The official organizers of Pride in Helsinki told the (currently) biggest party in our parliament, that's in the process of trying to form a government atm, that they don't want the party as an official partner of Pride, and oh man the amount of whining that has exploded on Finnish twitter since then.

Here's the thing. This (right-wing) party told its members that they were allowed to vote "according to their conscience" and that the party itself had no official opinion on the matter when the parliament voted for a new law that would improve the rights for trans people earlier this spring. The law passed, because the (then ruling) government and enough of the opposition voted in favour of it, but a third of this party's members voted against it, and in the weeks leading up to the vote several party members were in the media talking about how bad it is and how so many boys will transition to avoid the mandatory military service (I'm not kidding, that was an argument they seriously tried to sell to the public).

But now it's all "oh woe is us, without us the new trans law wouldn't even have passed and now I'm not welcome there?" Well gee, I wonder why Pride doesn't want an official partner where a third of the sitting parliament members voted against trans rights?? Why should Pride want an official partner that's currently trying to form a government with the Christian Democrats and Basic Finns (very far-right populist xenophobic party), both of whom's every single member voted against the new trans law?? Boggles the mind!!

Previous anon here (about the anti-capitalist/communist ask). I guess what I mean by "anti-communist" is the authoritarian kinds (Marxism/Stalinism/Leninism) that have gotten people killed. And while there are some parts of socialism that I find iffy (such as the debate of personal vs public property; I do believe people have the right to own what they earn), I guess it's much more preferable to its extreme counterpart. And as for capitalism, my main gripes with it are corporate greed and the exploitation of workers, but I do like the free market aspect of it. Idk, I guess part of the reason why I dislike both capitalism and communism is because I've seen some pretty bad takes from both sides. Not to mention that in these people's eyes, everything is either capitalism's fault or communism's fault, nothing in between. Not to mention all the atrocities committed by these systems. I kind of feel icky supporting either system.

I keep forgetting tumblr increased the size of asks but it’s a pleasant surprise every time. Also this is months if not years late and I am sorry.

Also this is going to be long.

On the opposition to authoritarian strains of communism, I totally agree. I'm not that familiar with Lenin's politics (other than he missed the part where capitalism is a prerequisite for socialism and then communism, and he basically led to Stalin despite saying on his deathbed "don't let Stalin take over"), but Vanguard Parties are pretty cringe conceptually. Stalin, however, was a monster and tankies are subhuman (I'm referring to morality here but TBH I have also never witnessed an intelligent Stalinist/Maoist/Insert Murder Stan Here). Not to mention, it also seems like authoritarianism defeats the entire point of a communist society. "No money, no private property, no hierarchy, also here's some jackbooted thugs to beat you up for misspelling my name, long live the state".

(That’s not a joke by the way. Stalin was named in a such a way that he’s prime for misspelling. "Ssalin" means "pisser", "Sralin" means "shitter", changing "Stalingrad" to "Stalin gad" reads “Stalin is a reptile/bastard”. He was born to be clowned on but if you actually did it, even if accidentally, you’d get gulag’d.)

On Marxist Communism being authoritarian, I'm actually unsure about this. On revolution, Marx did originally say "democracy won't work, the bourgeoisie will appease the proletariat with symbolic gestures every now and then while still keeping them chained, we need revolution", but that made sense given his time. Women couldn't vote, most men couldn't vote, in this circumstance, the people really had no chance of getting their way through democracy because democracy was for the rich. But later on in his life, after traveling (because he got exiled from Germany), he saw how democracy was accessible and effective in other countries (like America, England, and maybe Holland) and said "actually it could work" and put it on the table. Violent revolution was still on the table (for violently reactionary countries and ones lacking in pre-existing liberal infrastructures, AKA where democracy either can’t exist or can’t exist without you getting shot), but democracy is now officially Marx Approved™. But back to revolution, the idea was "the proletariat rise up, seize the means of production, ending the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and beginning the dictatorship of the proletariat". And using the D-word does sound authoritarian, except it's not. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" means "a society run by and for the interests of the proletariat", the same way “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” means “a society run by and for the interests of the bourgeoisie”. So America is a Representative Democracy, but you could also call it a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie because the system favors the interests of the bourgeoisie.

The stupid name was half something about "dictatorship" meaning "Athenian Dictatorship", AKA "direct democracy", which is based, and half because Marx believed that all forms of government, even democracy, were authoritarian, just to different extents. And I can see the reasoning, but I don't like it. It's a bit reductive, I feel like it opens up the gate for one to do authoritarian shit and then excuse oneself with "well technically everything is authoritarianism comrade", and it also leads to dumb takes like Engels' "anarchy is authoritarian actually and everything is exactly the same". I also feel like it falls right into "the paradox of tolerance" or similar because it would paint a fascist autocracy, a peaceful movement to introduce democracy and democratically vote society away from fascism, and a revolution to overthrow said autocracy as all being authoritarian (even though I know it comes with the caveat of “but that doesn’t mean the latter two aren’t still good”, while I’m of the opinion that authoritarian = bad in any circumstance). EITHER WAY, authoritarian communism worst communism, authoritarian isn’t any more synonymous with communism than it is with capitalism, authoritarianism should be avoided in any implementation of anything ever, and Engels is dumb.

