48 thoughts on “Sharing It …

  1. Only Democrat voters will see this, so only Democrat voters will believe it.
    Republican voters do not want to know the truth, so they will not watch.
    But as long as Democrat voters get out and vote, none of this matters. What is needed in this ekection is qyantity rather than quality.
    Vote! Vote Democrat!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, you’re most likely correct about the audience. But even so, there are Democrats that, for whatever the reason, choose not to vote. So hopefully … maybe … something Robert says will motivate these individuals.

      Liked by 2 people

    • When I poat this, I ask a question: “Do you want to know the truth?”

      I think you are right, most of the troglodytes prefer ignorance. I don’t know if they able or willing to deal with the truth.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I watched that this morning-it is excellent. (Well, except the examples of Trump’s gaslighting; his voice is more awful than GW’s was, to me. Still worth watching the vid, just turn down the volume on Trump.)

      Liked by 2 people

  2. sigh

    Reich is arguing that any swing voter who votes Republican is doing so probably because of going along with three big lies the Republicans are trying to sell you. And Reich, supposedly and ever-so-thankfully, just so happens to know the truth.


    I don’t think Robert Reich’s truth is true in fact. Actually, I know it’s not. I think Reich is using dis- and misinformation to PAINT swing voting for Republicans as being fooled and going along with these so-called lies. That in itself is a lie. So in fact, Reich himself is engaged in lying here.

    Putting aside that recognition, let’s go a little deeper and do a little test right here and now: can you find where Reich is intentionally trying to deceive you with any of these three selections? If this is indeed the case, then you do not know the truth but are going along with Reich not because what he says is true but for some other reason(s). And that going–along-with-lies should concern anyone who assumes that respecting what is true in reality matters more in an election than going along with a tribe, right or wrong, truth be damned. (Which of these kinds of swing voters, rawgod, “want to know the truth”, or cagjr, are in fact the ignorant “troglodytes”, neither of which comment is criticized by our concerned-about-tone-and-snark host.)


      • You missed the hint from Texas’ 34th district. Today’s hint is Oregon. Do you HONESTLY think these Democrat strongholds are being lost because of Reich’s so-called Republican lies? Do you really think so many historical Democratic voters are suddenly truth-denyin’, gun-totin’, truck-driven’, white supremacist, conspiracy- beleivin’, Big Lie supportin’ troglodytes? Does that magical turnaround (they-were-never-True-Scotsman/Democrats) sit better in your I-believe-whatever-I’m-told-to-believe-by-Democrat-leaders craw?


        • The thing is, tildeb … you criticize/devalue/disagree with nearly every commentator I have shared on my blog.

          I have no problem with you having a POV that’s “different” than most of my readers, but the way you write comes across as you being the all-knowing guru and the rest of us are simply troglodytes.

          Perhaps many of us are “over-reacting.” But WE live in the States … and WE are the ones who are going to suffer if the Republicans (based on what is being put forth by most of the loudmouths) actually gain control of the Senate AND the House. Yes, we may be reading more into it than there is, but for many of us, it’s downright SCARY!!!

          Liked by 3 people

        • It should be scary. The extent of the Democratic Refusal To Respect Reality is the ENTIRE fuel supply for the Republicans. That’s on the Democrats. And the cost is the loss of democracy for this abject failure to right the ship and get back to supporting liberal values. But hey, at least everyone who could right the Democrat boat from within its own ranks (but who will not stand on liberals principles but cave repeatedly to craven extremists in their ranks, who have gone along with reality-denying ideology and piled on to cancel, vilify, and attack relentlessly anyone from the liberal ranks as traitors for pointing out that what’s true actually matters, can ALL agree now how bad the Republicans are.

          Whoopty Do.

          May I suggest to all your virtuous commentators to watch, listen, and maybe HEAR Maher’s commentary on this subject. He’s been saying it for years. I’ve been saying it for years. But we’re Terrible People for raising this alarm. Now the piper is at the door and, lo and behold, it’s almost time to pay up.


