jesse Paul contributed to this report.

Republican Platform Panders To Israel Zealots

annexationChristian ZionismgopJerusalemoccupationrepublican national committeeRepublican platformrncUnited Nations

The Republican platform for 2016/2020 has a starring role for Israel.

The Republican National Committee platform of 2016, resurrected for 2020, will once again genuflect before Israel – ignoring the realities of human rights, international law, and logic.

Last month, If Americans Knew presented an analysis of the Democratic National Committee’s 2020 platform on Israel/Palestine. In the spirit of impartiality, we now offer a similar review of the Republican counterpart.

Interestingly, the Republican National Committee decided to recycle its 2016 platform for 2020-2024. This document was heavily influenced by Christian conservatives – including Christian Nationalists and Christian Zionists – who have very explicit ideas about the issue of Israel. On the other hand, Christian conservatives with more nuanced viewpoints on the the Bible or the issue of Israel-Palestine , many of whom actively support Palestinian rights, seem to have been ignored.

The platform was likely also influenced by donors like Sheldon Adelson, considered “the most important mega-donor in the Republican Party,” and whose pro-Israel demands have largely determined Trump’s Mideast policies.

The first question, then, is whether the RNC platform reflects the will of Republicans, or just that of certain Republicans.

Do the “representatives” represent the people?

Jerusalem

Political Positions Of The Republican Party

Republicanism in the United States

The platform of the Republican Party of the United States is generally based on American conservatism, contrasting with the modern liberalism of the Democratic Party. The positions of the Republican Party have evolved over time. Currently, the party’s fiscal conservatism includes support for lower taxes, free marketcapitalism, deregulation of corporations, and restrictions on labor unions. The party’s social conservatism includes support for gun rights and other traditional values, often with a Christian foundation, including restrictions on abortion. In foreign policy, Republicans usually favor increased military spending and unilateral action. Other Republican positions include restrictions on immigration, opposition to drug legalization, and support for school choice.

0 notes

arcticdementor · 6 years

Link

Shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, a group of public school history teachers in the posh Boston suburb of Newton pledged to reject the “call for objectivity” in the classroom, bully conservative students for their beliefs, and serve as “liberal propagandist[s]” for the cause of social justice.

This informal pact was made in an exchange of emails among history teachers at Newton North High School, part of a very rich but academically mediocre public school district with an annual budget of $200 million, a median home price of almost half a million, and a median household income of more than $120,000. Read the entire email exchange here.

…

The guidelines asked teachers to remain objective while teaching about historical and current events; and to treat all students, regardless of political opinion, with respect. Teachers were told: “For current controversial issues (health care, immigration, environmental policies, gun laws), teach students that there are different perspectives and present the reasoning of those who hold those different perspectives.”

Ibokette was having none of it. He typed this reply: “I am concerned that the call for ‘objectivity’ may just inadvertently become the most effective destructive weapon against social justice,” and sent it to the members of Newton North’s history department.

…

Much worse yet is Bedar’s display of extreme political intolerance toward the views of millions of his fellow Americans, among whom are, presumably, a number of his own students. Support for immigration law enforcement is by no means a fringe political perspective, even in Massachusetts. It is certainly not some sort of taboo that must be expunged from classroom debate, and Newton North guidelines explicitly tell teachers to teach about the reasoning behind different perspectives on immigration.

Yet, in remarkable language, Bedar demanded that the school allow him to propagandize against it, and to do so without any professional consequences: “I have an obligation to teach civic duty and teach kids right and wrong, and about social justice. . . . This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t actually think we should have the option of not discussing [social justice] issues. I feel responsible for doing so. . . . We can help kids interpret the lessons of the past better than anybody. I feel like a phony when I’m not doing that. . . . But..this is hard. I don’t want to get fired for being a liberal propagandist” (emphasis added).