On "private property vs. public property", this is one of those moments where the misconceptions come in. The "private/public property" thing is about the means of production, so factories, mines, farms, etc. Not houses, or your clothes, or your computer, for they are not means by which things are produced. Those are examples of personal property, which socialism nor communism have any issue with (or at least the kind I’m lookin’ for don't). Public ownership means that, instead of the means of production being owned privately, by one dude or small group of dudes on top, they're controlled by public entities. And public entities can mean two things. The government, and the workers. And government ownership is cringe (and also something closer to state capitalism, which I'm 90% sure Stalin described his own system as, tankies stat seething), but once again, public ownership can also mean that the workers own the means of production, which is based, and what I and most sane socialists want. The workplaces would be managed democratically, and the workers would not only be treated better, but they would in fact own what they earn, as opposed to the excess being siphoned by bosses and them gaining more from owning than by working.

On capitalism, I don't have much to add for corporate greed and exploitation, other than that it's honestly on the lower end of the scale and if you wanted to play hardball you could condemn the entire system for being autocratic and inherently unequal in a way that screws over the workers. As for the Free Market, I also like that (at least in some respects, even Father of Capitalism Adam Smith argued for regulation), and from all angles Market Economies seem infinitely better than Command Economies. But funny enough, markets aren't exclusive to capitalism! If you've ever heard of Market Socialism, it would decommodify inelastic needs (food, water, housing, medicine, etc.) while keeping the commodity form for less essential needs. Some people argue for it as a transitional phase

On bad takes from both sides, I kind of agree and disagree at the same time. I've seen a lot of debates on the subject, but I think you can divide the bad communism takes into “explained a good position very poorly” or “no you see Stalin was forced to genocide gay people because of western imperialism” tankie nonsense. Meanwhile I’ve been steeped in capitalist arguments like a cucumber in pickle juice for most of my entire life and it seems like the majority of them range from “bad faith” to “fundamentally doesn’t understand/misunderstands what they’re talking about” to “buttfuck insanity”. Vuvuzela, “that’s not capitalism that’s corporatism”, any take that boils down to “socialism is when the government does stuff”, socialism is when no iPhone, “Marx was [personal failing, real or made up] checkmate socialism”, it goes on like that. AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON OBJECTIVISTS. I’m not in a position where I can see them as equivalent.

Similarly, I take issue with the “it’s either capitalism’s fault or communism’s fault” thing. From an American perspective (because I know that my buddies from the East will see it differently, I got criticized for this in my first response and I acknowledge it), communism/socialism doesn’t exist to the same extent that capitalism does, and doesn’t occupy the same roles. When one looks towards America and begins to criticize capitalism, there’s a lot of fair shakes to be made. The innate fact that capitalism props up a hierarchy (and IIRC was an attempt to preserve the power structure of the aristocracy during the Enlightenment when the nobility was being phased out), that if it’s unregulated enough it just becomes extra-steps monarchy (this is why anarcho-capitalism is both a joke ideology and not actually anarchism), the fact that “profit motive is the only motive” has lead to businesses and corporations ravaging the environment (until people forced them not to), paying no mind to workplace safety (until people forced them to), and pursuing the interests of bigotry (until people forced them not to, and then times shifted so now it’s profitable to pursue the interests of social progressives*), and weird stuff that interlocks with capitalism like homo economicus, inherent coercion (Coconut Island), etc. Meanwhile, communism exists in a much more limited manner, so legitimate usage of “this is communism’s fault” is similarly limited. Once again, I don’t see these as being equivalent.

*Their reason for doing so is wholly pragmatic, amoral in the definitional sense (lacking moral conviction), and hollow, which is still a bad thing, but I’d much rather they pander to progressives and people like me than pander to reactionaries, bigots, and right-wingers).

On “both committed atrocities”, yeah, fair shake. Personally, I don’t think that a group or people used X System to excuse atrocities, or committed atrocities under X System, or cited X System for their atrocities, OR WHATEVER VARIATION YOU WANNA USE, discounts X System unless X System would have intrinsically lead to said atrocities. An ideology like Fascism could have only lead to genocide and the Nazis, because bigotry, war, and extermination are core tenets, hence Fascism is an inherently invalid system. Meanwhile nothing about workers owning the means of production necessitates that we build a lot of gulags (I don’t like gulags very much, you can quote me on that), so that’s where I stand. But this is a personal reason for where you stand, so I won’t bully you much, I’m just providing my take on the matter.

My pre-final thought is that I think it’s weird to divide this into “capitalism vs. communism” considering that communism describes a specific end-point, a classless, moneyless society where the work is automated, whereas “capitalism vs. socialism” would be more appropriate for a lot of reasons. It directly pits the dividing points against each other (private ownership or public ownership?), “socialism” is a bit more broad than “communism” is (communism is a specific form of socialism, the same way ancap is a specific form of capitalism), and socialism is a lot more of “a reality” than communism is (we can do socialism right now, but communism has a lot of set-up to it). But to bring it back to our main, final final thought. While I still think the “socialism” side has some good stuff to offer, and that's where I stand, there’s nothing wrong with rejecting capitalism and socialism (or communism or however you want to put it) in favor of a mixed economy. I've mentioned it before, but while it's still fundamentally a form of capitalism, Social Democracy is a good third position. As well as just throwing a lot of social programs, unions, and worker cooperatives at things.