        • So again, you “punish” the Democrats (or at least the commentators) for their inaction and/or weak support for “liberal values.” But tildeb, the people that visit my blog are simply citizens. None of us are politicians. None of us are reporters. And I don’t think any of us are “extremists.”

          All we can do is read/listen to what is being put “out there” and then make our own judgments on what we’re going to do about it. If the “various commentators” are missing the mark (according to your estimation), how are we to know unless we have the TIME and ENERGY to examine ALL the input? I think most of us are simply making the best decisions we can based on what we read/hear. If the sources we depend on are less-than-ideal, then yes, we may make poor decisions. But at least we’re reading … listening … watching … and PAYING ATTENTION (which is more than many people do).

          Liked by 2 people

        • It’s the unwillingness to support liberal values in words, thoughts, or deeds that has brought everyone to this brink. That unwillingness is the liberal democratic kiss of death. And it HAS to be changed from the Democrats themselves, from the rank and file, everyday, in every way, standing up against and criticizing those who would impose illiberal policies no matter under what linguistic package it comes. This standing up runs the gamut from local to federal. It includes criticizing mainstream legacy media and, yes, social media like blogs. Without a spirited defence for liberal values by the majority regardless of partisanship, liberal democracy dies. And that’s what’s unfolding now, today, right this minute. People are going along with lies like the kind Reich virtuously presents and then parroting this misinformation while hypocritically blaming the ‘other side’ for doing exactly this. Reich is incapable of speaking unifying language; he does nothing but pretend the Republicans are ALL BAD while the Democrats are ALL GOOD. And people spread this disinformation thinking they are championing liberal democracy when they doing exactly the opposite of helping to bring it down and then blaming everyone else for the results they helped bring about.


        • @Tildeb, again I ask you, what , in your opinion, would be the liberal method the US Democratic party leadership could use to correct the problem you think is causing this?

          If a voter decides the Democrats have lost their liberal values and decides not to vote for them, why would they instead vote for the Republicans? What liberal values are they offering? Freedom of speech, perhaps?

          I do not see, how Reich is supposedly lying on this brief video, that can not possibly cover the entire issue, but is a reminder, that anyone voting for Republicans is also giving their vote to tax cuts from the richest people, less gun controll and indeed nonsense about the reasons for the global inflation. I would ad to injury, that they are, by voting Republican often enough also giving support to the one most outlandish lie about the presidential elections having been fraught, are they not?

          Typically, when voting, people tend to give their support to the lesser of evils. Unless they are very idealistic and/or very naive. Even when there are more options, than in the US system. Has the Democrat party gone so illiberal, that the only alternative is better?

          Liked by 1 person

        • “Has the Democrat party gone so illiberal, that the only alternative is better?” For a majority of swing voters as we will see on Tuesday in the US, the answer is obvious, rautakyy. The fact that the answer is SO obvious demonstrates that you remain confused enough to actually ask,as if it’s a ludicrous proposition! You are missing something in your evaluation. And that ‘something’ is what’s true. Reich avoids that, too, and the fact you can’t identify it in his video demonstrates you are not aware of what’s true (on the ground in the US), either, but simply believe he must be the correctly credentialed spokesperson. Guess again.

          The constant challenging of any claim made that there is a significant level of imposed illiberalism from the Democrats in all kinds of local, state, and federal policies and practices, as well as widespread partisan social support for institutions to embed illiberalism translates into you – and the majority of Democrats – missing what’s OBVIOUSLY true. What’s true is that it is this supported illiberalism that is DRIVING Republican electoral victories. Those victories come from the narrow swing voters. That is who the Democrats keep losing. Over and over and over and over and over. I’ve said it for years. It’s not the Tea Partiers who are convincing these voters. It’s not white supremacy that is driving these voters. It’s not bigotry or ignorance or greed or stupidity driving these voters. It is the DEMOCRATS!!!!! They are the ones driving these voters away. The fuel that drives Republican electoral victories IS the Democratic party’s willingness – even eagerness – to impose illiberalism and reject reality (in this neighbourhood, in this school, in this city, in this state) that negatively affects THESE voters to switch to the alternative. In effect, that’s the sum total of the Republican strategy to win. And – surprising only to the ideologically agnostics and believers enraptured in their own little bubble world of Righteousness – it is enough. Time after time after time after time after time.