…

All of this is not to argue over birth control, deficit spending, and which ideologies are responsible for what travesties. Rather, it is to say that history, politics, and ideology are complicated things. Yet, in the history lessons they teach, propagandist teachers like Bedar insist on reducing all of this complexity to a Manichean struggle between “right and wrong,” the essence of which they insipidly correlate with “Democrat and Republican.”

…

The year after the Soviet Union fell, I entered fifth grade at State School No. 8 in the Siberian city of Tomsk, where I was born at the beginning of the end of that evil empire. Usually, Soviet children started learning the history of Russia in fifth grade, but my teacher told the class that she had nothing to teach us anymore.

“The old history books are useless now,” I distinctly remember her telling us. “They were full of Communist Party lies.” Just like that, the entire monument of official Soviet history, built upon an ideological foundation of lies and held together by despotism, crashed as soon as the coercive power that had kept it upright for 74 years disappeared in an instant.

Undaunted by the failures of their comrades in the Soviet Union and other socialist hell-holes, left-wing activists are dug in at all stages of the American educational process from preschool to graduate school, where they seek to replicate the Soviet Union’s abuse of its children’s minds with lurid lies.

Even science education is facing a hostile takeover by progressive luddites with scientific degrees who insist, as one biology PhD student did recently, that “to think there are universal truths perpetuates a particular kind of able bodied white cisgender male logic.” The result of all this left-wing obscurantism is a brainwashed Generation Z that inhabits a false reality colored in stylized black and white by leftist dogma—the same false reality that Soviet school and preschool battered into me as a child.

#the federalist #ilya feoktistov #newton massachusetts #public schooling #read the whole thing

1 note · View note

mastcomm · 5 years

Text

DealBook: Really? Is the White House Proposing to Buy Ericsson or Nokia?

Good morning. (Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.)

Bill Barr’s striking plan to counter Huawei

President Trump has made it very clear that he is worried about Huawei’s leading role in 5G wireless technology. Now his attorney general, Bill Barr, has offered a radical solution: having the U.S. invest in the Chinese company’s European counterparts.

The U.S. doesn’t have a homegrown competitor to Huawei, Mr. Barr noted in a speech yesterday. The only viable rivals are Ericsson of Sweden and Nokia of Finland.

“Our economic future is at stake,” Mr. Barr said. “The risk of losing the 5G struggle with China should vastly outweigh other considerations.”

So he has an idea:

• “Some propose that these concerns could be met by the United States aligning itself with Nokia and/or Ericsson through American ownership of a controlling stake, either directly or through a consortium of private American and allied companies.”

• “Putting our large market and financial muscle behind one or both of these firms would make it a more formidable competitor and eliminate concerns over its staying power,” Mr. Barr adds. “We and our closest allies certainly need to be actively considering this approach.”

Andrew’s take:

• The idea of the Trump administration buying a major telecom is a curious proposal from an administration that is currently decrying the rise of “socialism.”

• But watch this space. It wouldn’t be a surprise if an American telecom or a group of private equity firms bid for Nokia or Ericsson — with some kind of special subsidy or tax break provided by the White House.

More: President Trump was reportedly “apoplectic” in a call with Prime Minister Boris Johnson over the decision to permit Huawei technology into Britain’s 5G network.

____________________________

Today’s DealBook Briefing was written by Andrew Ross Sorkin in New York and Michael J. de la Merced in London.

____________________________

Credit Suisse’s C.E.O. resigns unexpectedly

Tidjane Thiam caught investors off guard this morning when he handed in his notice as Credit Suisse’s chief. He’s the biggest casualty of a spying scandal that shook up the Swiss bank last year.

It was a surprise because an internal inquiry into the case — in which Credit Suisse officials ordered the surveillance of an executive who was defecting to archrival UBS — had cleared Mr. Thiam of wrongdoing.

Mr. Thiam had made some progress in turning around Credit Suisse’s performance. He had overseen a shift to wealth management from investment banking, although late last year, he had to cut a profitability target.