Idahosa: We Won't Allow Oshiomhole Have His Way In APC Primary

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/idahosa-we-wont-allow-oshiomhole-have-his-way-in-apc-primary/

Idahosa: We Won't Allow Oshiomhole Have His Way In APC Primary

Chief Charles Idahosa, a former Commissioner for Information and chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Edo state, speaks on the controversy trailing the mode of primary to be adopted by the party in selecting its governorship candidate. TEMIDAYO AKINSUYI brings the excerpts:

As one of the major stakeholders in the state, what is your position on the thorny issue of primary in Edo APC?

On the issue of direct or indirect primary, it is very clear that primary is a domestic issue of a political party. There is a Supreme Court judgment on that. I think Oshiomhole is just out to do a lot of destruction just like he did in Zamfara and other states. What surprises me most is that all the leaders of the party are just waiting for him to destroy the fabrics of the democracy of APC. Why they are doing that, I don’t know.

When people try to change story to suit them, it is very painful. Everybody is aware that on the issue of Edo state, Oshiomhole is a principal actor, in fact, he is an interested party in this matter. He wants Obaseki out at all cost even though the wider majority believes that the governor has performed well.  Oshiomhole was governor in Edo state when Obaseki contested the governorship primary in 2016 .

The method used was indirect primary and it was held at the Ogbeh stadium, supervised by Oshiomhole himself.  I remembered then that the people with Oshiomhole now were abusing him, telling him that he was influencing the outcome of the primary because he wanted Obaseki to win. There was no COVID-19 then but he used indirect primary. Why he is now calling for direct primary at a time we are all trying to stop the spread of coronavirus in the state? Odigie-Oyegun has spoken and he advised that Oshiomhole should excuse himself. As national chairman of the party, Oyegun never supported Obaseki but he did not interfere in the process; he did not disturb Oshiomhole from doing whatever he wanted to do then. So, what is it that is so special about Oshiomhole that nobody wants to stop him?  There are insinuation that Governor Obaseki and those loyal to him are afraid of direct primary which is why they are against it. How will you respond to that?

In Edo state, we don’t care if it is direct primary or indirect. What we are saying is the fairness. If Oshiomhole is involved whether direct or indirect, there is going to be problem because he is bias and he is a major part of the crisis rocking Edo APC today. He should explain to the world, how did he bring Obaseki in as APC candidate in 2016. Was it not through indirect primary? Now, he wants all of us to go and crowd ourselves in all our local governments just because he wanted Obaseki out at all cost?  The reason why he is insisting on direct primary is because it is very easy to manipulate. I have a very good example. I contested the governorship primary with Oshiomhole in 2007.  He was barely 10 days old in the Action Congress (AC) then and I defeated him hands down. But what happened? They changed the result. These were results you bring from different locations so it is very easy for the people at the party headquarters to change it.  Those who did the injustice are alive and they have apologised to me. What gives you the impression that Oshiomhole will not be fair in supervising the primary? 

The situation has been revealed to us by the Deputy National Chairman (North), Lawal Shuaibu who said last week that Oshiomhole personally constituted both the screening committees for the governorship and senatorial elections, as well as the final appeals committee, all in violation of the extant constitutional provisions of the party vesting the power in NEC. He said Oshiomhole also made himself the chairman of the appeals committee so that he can have the final say.  I repeat, we are not afraid of direct or indirect primary, but we are concerned about fairness. If Oshiomhole is allowed to be a judge in his own case, there will be no fairness.  That is all we are saying. Oshiomhole should excuse himself from the primary in order to ensure justice and fairness.  That is our position.  We will not fold our hands and allow Edo go to the opposition like Oshiomhole is doing.  

That was how Oshiomhole harassed Governor Samuel Ortom until the man left APC and contested under PDP. Today, he remains the governor of Benue under PDP platform. Is that what a national chairman who knows his onions be wishing for?  We are tired of Oshiomhole’s lies and deceptive antics. Few days ago, he was asked what his problem with Obaseki was; he said he has no problem with the governor and he only wants him to carry everybody along. Meanwhile, he was busy organising mock primary that later resulted in violence.  As a former governor, he is not concerned about assisting the Edo state government in finding solution to COVID-19 pandemic in the state, all he is concerned with how to deny Obaseki a second term. We are waiting for him. Let’s see how that is going to be possible.  The insinuation out there is that Oshiomhole is doing all this not just because of Obaseki but he and some few people want to kill APC in the South-South and weaken it so that the party dies when President Buhari is leaving and then they will float a new political party. I am one of the founding fathers of this party from AC, so I know what is going on. If Oshiomhole used indirect primary to produce Obaseki then like you said, why do you think he is insisting on direct primary now? When you see a man that lies from both sides of his mouth with ease, then that man cannot be trusted. I have always said that Oshiomhole is not competent to be a national chairman of a political party and he has proven me right on many occasions that he is unfit to lead this party or any other party.  