          I am criticized for pointing this FACT out, as if I must therefore be a Terrible Person, a Republican/Conservative mouthpiece. No. I am a liberal. I am concerned about losing liberal democracy. I don’t give a rat’s ass under which virtuous banner or social justice camouflage that loss is championed. Losing it is what matters. And so… here we are.


        • That refers to the many instances of imposed illiberalism pointed out and then excused by The Faithful. From BLM to CRT to woke and transgender activism to cancel culture to institutional capture to policing to attacks on free speech and assembly… well, the list is long and only grows. No matter how many elections are lost by the Democrats on these very issues (but we’re so virtuous and, besides, it’s all LIES and it’s all the fault of Trump!) to Republicans are dismissed as if lunatic ravings, that none of these could possibly swing these centrist voters I keep yammering on about. It’s this denialism of what’s true by such Democrats (like Reich) that continues to snatch electoral defeat from the jaws of victory and then leaves The Virtuous wandering about in mass confusion… assuming the ‘other’ side must be all ignorant and stupid and gullible “troglodytes” for the Republicans to win.


        • “I am a liberal.”

          No, you are not a liberal. You are an authoritarian.

          Your beef against the Democrats, is that they are not sufficiently authoritarian. You want them to clamp down on the more extreme progressives. But to do that would be a illiberal move.

          As best I can tell, the majority of Democrats do not agree with the extreme progressives. But they are liberal enough to tolerate them.


        • I want you – if you are a liberal – to REJECT illiberalism (supported in your imagination by what you conveniently call the ‘extreme progressives’ when it is, in fact, indisputably mainstream Democrat), to criticize it’s malignancy, and to stand against the destruction of liberal values when they occur under this ‘movement’. That’s what I do. You do none of these.

          You claim standing against illiberalism and criticizing those who support it as I have ALWAYS done is now by the magic of your imported redefinitions suddenly authoritarian. I’m not cancelling anyone. I’m not shutting down discussion anywhere. I’m not prohibiting diverse viewpoints or different attitudes. I do insist we – in order to have a base of commonality – at the very least respect reality and agree that’s what’s true in it actually matters. That’s the ONLY way evidence from reality can be used to inform rationality about these illiberal policies, practices, and institutional directives. How any of that is ‘authoritarian’ defies reason. (It is, however, a handy smear.) But reason itself is defied to support illiberalism and then claim to be a liberal… but of the ‘good’ kind that ‘tolerates’ the dismantling of the essential values necessary for its maintenance. That’s irrational, Neil. It’s the worst kind of faith-based belief in action because by going along with it while castigating those who stand against it eventually harms everyone everywhere all the time. It is the ultimate foolishness based, as it is, on a delusion that your words define reality regardless of what reality has to say about it.

          So yeah, the fuel Republican have to win election is provided by the Democrats. That’s reality. Denying it will lead us to tomorrow’s results.


        • I do reject illiberalism. But no, it is not mainstream Democratic. The Democrats are diverse.

          No, I do not say that opposing illiberalism is authoritarian. However, your continued attacking of Democrats for their tolerance is authoritarian.

          Just by way, I’m not a Democrat. I’m an independent.


        • If you reject illiberalism, you cannot support BLM, CRT, affirmation only therapy, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), censorship, deplatforming, disinvitation, cancel culture, gate keeping, graduate programs to ‘prove’ equity support, and so on… all of which is MANDATED by Democratic leadership. All of these are regressive – under the name Progressive’ – and are is deeply illiberal because all of these not only stand in contrast to core of liberal values, they attack them directly. This may explain why I know more Republican liberals than Democratic liberals and the elections where highly reliable Democratic strongholds have gone to the Republicans on just these issues bears this out.


        • “If you reject illiberalism, you cannot support BLM, CRT, affirmation only therapy, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), censorship, deplatforming, disinvitation, cancel culture, gate keeping, graduate programs to ‘prove’ equity support, and so on… all of which is MANDATED by Democratic leadership.”