But he had been in a power struggle with Credit Suisse’s chairman, Urs Rohner, over the fallout from the spying revelations. The board sided with Mr. Rohner, even though top investors publicly supported Mr. Thiam and called on Mr. Rohner to back him or step down.

Mr. Thiam will be replaced by Thomas Gottstein, a longtime Credit Suisse veteran who leads the bank’s Swiss operations.

More: Credit Suisse has reportedly introduced a new compensation plan for employees that includes provisions to reclaim bonuses from them if they leave for rivals.

Elliott Management’s SoftBank push is already paying off

Shares in SoftBank soared by more than 7 percent today after the activist hedge fund confirmed that it had invested in the company with the aim of pushing up its stock price.

Elliott has taken a $2.5 billion stake in SoftBank, one of its biggest current investments, Michael reports, citing unnamed sources. It has been holding discussions about strategy changes with SoftBank officials — including Masa Son, the Japanese conglomerate’s founder — in recent months.

What the hedge fund is calling for:

• Up to $20 billion in stock buybacks

• Changes to SoftBank’s board

• More transparency in the operations of SoftBank’s $100 billion Vision Fund

What it means: Elliott sees an opportunity to make money. SoftBank’s market value as of yesterday was about $89 billion. By comparison, the combined value of its public holdings in its telecom affiliate, Alibaba of China and Sprint in the U.S., was about $210 billion.

What it might not: Though Elliott is known for a sometimes bare-knuckled approach to activist investing, it doesn’t yet look like it will go hostile with SoftBank. The talks are cooperative at this stage, sources told Michael — and simply having Elliott’s investment as public knowledge has already lifted SoftBank’s share price.

Antitrust chief hits back at states trying to block T-Mobile deal

Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, took an unusually active role in reaching a deal to save T-Mobile’s proposed $26 billion takeover of Sprint. Now he’s taking shots at several states that have sued to block it.

He noted in a speech on Wednesday that the Justice Department and 10 states had proposed letting the deal proceed so long as T-Mobile and Sprint sell “substantial” assets to Dish Network to create a new competitor in the telecom industry.

But he bemoaned efforts by several states — not named in his speech, but they include New York and California — to stop the merger anyway. The states argue that the deal would lead to higher prices for consumers.

From Mr. Delrahim’s prepared remarks:

“The scenario that has unfolded here is incompatible with the orderly operation of our antitrust merger laws and telecommunications regulations. It creates the risk that a small subset of states, or even perhaps just one, could undermine beneficial transactions and settlements nationwide.”

He added that letting states undo settlements struck by federal regulators “would wreak havoc on parties’ ability to merge, on the government’s ability to settle cases, and cause real uncertainty in the market for mergers and acquisitions.”

The federal judge in the states’ lawsuit is still weighing whether to block the deal.

Jeff Bezos trolls a Trump official on Instagram

This is 2020: The world’s richest man took to social media to post a “Seinfeld”-themed rejoinder to a federal official who complained publicly about not getting a meeting.

Here’s what happened:

• Peter Navarro, a top White House trade adviser, told the WaPo this week that Mr. Bezos had backed out of a promised in-person meeting to discuss trade and counterfeiting issues.

• Mr. Bezos posed a question to his 1.4 million followers on Instagram: What to do when a stranger accosts you at a party — the Alfalfa Club dinner in Washington, in this case — and asks for a meeting, while calling your subordinates “minions”?

• For good measure, Mr. Bezos tossed in a reference to the “Serenity Now” joke from “Seinfeld.”

Mr. Navarro’s response? A “wonderfully banal passive aggressive post.”

Revolving door

Rana Yared, a Goldman Sachs partner who helped lead the company’s cryptocurrency-trading efforts, is leaving to join Balderton Capital, a London-based venture capital firm.

Kevin Loosemore stepped down as chairman of Micro Focus, a big British software company. He was replaced by Greg Lock.

Amber Rudd, the former British lawmaker, is joining the consulting and P.R. firm Teneo as a senior adviser in its London office. (Her brother, Roland Rudd, founded the rival firm Finsbury.)