I was ashamed of him as his former Political Adviser when he was lying on national television recently.  When the reporter asked him about his opinion on the Bill in the House of Representatives barring Nigerians from going abroad for medical treatment, Oshiomhole replied that he is in support of the Bill.  The reporter then asked him ‘Have you ever travelled abroad for medical treatment’? Oshiomhole said ‘No’.  When the reporter probed him further, he now capitulated and said ‘yes’.  We know Oshiomhole very well. As a governor of Edo state, he was going abroad for medical treatment. By that Oshiomhole was indirectly indicting President Buhari knowing full well that the President, during his first term was away for almost seven months on health issue.  When Oshiomhole’s mother fell in a mosque, he took her abroad for treatment. Oshiomhole then ordered his Special Assistant on Protocol, John Akhigbe who is now the Chairman of Etsako Central Local Government Area to go and stay in a nearby hotel to watch over his mother who was being treated in a private hospital. Her mother who only fell in a mosque; whose legs were not broken, stayed in the hospital for months.  When I heard the mother was in London, I called Oshiomhole and I told him I will be going to London. He said I should call Akhigbe to give me the name of the hospital and I went there to visit the woman.  But this same man sat on national television, lying to Nigerians that he has never gone for treatment abroad when his mother who only fell went to London to go and relax with Edo people’s money. Here is a man that has been indicted on the fraud he perpetrated on the Edo Specialist Hospital project in Benin. He goes into the party secretariat with few of his loyalists who called themselves NWC and they said they have taken decision. We are waiting for the official announcement in Edo so that we know what to do. All he busies himself with from morning till night is how to remove a governor who is performing to the admiration of all.  We are not going to allow him have his way.