          There’s your authoritarianism, trying to dictate what I can or cannot support. I’ll be the one who decides what I support.

          And no, I am not aware that any of those are mandated by Democratic leadership.

          Liked by 1 person

        • By diversity, I presume you mean people who may look different but believe just as you do. Because there isn’t any diversity of thought allowed in public debate, in institutions, in legacy media, on campus, in bureaucracy, anywhere that receives federal money to be a ‘good’ Democrat/’good’ citizen. (Reich may not say it directly but insists in all conceivable ways these are synonyms.) There is certainly none in Reich’s ongoing diatribe about how not voting Democrat is End Times. Although that may be true, he’s also done his level best to make voting for Democrats as hard as possible for liberals, for people who care and want to defend liberal values. That’s worth criticizing rather than going along and cheering the dishonesty he uses because the goal is just so darned righteous.


        • “By diversity, I presume you mean people who may look different but believe just as you do.”

          Then you presume wrongly. I guess that’s just more of your authoritarianism playing out.


        • Tildeb, if winning becomes more important, than the ideals one is fighting for, one has already lost.

          I am not a US Democrat, or even a Liberalist. So, I do not share their bubbless. I am a Finnish Socialist altough I do share some of your Liberal values. I also share your concern about Republicans winning in the US elections. However, I do not see how what you complain to be the reason could be remedied and judging by the fact, that you once again evaded my question about it, neither do you.

          Perhaps, the Democrat party leadership could make some declarations condemning “cancel culture”, to appeal to the voter segment you say is moving towards Republicans, but would they then alienate a nother voter segment – in this case one that they have come to rely on and whose values they possibly share? The “Woke” segment would hardly move to vote for Republicans, but such a move by the party leadership could be also seen by voters in general as shopping for votes and spineless corruption of values.

          I seriously doubt, that the fence sitters between the two parties are at all as interrested in liberal values as you are. Rather, they are people who do not much follow politics and their move towards Republicans is motivated by some other shared values with them, altough for example, spewing hate at woulnerable groups may be a representation of “freedom of speech” to a significant voter segment. After all, the Republicans do not offer much anything else liberal, than extremely liberal gun laws and some neo-liberal economy policies. Do they?


        • This observation, rautakyy, is spot-on … they are people who do not much follow politics and their move towards Republicans is motivated by some other shared values with them. I don’t think it has anything to do with how (according to some) “illiberal” the Dems have gotten.


        • The people who are voting Republican that I know are not illiterate, stupid, ignorant, or biased people. They are people who are fed up with their kids being indoctrinated. They are fed up with being told they are bad people based on their skin colour. They are sick and tired of holding their tongue, not being able to say what they think without being vilified for anything – and I mean anything – outside of what I call ‘woke’ ideology. And some of these folk come from various totalitarian and deeply authoritarian states and they keep telling me how this is the path to those kinds of states. They are fed up with rising crime excused and denied. They are tired of the linguistic take-over using ‘acceptable’ terminology. They are fed up with this bubble world that magically turns men into women by words alone and threatens the health and welfare of their confused children by established medical professions unwilling and seemingly unable to consider what’s true to be more important over what is believed to be true. They are seeing their neighbourhoods go to shit where policing has been reduced and vilified as property crime soars and where their downtowns have taken over by those who do not contribute to society but feed off of it. They are fed up having their research means-tested outside of the area of interest, for not causing real but potential ‘harm’ and ‘offense’ that their instructions/testing might be accused of causing (without any evidence to back it up), fed up with being told to tailor their hiring and work results to suit not science, not academic value, but equity standards based on race and gender. And so on. It’s ubiquitous. And all of these policies and procedures and practices are brought about by those who vote Democrat. (Find me a self-admitted conservative teaching at a college or university these days and I’ll show you 500 who are not. Conservatives are Very Bad People, you see, and criticizing any of this makes one a de facto Conservative!)

          All of these kinds of things are caused under this label of ‘politics’ generally and ‘Democrats’ specifically that causes these people to say, “Enough already.” and has nothing whatsoever to do Trump or racism or whatever moniker they are damned to have to wear when and if they say this. Often they don’t… they just vote AGAINST more of it. They don;t say anything; they just go and vote. And that’s the swing voter I’m talking about. And they will exercise this franchise no matter how vicious the approved backlash to vilify them as Very Terrible People… because they know they are not.


        • @Tildeb, yes, I am sure those, that you listed are the concerns of the people you mean and who may very well be voting Republican. Is it not at all alarming to you, that those are very close to the concerns of the voters of Fidez, PiS, Erdogan, Unified Russia and indeed the core Republicans? They all know they are not terrible people. The nazies knew they were not very terrible people and believe you me, but most of them were not. They were just ordinary hard working people with traditional values, who wanted nothing else, but to keep living as they were used to, but were appalled by what they considered all sorts of sexual deviants, rising crime, feminists who were going “too far” with their demands, communists with all sorts of demands to pay wellfare to people out of work and a feeling of being wilified just for being patriots. So, they voted against all of it. What could be done to prevent similar tragedies from repeating again?

          As the research Nan linked indicates many Conservative parties around the globe run on the themes and concerns you listed and are going strong in denying Liberalism for tolerating the listed phenomena. They equate it with elitism, because educated people share many liberal values in general and support social justice & equality.

          There may be some other reasons, than some conspiracy by liberal academics, that there are so few conservative academics, or why their papers do not pass peer review. What could that possibly be? Maybe, that in general education broadens horizons and provides tolerance, exept for the intolerant.

          You could set the mind of some of your fence sitting friends at ease, by reminding them that theirs, or for that matter nobodys gender is going to be changed to anything they do not want, or feel they truly are, against their own will, if the Democrats win some elections. So, their concerns for liberalism in that regard are fairly silly.

          The fact, that the US culture is so ingrained with racism, that if the crimes and oppression by (and lets be honest – they usually have and do belong to a group viewing itself as “white”) racists are being brought up to explain the disparity and inequality within the society, some identifying as whites can not bear it being even said, other then by feeling vilified, could deserve a separate conversation, but it is rather far fetched, that the Democrats – a party led by a rich old “white” dude – is attacking people just for being “white”.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Just want to add … this comment by Maher is probably the most spot-on of any that he uttered:

          “and honestly too many Americans just don’t care and won’t even care after it happens because they never followed politics to begin with and were never taught in school what democratic government was supposed to look like so how sad can they be about losing something they never knew they had”

          THIS is the REAL problem. Too many simply don’t know or care what’s happening to our country. So, like he said … they will be losing something they never knew they had.

          Liked by 5 people

    • Robert Bernard Reich is an American professor, author, lawyer, and political commentator. He worked in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and served as Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997 in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton. He was also a member of President Barack Obama’s economic transition advisory board.

      Yeah. He’s a damn lightweight. Probably has no idea what is false or true, right or wrong. Probably believes in constitutional law and shit like that.

      Well, you know.

      Liked by 5 people

      • I don’t question his bona fides; I question his willingness to deceive and misrepresent. Constantly. Or do such accolades make one immune from criticism for doing so?

        Look I’ve read Reich’s substack for about a year now. But the level of dishonesty he’s using more and more as the midterms draw nearer has increased exponentially in response to the Democrat’s inability to do anything other than double down on what is killing them with swing voters. It’s not about Trump. It’s about the Democrats capable of protecting liberal democracy but sacrificing it on the alter of assumed virtue… by promoting more and more illiberalism.


        • Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong. ~ Dandemis

          Maybe you can add some credibility to your statement by certifying some of those lies you already know about. You should have no trouble citing some. Just to reinforce your credibility, you understand. So that I can read your posts and know it isn’t just bloviation, bluster and blather bundled up as knowledgeable commentary.

          “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
          – Harlan Ellison

          Just because he has said something you disagree with does not make him a liar. I know you are far and away smarter than just about anybody who follows Nan’s blog, especially myself. Plato once wrote about me, “Wise men talk because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.” I know it was me because I felt the sting of truth in that rebuke.

          I get Robert Reich on Twitter, along with Rick Wilson, Steve Beschloss, and a few others. (I listen as much as I can to opposing opinions, but nausea sets in after a while.) We all turn to those people whose philosophy agrees somewhat with our own. But that doesn’t release us from the duty to check on our sources. If we can’t find anything in reality, that reflects what is reported by news media, then maybe that commentary needs to be rejected, not out of hand, but after some study. Then we know when we come in contact with that person again, we can listen to or ignore them according to our assessment of their credibility. Opposing views can be credible. They can be fact-based and honest.

          But when people who claim to be protecting the truth try to make me believe that up is down and left is right I recognize right away that they are not able to deal with truth and reality and must do all the can to create an alternative one. One that suits their lack of intellectual honesty or ability to think. It makes me sort of sad to see a wide swath of society function at that level of credulity. When people tell you that they are going to destroy your world and you say, “Oh goody,” it is obvious you have no understanding of what they said. Or you are somewhat ill. They call for the banning of books critical of their opinions and again you say, “Oh joy. I never read them any way.”

          It has not been a single opinion that brought The Republic of The United States of America to this time. Remember that Germany faced a similar situation in the 1930s and they did not fare very well. That was not the fault of the society, but that they were vulnerable for various reasons, and fell victim to right-wing propaganda. (How long are we going to let Putin go unchecked?) But with the help of friendly nations, Germany has survived and recovered.

          “I’m not saying that everything is survivable. Just that everything except the last thing is.”
          ~ John Green

          Liked by 2 people

        • cagjr, this is exactly why I asked commentators here to see if they could recognize the disinformation Reich was peddling and show that they were, in fact, concerned with what is true. No one has. So they’re pushing this video for some OTHER reason. And THAT is interesting and could be very insightful for those who recognize that it is the RIGHT question to ask.

          The second point is that I am offering some insight into why the Democrats are losing. Until this is corrected by the rank and file demanding better, the Republicans will continue on their democratically destructive path using the Democrats as the means. I believe no one here wants that. So doubling down as Reich does on providing exactly what the Republicans need is not ‘the truth’ but ideology contrary to supporting liberal democracy. Just because HE doesn’t recognize what he’s doing doesn’t mean WE should be fooled into following it. And the way to do that is to hold higher respect for is true than what is believed to be true.

          Liked by 1 person

        • You are the one who said Reich is a liar. I think it falls on you to show those lies to the rest of us. If you cannot back up your talk with some facts, then I’m not sure you have anything to say outside the standard MAGA bullshit.

          “cagjr, this is exactly why I asked commentators here to see if they could recognize the disinformation Reich was peddling and show that they were, in fact, concerned with what is true. No one has. ”

          How do you propose to call on the other commenters to prove your argument? “No one has” probably means you are the only one down that rabbit hole. Turn that fact over in your mind a few times. Maybe, a little spark of light will come at you. If so, don’t be afraid to embrace it.

          Liked by 1 person

        • The short answer? Reich’s list on crime is disinformation at its finest.

          The long answer: he is making the claim that the violence (notice the substitution from ‘crime’ to violent crime) cannot be explained except to the availability of guns. That’s the red flag statement right there. You’re not seeing what you think you’re seeing, you see: rampant crime. It’s not about rising crimes occurring in your town or city; it’s all about the availability of guns. So vote Democrat to reduce that availability, you see. Then the crime rate Poof! will go down! You just have to believe it enough, you see, to make it happen. That’s the Democrat way.

          This turns the massive increases in crime across the country (not least of which is the rise in violent crime in poorer neighbourhoods disproportionately affecting minorities who are now voting more and more for the Republicans but, shhh… just ignore that fact ’cause they’re all ignorant troglodytes and racists by definition, you see). It’s really all the fault of Republicans. To back this up, he then ‘explains’ there’s no such thing as a lack of police funding and uses ONLY recent increases in 2022 to justify this claim while waving away the reduction in both police budgets and redirection of police budgets to ‘community programs’ like the lack of houses to explain homelessness (and the crime associated with it) and mental health counsellors (and the crime associated with drugs and mental health that supposedly causes addiction) that results in fewer and fewer police officers on the street enforcing the law… ESPECIALLY in the neighbourhoods I’ve already mentioned. That’s why arrest rates are fewer, btw, which is why Reich uses stabilized ‘recidivism’ (re-arrests) as if this proves lenient sentencing by those appeasing the defunding of policing to have no relation whatsoever to crime…oops, I mean violent crime… oops, I mean violent gun crime!

          Granted, only about half of all major urban centers have decreased overall front line police funding but you won’t hear that from Reich. He’s got his anti-Republican agenda to follow here. Who cares, who can notice, who would want to seek what’s true, by grasping that any rises in funding during 2022 does not address the rises in crime tabulated from previous years, things like the rise in carjackings by 36% or robberies by 57% in DC alone. (The examples are legion and national.)

          This evasion of what’s true is the lie Reich is committing under the guise of speaking truthfully, of wanting you to believe he is passing on what’s true; the rise in crime is not from ONLY 2022 but a compilation prior to 2022 that he studiously avoids. During THAT time – and not just 2022 being an election year and all – direct funding for police officers in over half of all cities has been dramatically cut and those most affected are poor minority communities who feel abandoned by their Democrat leadership.

          Look, if we were discussing religion, Reich would be one of the big name apologists because he doesn’t present what’s true about crime based on reality; he selects his talking points like a creationist that SEEMS to support his steadfast anti-Republican, pro-Democrat belief. Reality plays no part. What he ignores is what your eyes tells you is true if you live in a city suffering from rising crime. He waves away the entire recall campaign against the San Fran DA for cause and ignores all the very real reasons why. He just blames Republicans (like those darn immoral atheists who just hate God) by insisting all of this is due to the availability of guns. That’s a GROSS distortion of what’s true. And this becomes obvious when you talk to any front line police officer from, say, Oakland or Portland or Milwaukie or Detroit or NY or Washington or Buffalo or Philadelphia or San Fran or Eugene. But then, if you believe hard enough, the belief will define reality for you – it’s all the Republican’s fault – and you can just ignore all the contrary evidence and excuse the Democrats from addressing crime in any meaningful way during an election not only during the past two years where you’re told crime it isn’t a real problem but, if it is, it’s all the Republican’s fault. Because guns, you see, (which definitely plays a part in criminal activity) and not repeated the daily gang robberies during the day in downtown San Fran. Don’t believe your eyes and, whatever you do, don’t question the belief. After all, democracy is at stake… again.


        • tildeb … here is what I see. Most of us are just ordinary folk who listen to and/or read political commentary and then form our own opinions. You, on the other hand, are a perfectionist (“A person who is displeased by anything that does not meet very high standards”) and see the dots and tittles and scream “Foul” when a person deviates from “the FACTS” just a bit to, oh, perhaps … prove a point?

          Perhaps all you say about Reich is correct. But so what? It’s not going to change the world. He’s just one person (who happens to have some notoriety) offering his opinion. And some people happen to agree with him. It doesn’t require an in-depth, several thousand word rebuttal simply because, in your mind, he is WRONG and people are being misled.

          So please. Let it go. Besides, the election is all but over now (with some rather encouraging results!) so some of the political rhetoric will die down and we can all get back to more mundane living.

          Liked by 1 person

        • It looks like my earlier impression of you was correct. If you do have sources to back up your claims, you have no intention of sharing. either that or you don’t have any. Another possibility is that those sources are of such character that you don’t want to expose yourself for going there. We don’t really eat babies or drink their blood or groom them or want them dead, as you may learn from them.

          Every shooting envolves a gun. Most Republican in Congress are against gun control in any form. Every bill that would have apositive effect on these high crime areas, in both Red and Blue states, were voted against by Republican.

          Sen. 623 [117eh] Sunshine Protection Act of 2021
          H.R.5376 [117th] Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
          H.R.3684 [117th] Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
          These bills became law with open opposition bt the GOP.

          Go read these bills, see what is in them and how legislators voted.
          Its Wednesday, The House and Senate have not yet been decided. In a normal mid-term election cycle, minority should have had a decisive win in at least one branch. Not so this year. No mandate to attack the capitol.

          Blather. Bluster. Bloviation. Redundancy. Verbosity.

          This is a citation. The link still works. The important part of the clip to understand is “the deconstruction of the administrative state. That process to destroy democracy continues today, supported by people who make a concious decision to be refuse to see reality. Self delusion is a hard thing to overcome because the victims like where they are at. Read:

          “Do not believe the “corporatist globalist media” that was “crying and weeping” on election night and is still “dead wrong” about what the Trump administration is doing. Inside the White House,” Mr. Bannon said,” everything is going according to plan. The “deconstruction of the administrative state” has just begun.”

          The insurrection is on going. Right-wing nationalists assault the press as being the enemy of the state. Every one speaking who does not support the insurrection and its perpetrators are assaulted. Everyone not instep with the white Christian male agends is ‘Other,’ not capable of original thought, not worthy of beng heard. Enjoy your trip in fantasy land.


        • Are the liberals promoting … illiberalism? Really.
          Credibility – the quality of being believable.

          Again with unsubstantiated attacks with only your opinion as support.

          Most ships sink in shallow waters.

          Liked by 1 person

    • It’s 77 degrees and sunny. I’m taking my Toni Morrison and sitting in the backyard and reading. Let some good writing flush some crappy thoughts out of my mind. Wait until tonight to start paying attention to the election.

      Ellen Hopkins

      To you zealots and bigots and false
      patriots who live in fear of discourse.
      You screamers and banners and burners
      who would force books
      off shelves in your brand name
      of greater good.

      You say you’re afraid for children,
      innocents ripe for corruption

      by perversion or sorcery on the page.
      But sticks and stones do break
      bones, and ignorance is no armor.
      You do not speak for me,
      and will not deny my kids magic
      in favor of miracles.

      You say you’re afraid for America,
      the red, white, and blue corroded
      by terrorists, socialists, the sexually
      confused. But we are a vast quilt
      of patchwork cultures and multi-gendered
      identities. You cannot speak for those
      whose ancestors braved
      different seas.

      You say you’re afraid for God,
      the living word eroded by Muhammed
      and Darwin and Magdalene.
      But the omnipotent sculptor of heaven
      and earth designed intelligence.
      Surely you dare not speak
      for the father, who opens
      his arms to all.

      A word to the unwise.
      Torch every book.
      Char every page.
      Burn every word to ash.
      Ideas are incombustible.
      And therein lies your real fear.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Understand that philosophy. Everyone who does not agree with them is wrong. They are aggrieved, canceled, and persecuted. Only they know the truth. Only they can fix it. And if they can’t overcome you at the ballot box, they will resort to political violence. Did you not notice the Superman insignia?

    Liked by 5 people

    • Of course! Common sense. But in “real life,” do you think people in general follow this??? I would venture to say some of the loudest complainers toss their ballot in the trash muttering to themselves that “it won’t change anything!”

      Liked by 2 people

      • I’m sure it is a similar story out here.
        I am only a permanent resident, not a citizen, and I am not allowed to vote.
        Although this was waived at the first ejection un1994.
        Ah, the false hope when Mandela was released.
        However, our children are eligible and they have voted at every election, local and general, since they came of age.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Good grief, Nan. The term ‘illiberalism’ of course can be used in a variety of ways but by convenience it simply means policies, practices, and behaviour contrary to core liberal values, namely, respecting the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law. Liberalism does not preclude social services like fire and defense and medicine and a social safety net and other important societal services, or the means to raise taxes to pay for these UNLESS it acts contrary to those core values. Neither does liberalism preclude regulation ( under which everyone operates) but often justifies it.

      So you don’t need a ‘Studies’ university level faculty program to figure this out or what the generic understanding of the term means. Muddying up the term and associating it with capitalism and allied to the US and all the other stuff one could glean from this reference is just diversionary noise. Put simply, privilege in law based on some kind of group identity is illiberal.


Comments are closed.