The speed read

Deals

• Intercontinental Exchange has dropped its efforts to buy eBay. (WSJ)

• Warner Music Group, the label that represents Cardi B and Ed Sheeran, has filed to go public. (Variety)

• Elon Musk’s SpaceX plans to spin off its satellite-based internet company, Starlink. (Bloomberg)

• The online mattress seller Casper ended its first day of trading on the N.Y.S.E. only a bit above its I.P.O. price. (NYT)

• ViacomCBS is reportedly considering a sale of CNET, its tech news site. (Bloomberg)

Politics and policy

• Mike Bloomberg is courting wealthy Democratic donors — but isn’t asking for their money. (NYT)

• The U.S. is starting trade talks with Kenya to counter China’s influence across Africa. (NYT)

• Iowa update: We still don’t know who won. (NYT)

Tech

• Uber lost $1.1 billion in its most recent fiscal quarter, but it predicts that it will be profitable by the end of this year. (NYT)

• The E.U.’s antitrust inquiry into Facebook is said to have demanded internal documents about the tech giant’s data practices. (WSJ)

• Clearview, the facial-recognition technology company that has prompted privacy concerns recently, reportedly wants to sell its software to authoritarian governments. (BuzzFeed News)

• Your weekend long read: “An Algorithm That Grants Freedom, or Takes It Away.” (NYT)

Best of the rest

• New York’s real estate industry is still grappling with the ramifications of the new ban on rental apartment broker fees. (NYT)

• A New Jersey jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $750 million in punitive damages in a lawsuit over the company’s baby powder, which is said to have caused cancer. (WSJ)

Thanks for reading! We’ll see you next week.

We’d love your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to [email protected].

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/dealbook-really-is-the-white-house-proposing-to-buy-ericsson-or-nokia/

#Business

0 notes

todaynewsstories · 6 years

Text

Austria: Far-right populism faces weak pushback from ′paralyzed′ opposition | Europe| News and current affairs from around the continent | DW

The mood in Vienna is jubilant: Austria has just debuted at the UN General Assembly as the current holder of the EU presidency, and last week the country hosted a summit meeting with European leaders in Salzburg. The Alpine nation has been enjoying the spotlight — and it’s not just Chancellor Sebastian Kurz who is reveling in the attention: Legions of his supporters are, as well.

Whereas fans of the 32-year-old chancellor and his coalition government are vocal in their praise, such words would definitely raise eyebrows —and likely cries of protest — in much of Germany, which takes a strong stance against the far and extreme right.

When the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) entered the German parliament in 2016, it prompted outrage and soul-searching across the country. If the AfD holds a convention, protesters turn out by the thousands. When right-wing extremists attempt to capitalize on a tragedy to promote anti-migrant sentiment, counterdemonstrators come to outnumber them.

But in Austria, many people seem to have adopted a blasé attitude towards the fact that Chancellor Kurz’s People’s Party (ÖVP) rules in coalition with the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ), which not only has ties to Nazi ideology but also has been forced to confront a string of anti-Semitic scandals in the past year.

The national conservative Chancellor Kurz and far-right Vice Chancellor Strache lead the current Austrian government

Goal: Fighting ‘illegal migration’

Protests accompanied the new government’s swearing-in, but many Austrians are just as demonstrative in their support for the current political leaders. Recent polls show support for the ÖVP and the FPÖ at 34 and 24 percent respectively.

“The government is fighting for us Austrians,” said Paul, a 38-year-old businessman in Vienna, as his friends nodded in agreement. “We have to stop people coming here just to claim benefits,” he said, referring to the hard-line immigration policies the ÖVP and FPÖ have championed since taking office.

There has been some criticism, mostly from abroad, that some of Austria’s new policies are draconian. But government spokesman Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal countered these claims by pointing to his country’s role as a major landing point for asylum-seekers during the height of the European refugee crisis.

“Austria has accepted around 80,000 refugees and has come up to its humanitarian responsibility. That’s the second most per capita in Europe,” he told DW.