2 Likes 1 Share

WASHINGTON -- With the Democratic presidential contest down to a two-person race, Sen. Bernie Sanders has declared that he will wield his signature issue, "Medicare for All," as a crucial distinction between his campaign and the surging candidacy of former Vice President Joe Biden."Joe essentially wants to maintain what I consider to be a dysfunctional and cruel health care system," Sanders said this week, adding that he hoped they could devote an entire debate to the issue.But an even bigger hurdle than winning the presidency stands between Sanders and his goal of generous government health insurance for all Americans: Congress.No legislation to advance or achieve universal health care has succeeded over the past 70 years without Democrats not only controlling all three branches of government, but also having a supermajority in the Senate. At this point, Sanders' plan has nowhere near that support.Just 14 members of the Senate have signed on to his Medicare for All Act, which would require a huge expansion of federal spending, and Democrats would need to pick up four seats in November to gain majority control of the chamber. Even if they succeeded, most of the Democrats seeking to unseat vulnerable Senate Republicans -- John Hickenlooper in Colorado, for example, and Mark Kelly in Arizona -- have come out against Medicare for All, raising the curious prospect of Democratic Senate candidates opposing the Democratic presidential nominee's most prized policy plan.In the House, a similar Medicare for All bill has 119 sponsors, all Democrats, out of a total 435 members -- at least 218 votes are needed to pass legislation -- and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not among the supporters. Nor are most of the roughly 40 freshman Democrats known as "front liners," who helped their party win control of the House in 2018 by flipping Republican seats."I'm not sure that the government is prepared or qualified to take over the health care for every single American," Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat who flipped a Republican district in southern Michigan in 2018, told a local newspaper there.Whether because of the cost -- $34 trillion in new federal spending over 10 years, according to the Urban Institute -- or opposition to eliminating private insurance in favor of government control, most congressional Democrats instead support improving the Affordable Care Act or pursuing a new government-run plan, or "public option," that would compete with private insurance.A public option is at the core of Biden's health plan, but it too could prove extremely challenging to enact, depending on how threatening it seemed to insurers and hospitals. Industry groups that are already mobilizing against Medicare for All could also doom public option legislation, as they did in 2010, when supporters of the Affordable Care Act had to drop a relatively modest public option provision to get the law passed.It is always possible that sentiments could shift -- perhaps sooner rather than later if the coronavirus outbreak were to disproportionately harm people who could not afford care, a possibility Sanders has already raised. He lost no time in making the case for Medicare for All after Health Secretary Alex Azar suggested while testifying before Congress recently that federal officials would not be able to guarantee that all Americans would be able to afford a coronavirus vaccine if it were to become available.But for now, many Democratic lawmakers have expressed trepidation that a legislative showdown over Medicare for All would make it impossible to advance other important initiatives, including on climate change and immigration.And with the Supreme Court's announcement Monday that it would hear a major new challenge to the Affordable Care Act as soon as this fall, even some who support Medicare for All said that for now, Democrats should unify behind the law, which President Donald Trump's administration is seeking to invalidate.Asked in an interview how the House would treat Medicare for All legislation if Sanders were elected president, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a co-sponsor on the House Medicare for All bill, promptly changed the subject to the court case."This is an unrelenting attack on the health care of everyday Americans, and it seems to me the focus at the moment should be on protecting and strengthening the Affordable Care Act," said Jeffries, a New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.History, too, suggests the chances of a President Sanders pushing Medicare for All through Congress would be slim to none. President Harry Truman failed to win comprehensive universal coverage in 1950 even with Democrats controlling the House and Senate. That defeat, as John McDonough, a health policy expert at Harvard, noted recently in the journal Health Affairs, led President Lyndon Johnson to seek a less ambitious fallback 15 years later: universal coverage limited to older people in his 1965 legislation that created Medicare, a historic accomplishment in its own right."If Democrats can further advance toward near-universal coverage without the life-or-death struggles of Medicare for All," McDonough wrote, "they might just achieve meaningful and historic progress even as they preserve the political capital to make progress on other compelling and urgent policy needs."McDonough also pointed out that the landmark coverage expansions in 1965 (which also created Medicaid, but for a very limited group at the time) and in 2010 with the Affordable Care Act were passed not merely by a Democratic-controlled Congress, but also with Democratic supermajorities in the Senate."There's no prospect of having majorities like that," said Paul Starr, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University. "It's not going to happen."Even if the rules were changed to get rid of the filibuster, making it possible to pass major legislation with only 50 Senate votes, "there is not any guarantee that the 51st Democrat would be willing to support Medicare for All or anything close to it," said Mark Peterson, a professor of public policy, political science and law at the University of California, Los Angeles.Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who wrote the House Medicare for All bill, said in an interview that she was not discouraged by the math, noting that since she introduced her bill a year ago, a dozen more members had signed on as co-sponsors, House committees had held four hearings on it, and coalitions representing people of color, labor unions and businesses had begun lobbying for the bill."A lot of the members I speak to that aren't on the bill, I actually believe they would like to be on the bill but think, 'I don't know if it's politically good for me,'" Jayapal said. "That would fundamentally change if Bernie were to be elected president."Proponents of Medicare for All like to cite some polls that suggest there is strong support for the idea. But Mollyann Brodie, who oversees public opinion research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, says only a minority of Democrats are solely in favor of a sweeping Medicare for All plan, compared to a majority who support offering the option of buying a Medicare-like plan or Medicare for All as a way to address high costs and the challenges of getting care.People are wary of the high taxes that could come with Medicare for All, Brodie said, partly because they do not necessarily trust the federal government to determine how the dollars are spent.What also makes Medicare for All unlikely is massive opposition from the health care industry, particularly insurance companies whose very survival is at risk. Hospitals are also opposed, because the federal government typically pays them much less than private health insurers. Being paid at Medicare rates, industry groups say, would cause many hospitals to close and others to lay off their workers.The industry groups that were largely on board for the Affordable Care Act have already mobilized, through groups like the Partnership for America's Health Care Future, to squelch any thoughts of Medicare for All. They are aggressively lobbying Congress and spending on television ads, one of which aired during the most recent Democratic debate.Short of a public option, which all the Democratic presidential candidates besides Sanders embraced in one form or other, there are more incremental proposals that have broad public and congressional support.Increasing the generosity of premium subsidies for people who buy coverage through the Obamacare marketplaces, as California has already done, is one such idea. Another is to offer premium subsidies to adults with incomes below the poverty level in states that have not expanded Medicaid, a population that is still largely uninsured.Jayapal acknowledged that short of a rapid sea change in public attitudes, full Democratic control of Congress would be necessary to even begin moving forward on Medicare for All. She noted, however, that congressional Republicans have fallen in line behind Trump's agenda to an extent that no one predicted, and said the same could happen with Democrats and Sanders."A president can lead his or her party to a different place in a very short period of time," she said. "Sometimes we think the tipping point is much further away than it actually is."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2020 The New York Times Company

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/39FMNVV

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado | Kochs won't help top GOP Senate candidate in key state

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/1Ajvv0

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado | Kochs won't help top GOP Senate candidate in key state

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The conservative Koch brothers‘ network declared Monday that it will not help elect the Republican Senate candidate in North Dakota, turning its back on the GOP in a marquee election — at least for now — after determining that the Republican challenger is no better than the Democratic incumbent.

The decision sends a strong message to Republican officials across the country that there may be real consequences for those unwilling to oppose the spending explosion and protectionist trade policies embraced by the Trump White House in recent weeks. And little more than three months before Election Day, it leaves a top-tier Republican Senate campaign without the assistance of one of the conservative movement’s most powerful allies as their party fights to maintain control of Congress.

“For those who stand in the way, we don’t pull any punches, regardless of party,” Tim Phillips, who leads the Kochs’ political arm, told hundreds of donors while outlining their midterm election strategy on the final day of a three-day private Rocky Mountain retreat.

The announcement marks a new chapter in the strained relationship between the Trump administration and the expanding conservative network created by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, who refused to endorse the Republican president in 2016. Trump has effectively taken over the modern-day Republican Party on almost every level, even after ignoring long-held conservative beliefs on government spending, free trade and foreign policy.

The billionaire Kochs and their nationwide army of conservative activists, however, are not giving in.  That’s not to say they’re punishing every Trump loyalist in the 2018 election season. The Kochs’ political arm, Americans for Prosperity, still plans to focus its resources on helping Republican Senate candidates in Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin. It remains unclear how hard the group will work to defeat vulnerable Senate Democrats in West Virginia, Missouri and Montana.

The midterm strategy could change in the coming weeks, but the Kochs currently plan to ignore North Dakota’s high-profile Senate contest, where three-term Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer is trying to unseat Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. She’s considered among the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in the nation.

“He’s not leading on the issues this country needs leadership most right now,” Phillips said of Cramer, specifically citing spending and trade. “If Cramer doesn’t step up to lead, that makes it hard to support him.”

Ahead of the announcement, Charles Koch told reporters that he cared little for party affiliation and regretted supporting some Republicans in the past who only paid lip service to conservative principles.

Network leaders over the weekend repeatedly lashed out at the Republican-backed $1.3 trillion spending bill adopted in March, which represented the largest government spending plan in history. The Trump White House budget office now predicts that next year’s federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion, while reaching a combined $8 trillion over the next 10 years.

The Kochs were equally concerned about the Trump administration’s “protectionist” trade policies, which have sparked an international trade war and could trigger a U.S. recession, Koch said.

“We’re going to be much stricter if they say they’re for the principles we espouse and then they aren’t,” Koch vowed. “We’re going to more directly deal with that and hold people responsible for their commitments.” T

he Koch network has demonstrated in recent months — albeit on a limited basis — a willingness to praise Democrats and condemn Republicans in specific situations.

After first running attack ads against Heitkamp earlier in the year, the Kochs last month launched a digital ad campaign thanking the North Dakota Democrat for voting to roll back Obama-era banking regulations. At around the same time, they launched an advertising blitz to criticize 10 Republican House members, including Pennsylvania GOP Senate nominee Lou Barletta, for supporting the massive spending bill.

Following Monday’s announcement, Julia Krieger, a campaign spokesperson for Heitkamp, said, “When it comes to leading on the pocketbook issues North Dakotans care about — from strong trade markets to responsible spending and cutting red tape for North Dakota businesses — Heidi has always been consistent: North Dakota comes first.”

The development marked a dramatic escalation in the Kochs’ willingness to buck partisan loyalties. And some Trump loyalists were furious with the Kochs’ work to undermine Trump and his agenda even before Monday’s news dropped.

Former White House counselor Steve Bannon questioned the true influence of “the Koch network management,” seizing on the lack of accountability in the organization’s spending in recent years given that most of the details are not publicly available.

“Where did the money go, what do they really spend it on, and how much, if anything, do they really put into the network?” Bannon asked in a brief interview with The Associated Press.

And prominent Texas-based Trump donor Doug Deason, who attended the weekend retreat, said Republican candidates should not be punished for embracing the Republican president’s agenda. “That’s not right,” he said before Monday’s announcement, condemning the Koch network’s recent decision to praise Heitkamp. “Heitkamp, we’re going to knock her out of the water. She’s gone,” Deason predicted.

The decision to ignore the Republican candidate in North Dakota certainly caught some by surprise, but there appeared to be overwhelming support from others — even if the plan hurts the GOP’s push to maintain its House and Senate majorities. Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, among a handful of elected officials who mingled with donors at the weekend confab, said there should be political consequences for those who deviate from conservative principles.

“If in fact you have people espousing these in name, but not in practice, yeah, they’re not going to be supported, nor should they be,” Bevin said in a brief interview. “I think this network supports people who truly respect those principles. And I think they’re agnostic, from what I’ve seen, with respect to what party a person is.” At the same time, Bevin defended Trump’s push to apply billions of dollars in tariffs on goods from China, Canada, Mexico and the European Union. He dismissed the outcry from businesses in Kentucky and elsewhere as a short-term problem.

Colorado-based energy investor Chris Wright, a longtime Koch donor, said the Republican Party may have lost its way in the age of Trump. He and his wife, Liz, encouraged the Koch network to ignore Republican candidates who turn their back on key conservative principles out of loyalty to Trump.

“They don’t deserve to be funded if they don’t uphold our values,” Liz Wright said.

  By Associated Press

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado | Kochs won't help top GOP Senate candidate in key state

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/1Ajvv0

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado | Kochs won't help top GOP Senate candidate in key state

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The conservative Koch brothers‘ network declared Monday that it will not help elect the Republican Senate candidate in North Dakota, turning its back on the GOP in a marquee election — at least for now — after determining that the Republican challenger is no better than the Democratic incumbent.

The decision sends a strong message to Republican officials across the country that there may be real consequences for those unwilling to oppose the spending explosion and protectionist trade policies embraced by the Trump White House in recent weeks. And little more than three months before Election Day, it leaves a top-tier Republican Senate campaign without the assistance of one of the conservative movement’s most powerful allies as their party fights to maintain control of Congress.

“For those who stand in the way, we don’t pull any punches, regardless of party,” Tim Phillips, who leads the Kochs’ political arm, told hundreds of donors while outlining their midterm election strategy on the final day of a three-day private Rocky Mountain retreat.

The announcement marks a new chapter in the strained relationship between the Trump administration and the expanding conservative network created by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, who refused to endorse the Republican president in 2016. Trump has effectively taken over the modern-day Republican Party on almost every level, even after ignoring long-held conservative beliefs on government spending, free trade and foreign policy.

The billionaire Kochs and their nationwide army of conservative activists, however, are not giving in.  That’s not to say they’re punishing every Trump loyalist in the 2018 election season. The Kochs’ political arm, Americans for Prosperity, still plans to focus its resources on helping Republican Senate candidates in Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin. It remains unclear how hard the group will work to defeat vulnerable Senate Democrats in West Virginia, Missouri and Montana.

The midterm strategy could change in the coming weeks, but the Kochs currently plan to ignore North Dakota’s high-profile Senate contest, where three-term Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer is trying to unseat Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. She’s considered among the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in the nation.

“He’s not leading on the issues this country needs leadership most right now,” Phillips said of Cramer, specifically citing spending and trade. “If Cramer doesn’t step up to lead, that makes it hard to support him.”

Ahead of the announcement, Charles Koch told reporters that he cared little for party affiliation and regretted supporting some Republicans in the past who only paid lip service to conservative principles.

Network leaders over the weekend repeatedly lashed out at the Republican-backed $1.3 trillion spending bill adopted in March, which represented the largest government spending plan in history. The Trump White House budget office now predicts that next year’s federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion, while reaching a combined $8 trillion over the next 10 years.

The Kochs were equally concerned about the Trump administration’s “protectionist” trade policies, which have sparked an international trade war and could trigger a U.S. recession, Koch said.

“We’re going to be much stricter if they say they’re for the principles we espouse and then they aren’t,” Koch vowed. “We’re going to more directly deal with that and hold people responsible for their commitments.” T

he Koch network has demonstrated in recent months — albeit on a limited basis — a willingness to praise Democrats and condemn Republicans in specific situations.

After first running attack ads against Heitkamp earlier in the year, the Kochs last month launched a digital ad campaign thanking the North Dakota Democrat for voting to roll back Obama-era banking regulations. At around the same time, they launched an advertising blitz to criticize 10 Republican House members, including Pennsylvania GOP Senate nominee Lou Barletta, for supporting the massive spending bill.

Following Monday’s announcement, Julia Krieger, a campaign spokesperson for Heitkamp, said, “When it comes to leading on the pocketbook issues North Dakotans care about — from strong trade markets to responsible spending and cutting red tape for North Dakota businesses — Heidi has always been consistent: North Dakota comes first.”

The development marked a dramatic escalation in the Kochs’ willingness to buck partisan loyalties. And some Trump loyalists were furious with the Kochs’ work to undermine Trump and his agenda even before Monday’s news dropped.

Former White House counselor Steve Bannon questioned the true influence of “the Koch network management,” seizing on the lack of accountability in the organization’s spending in recent years given that most of the details are not publicly available.

“Where did the money go, what do they really spend it on, and how much, if anything, do they really put into the network?” Bannon asked in a brief interview with The Associated Press.

And prominent Texas-based Trump donor Doug Deason, who attended the weekend retreat, said Republican candidates should not be punished for embracing the Republican president’s agenda. “That’s not right,” he said before Monday’s announcement, condemning the Koch network’s recent decision to praise Heitkamp. “Heitkamp, we’re going to knock her out of the water. She’s gone,” Deason predicted.

The decision to ignore the Republican candidate in North Dakota certainly caught some by surprise, but there appeared to be overwhelming support from others — even if the plan hurts the GOP’s push to maintain its House and Senate majorities. Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, among a handful of elected officials who mingled with donors at the weekend confab, said there should be political consequences for those who deviate from conservative principles.

“If in fact you have people espousing these in name, but not in practice, yeah, they’re not going to be supported, nor should they be,” Bevin said in a brief interview. “I think this network supports people who truly respect those principles. And I think they’re agnostic, from what I’ve seen, with respect to what party a person is.” At the same time, Bevin defended Trump’s push to apply billions of dollars in tariffs on goods from China, Canada, Mexico and the European Union. He dismissed the outcry from businesses in Kentucky and elsewhere as a short-term problem.

Colorado-based energy investor Chris Wright, a longtime Koch donor, said the Republican Party may have lost its way in the age of Trump. He and his wife, Liz, encouraged the Koch network to ignore Republican candidates who turn their back on key conservative principles out of loyalty to Trump.

“They don’t deserve to be funded if they don’t uphold our values,” Liz Wright said.

  By Associated Press

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado | Kochs won't help top GOP Senate candidate in key state

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/1Ajvv0

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado | Kochs won't help top GOP Senate candidate in key state

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The conservative Koch brothers‘ network declared Monday that it will not help elect the Republican Senate candidate in North Dakota, turning its back on the GOP in a marquee election — at least for now — after determining that the Republican challenger is no better than the Democratic incumbent.

The decision sends a strong message to Republican officials across the country that there may be real consequences for those unwilling to oppose the spending explosion and protectionist trade policies embraced by the Trump White House in recent weeks. And little more than three months before Election Day, it leaves a top-tier Republican Senate campaign without the assistance of one of the conservative movement’s most powerful allies as their party fights to maintain control of Congress.

“For those who stand in the way, we don’t pull any punches, regardless of party,” Tim Phillips, who leads the Kochs’ political arm, told hundreds of donors while outlining their midterm election strategy on the final day of a three-day private Rocky Mountain retreat.

The announcement marks a new chapter in the strained relationship between the Trump administration and the expanding conservative network created by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, who refused to endorse the Republican president in 2016. Trump has effectively taken over the modern-day Republican Party on almost every level, even after ignoring long-held conservative beliefs on government spending, free trade and foreign policy.

The billionaire Kochs and their nationwide army of conservative activists, however, are not giving in.  That’s not to say they’re punishing every Trump loyalist in the 2018 election season. The Kochs’ political arm, Americans for Prosperity, still plans to focus its resources on helping Republican Senate candidates in Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin. It remains unclear how hard the group will work to defeat vulnerable Senate Democrats in West Virginia, Missouri and Montana.

The midterm strategy could change in the coming weeks, but the Kochs currently plan to ignore North Dakota’s high-profile Senate contest, where three-term Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer is trying to unseat Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. She’s considered among the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in the nation.

“He’s not leading on the issues this country needs leadership most right now,” Phillips said of Cramer, specifically citing spending and trade. “If Cramer doesn’t step up to lead, that makes it hard to support him.”

Ahead of the announcement, Charles Koch told reporters that he cared little for party affiliation and regretted supporting some Republicans in the past who only paid lip service to conservative principles.

Network leaders over the weekend repeatedly lashed out at the Republican-backed $1.3 trillion spending bill adopted in March, which represented the largest government spending plan in history. The Trump White House budget office now predicts that next year’s federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion, while reaching a combined $8 trillion over the next 10 years.

The Kochs were equally concerned about the Trump administration’s “protectionist” trade policies, which have sparked an international trade war and could trigger a U.S. recession, Koch said.

“We’re going to be much stricter if they say they’re for the principles we espouse and then they aren’t,” Koch vowed. “We’re going to more directly deal with that and hold people responsible for their commitments.” T

he Koch network has demonstrated in recent months — albeit on a limited basis — a willingness to praise Democrats and condemn Republicans in specific situations.

After first running attack ads against Heitkamp earlier in the year, the Kochs last month launched a digital ad campaign thanking the North Dakota Democrat for voting to roll back Obama-era banking regulations. At around the same time, they launched an advertising blitz to criticize 10 Republican House members, including Pennsylvania GOP Senate nominee Lou Barletta, for supporting the massive spending bill.

Following Monday’s announcement, Julia Krieger, a campaign spokesperson for Heitkamp, said, “When it comes to leading on the pocketbook issues North Dakotans care about — from strong trade markets to responsible spending and cutting red tape for North Dakota businesses — Heidi has always been consistent: North Dakota comes first.”

The development marked a dramatic escalation in the Kochs’ willingness to buck partisan loyalties. And some Trump loyalists were furious with the Kochs’ work to undermine Trump and his agenda even before Monday’s news dropped.

Former White House counselor Steve Bannon questioned the true influence of “the Koch network management,” seizing on the lack of accountability in the organization’s spending in recent years given that most of the details are not publicly available.

“Where did the money go, what do they really spend it on, and how much, if anything, do they really put into the network?” Bannon asked in a brief interview with The Associated Press.

And prominent Texas-based Trump donor Doug Deason, who attended the weekend retreat, said Republican candidates should not be punished for embracing the Republican president’s agenda. “That’s not right,” he said before Monday’s announcement, condemning the Koch network’s recent decision to praise Heitkamp. “Heitkamp, we’re going to knock her out of the water. She’s gone,” Deason predicted.

The decision to ignore the Republican candidate in North Dakota certainly caught some by surprise, but there appeared to be overwhelming support from others — even if the plan hurts the GOP’s push to maintain its House and Senate majorities. Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, among a handful of elected officials who mingled with donors at the weekend confab, said there should be political consequences for those who deviate from conservative principles.

“If in fact you have people espousing these in name, but not in practice, yeah, they’re not going to be supported, nor should they be,” Bevin said in a brief interview. “I think this network supports people who truly respect those principles. And I think they’re agnostic, from what I’ve seen, with respect to what party a person is.” At the same time, Bevin defended Trump’s push to apply billions of dollars in tariffs on goods from China, Canada, Mexico and the European Union. He dismissed the outcry from businesses in Kentucky and elsewhere as a short-term problem.

Colorado-based energy investor Chris Wright, a longtime Koch donor, said the Republican Party may have lost its way in the age of Trump. He and his wife, Liz, encouraged the Koch network to ignore Republican candidates who turn their back on key conservative principles out of loyalty to Trump.

“They don’t deserve to be funded if they don’t uphold our values,” Liz Wright said.

  By Associated Press