Nevertheless, Launsky-Tieffenthal stressed that Austria’s main goal during its EU presidency would be “to fight illegal migration together with all our European partners.”

Those partners include both German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has striven for regulating migration without abandoning European values like tolerance, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who once said on a stage shared with Chancellor Kurz that the goal of EU immigration policy should be to end non-Christian migration.

Read more: Austria to stop offering driving tests in Turkish

Opposition is ‘helpess’

There is resistance to Kurz’s archconservatism and the FPÖ’s nationalism, but it is has become “paralyzed,” says Paul Donnerbauer, a journalist originally from Salzburg.

Donnerbauer, who has been covering both Kurz and the FPÖ’s recent string of scandals — including the revelation that several FPÖ lawmakers are former members of neo-Nazi fraternities — explained that “the 2017 [legislative] election deeply divided Austria.”

“The people in the cities didn’t want this government, but the people in the countryside did,” Donnerbauer said. “The people who oppose the government, however, have acted paralyzed and helpless since the election.”

When it comes to flagging opposition to Austria’s far right, part of the problem could be that unlike Germany, Austria did not break with its own far-right past following World War II. Many Austrians happily accepted the narrative — one promoted by the victorious allies — that they, too, had been the “first victim” of Nazi aggression through the 1938 takeover of Austria by Hilter’s forces — and that none among them had been willing participants in the Holocaust.

When Hitler drove into Austria during the ‘Anschluss’ takeover in 1938, many Austrians greeted him enthusiastically

“Far-right thought and racist ideologies continued to exist well after 1945. They were, if you will, democratized,” through the statements and actions of the FPÖ, Donnerbauer said.

Unlike Germany’s AfD, founded in 2013, the roots of the FPÖ go back to 1956. The party experienced a popularity boom in the 1990s, and while this occurred primarily at the regional level, the FPÖ’s success helped keep the door of the national political spectrum open to far-right populist views.

“Over the years, they have pushed the limits of what is speakable and doable further and further in a certain direction,” Donnerbauer explains. In this context, “it’s not really surprising that extremist events don’t have to fear much pushback,” he added, referring to the fact that far-right demonstrations like the annual meet-up in the town of Bleiburg, the largest neo-Nazi convention in Europe, usually sees less than 100 counterdemonstrators.

In contrast, following far-right and neo-Nazi unrest in the German city of Chemnitz, some 60,000 people showed up to demonstrate their solidarity against racism and xenophobia.

Read more: Austrian court: State seizure of Hitler’s home lawful

The head of the FPÖ youth organization, Udo Landbauer, resigned over a Nazi song scandal this past February

Austrian far right: Proud and loud

Launsky-Tieffenthal countered claims that his party is hostile toward Jews. “The FPÖ has distanced itself from any form of anti-Semitism. Vice Chancellor [Heinz-Christian Strache] has publicly stated that,” he said, referring to the party’s chairman.

“No government has done more than this once to fight against anti-Semitism,” he added, alluding to plans for an expansive new Holocaust memorial in Vienna, as well as recent displays of solidarity Kurz has made with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In Germany, members of the AfD complain that if their party affiliation becomes known, they are hounded at work and their children are taunted at school. For Germans, dealing with the consequences of their country’s far-right past is part of their public national identity. Many are ready to shout down AfD supporters and counter their claims at any moment.

Quite the opposite seems true in Austria, where many FPÖ supporters are only too ready to talk about the great things their government is doing to stop “illegal immigration” — and too many in Vienna’s cosmopolitan cafes seem willing to listen.

Read more: Austria’s Sebastian Kurz cozies up to German conservatives

Each evening at 1830 UTC, DW’s editors send out a selection of the day’s hard news and quality feature journalism. You can sign up to receive it directly here.

The post Austria: Far-right populism faces weak pushback from ′paralyzed′ opposition | Europe| News and current affairs from around the continent | DW appeared first on Today News Stories.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2NQVtSs via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes