Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Comrade Anklebiter's page

8,124 posts. Alias of Doodlebug Anklebiter.


1 to 50 of 8,124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Haven't had a chance to go through the past two days' posts, alas, but a couple articles on Social Security:

Hillary Clinton And Wall Street: Financial Industry May Control Retirement Savings In A Clinton Administration

and, Blackstone's Tony James Touting What Looks Like Clinton's Scheme to Gut Social Security

Maybe, without banging-intern scandals, Hillary will be able to pull off what Bill couldn't.

UNITE-HERE Local 26: 1000+ #SupportTheStrike March Oct 22

A few of the incredible images taken today as more than 1,000 people joined Harvard dining hall workers on Day 18 of their historic strike. Workers and their allies are needing to take it to the streets to get what they need to survive from the wealthiest university on the planet.

The rain let up just before we got there and didn't come back until the walk back to the car.

Young Gay Autistic Comrade was, once again, verbally attacked by a bunch of idiot student liberals for his outfit. They claimed that he looked "too militant," "fascistic" and that his Soviet military hat made him look like "a Nazi." When I pointed out to them that Nazis and communists were on opposite side of the spectrum, they said they didn't want our support. I then asked them if they were dining hall workers. When they said, no, I then pointed to my Teamsters pin, then pointed over to the flatbed truck from which the union leaders were speaking, and how it read "Teamsters Local 25." Later, my local president gave a pretty good speech (made me feel guilty for voting against him in the national election) and pledged $10,000 to the UNITE-HERE 26 strike fund and the idiot student liberals didn't say anything after that.

There were also sizable contingents from up and down the east coast, including one from Atlantic City with t-shirts reading "Trump Taj Mahal: I Held the Line Against Carl Icahn." They were pretty spirited despite having, as Comrade X reported above, having lost their jobs.

Leftist Bingo-wise, lots of Taafeites, Cliffites and Marcyites, and three Spart sympathizers that I hadn't seen in, oh, 20 or so years. One of them was uncomfortable, one of them asked hostile questions, but the last, who got me a job in an industrial print shop back in the day, stopped and talked to me about old times for awhile.

Anyway, pretty good rally.

Shame! Shame! Shame on Harvard!

But does he draw a more significantly working-class group than the Democratic primary candidates?

Based on, as I said, months-old data presented in this article, it doesn't look like it, but I am sure there other articles and other polls.

I guess I just take umbrage at a letter to "The (White?) Working Class" from a "College-Educated" poster who pops up every election cycle to suggest that we need to raise the Social Security retirement age in order to balance the budget.


Fergie wrote:

Dear "College Educated America", please take the pompous attitude and neo-liberalism that has been pucking over the vast majority for decades, and shove it where the sun don't shine.

You're welcome.

People who work for a living.

A couple months old, but interesting nonetheless:

The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support
His voters are better off economically compared with most Americans.

Yes, but according to the exit polls cited in the NBC article above, black voters under 30 voted for Sanders 52% to 47%.

Which might not mean much in the grand scheme of things (apparently, they're expecting low turnout among such voters as compared with the two elections in which Obama ran), but it is what I was talking about.

Oh, crazy, Guardian article on the same question published today:

Why should we trust you? Hillary's big problem with young black Americans

Full disclosure: written by a contributor to Socialist Worker.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I was wondering to myself,[...] why all the black activists I've worked with over the past couple of years were Sanders supporters.
Sampling bias.

Thank you, I understand that "based on the people I know" isn't scientifically sound. Was surprised, however, to discover that "based on the people I know" ended up being in line with national trends.

BigDTBone wrote:
I totally need to start a fundamentalist / alt-right party for the express purpose of siphoning votes away from the GOP.

Interesting article:

Donald Trump’s Mormon Problem

Which came out, I think, before Evan McMullin threw his hat in the ring.

Irontruth wrote:
Hillary Clinton's campaign employs more black women than any other presidential campaign in US history.

Found this article through the links:

Huge Split Between Older and Younger Blacks in the Democratic Primary

I was wondering to myself, a couple of pages ago, if minority, i.e., black, voters were so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary, why all the black activists I've worked with over the past couple of years were Sanders supporters. In retrospect, though, they were all under 30.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I don't know what Citizen Lurker was referring to. It might have been a general question about gridlock, but since it came after my post about Schumer's public and Clinton's private talk about lowering the corporate tax rate so that the kleptocrats will bring their offshore money home, I chose to interpret it in regards to that and was pointing out that Schumer's already citing Ryan that they've got bipartisan support.

Digging through the links, Schumer's been working with Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) for about a year to get a similar bipartisan gift to the American capitalist class off the ground.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Thing is even if Clinto wins, without a Democrate majority in the Senate aren't you just looking are more political gridlock?

I'll take a political gridlock than having a person who can't keep his composure for an hour with his mitts on the nuclear codes. Or the ability to appoint 1-3 judges to the Supreme Court who has clearly stated his intention to have Roe V. Wade off the books.

And if the Republicans continue to play the game of obstruction, it's going to cost them in the long run.

Not to mention... odds are currently running about 3:1 for Democrats to retake the Senate.

Still a stretch that they could also capture the House, and they won't have a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate... so there will still be obstruction and gridlock, but Clinton should be able to make reasonable progress.

Besides, according to Schumer, Ryan's down with giving in to the capital strike, too.

I don't know. Articles I've read said that Nader voters in Florida, when asked who they voted for in '96, an equal percentage said they voted for Clinton as said they voted for Dole, while more of them said they voted for Perot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Two more from the Podesta leaks:

The Intercept:

Hillary Clinton Privately Pitched Corporations on “Really Low” Tax Rate for Money Stashed Abroad

I guess that's the ol' public position/private position at work.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer Says Top Priority for Next Year Is Giant Corporate Tax Cut

"Revenue-starved Democratic leaders have broadly hinted they are prepared to cave, either for a “holiday” period or permanently.

"In an exchange with CNBC’s John Harwood, Schumer confirmed that the latter is in fact in the works. When Harwood asked Schumer if 'it would be a permanent lower rate, not a holiday rate,' Schumer replied, 'Yes, you can’t do a one-shot deal.'"

When I have some more free time I should look up our previous conversation from years ago, maybe, about the capital strike.

Running Subtheme: Education Reform

Black Folk Hate White Tears and Blatant Racism More Than Charter Schools

NAACP calls for a moratorium on charter schools in this oddly titled article.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Didn't see any of this one, was at a meeting in Worcester where the comrades were planning their "Who's Afraid of Jill Stein?" public meeting next week, but I did just run into this article:

Who Needs to Make Anti-American Propaganda? Iran Is Just Broadcasting These Horrific Debates.

66-Year-Old Woman Shot, Killed by Police in Bronx Home: NYPD

Let them eat risotto!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well this, plus Wikileaks quotes that the Clinton campaign didn't want to run against Jeb because there was little in his economic plan the Clinton campaign disagreed with, bodes pretty ominously for a "progressive" Clinton presidency.

The American population doesn't want "progressive." That's the mistake the Democrats made for more than 20 years (between 1968 and 1992).

You're probably right, but there seem to be quite a few liberals, some in this thread, who have spent a lot of time claiming, for example, that Bernie pulled her to the left, etc., etc.

Four- to eight-more years of neoliberal austerity coming your way, America. Start building your strike funds and community organizations now.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, her follow up paragraph is pretty notable, can't say I'm surprised it isn't quoted as often:

"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

(Can't believe I've made a semi-pro Hillary post.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thecursor wrote:

I was very Center Right and even as the party got crazier and crazier, I tried defending it and defending it.

The straw that broke me was Trump getting the nomination. As much as I don't like Hillary, I looked at her platform, saw a lot of Center Right stuff that I used to count on from the Republicans and decided that given my choices, I had to hold my nose and vote for her.

I'm sorry, if this is the Republican Party now, this is where I get off the train.

(Pardon me, Citizen Cursor, for using your post.)

Well this, plus Wikileaks quotes that the Clinton campaign didn't want to run against Jeb because there was little in his economic plan the Clinton campaign disagreed with, bodes pretty ominously for a "progressive" Clinton presidency.

Zuckerman v. Hoffa: Can a “Pissed-off Teamster” Push Out the Incumbent?

Jim Beam whiskey makers go on strike

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
You can throw a bunch of crap at a wall but not all of it is gonna stick.
We'll defer to a goblins expert opinion in that area...
Watching Comrade Anklebiter teaches me all sorts of things.

Woah, bro, talking shiznit about me behind my back?

I'm telling mom.

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Someone else mentioned that after Clinton is sworn in, Obama can stick around as her Anger Translator.

Running Subtheme From Other Thread

Harvard Dining Hall Strike

As a goblin, I must say, fighting dirty isn't about cowardice, it's about all my opponents are twice my size.

Running Subtheme: Standing Rock

About 40 minutes of Democracy Now! coverage starting here.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRC
I actually haven't found any indication that the Observer has a pro-Trump line.

But now I have:

All in the family: New York Observer endorses Trump

Some, but not all, of the same ground covered in Chicago Tribune who, for the record, have endorsed Gary Johnson after their GOP pick, Rubio, got cut.

Spastic Puma wrote:
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRC

I actually haven't found any indication that the Observer has a pro-Trump line. In fact, I wouldn't have even known it was owned by his son-in-law if they didn't run disclaimers every now and then. But then again, I admit, I only read their articles when they come across my feed.

More generally, I've heard some commentators opine that the WikiLeaks stash are gonna be studied for a long time as documentary evidence of how a successful presidential campaign operates. So far, I've enjoyed watching how talking points her staffers came up with last year have been successfully disseminated. For example,

"Earlier in Clinton's campaign, emails from October 2015 show staff trying to build a defense for their candidate's late arrival on supporting gay marriage, and her history of supporting 1996's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Again, Clinton campaign staff had to figure out how to defend her on something she actually believes in. 'I'm not saying double down or ever say it again,. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say that she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.'"

Also interesting are Bill Clinton's comments from 2000 when he opined that he was more in line with the "gay agenda" than she was and that she was "really a little put off by some of this stuff."

More Wikifun:

Trump's son-in-law's paper on Clinton campaign staffers' efforts to create a narrative where Hillary doesn't look like a flip-flopping bigot.

WikiLeaks Exposes Clinton’s LGBT Support as Scripted Political Expediency

What Hillary Clinton Privately Told Goldman Sachs

I haven't gotten around to reading them myself, but I ran across this part:

"'We’re in a time in Syria,' she said, 'where they’re not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it.'"

and was reminded of our discussion in the Syria intervention thread on what I dubbed the Luttwalk Thesis.

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

I will be voting for Bernie. Not interested in being all afraid and/or righteous and voting for one of the likely (virtually certain) winners. So, obviously I'm not comfortable with either Trump or Clinton.
What I find interesting is that your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a person who IS comfortable with either Trump or Clinton.
How so?
Because you're pretty much advocating for the same result. Your write-in vote, won't even BE READ, unless your state comes in at a very close tie.

Worse, since Sanders hasn't filled out paperwork to be a write-in candidate in any state, writing him in accomplishes nothing at all, not even as a protest vote. Such a vote won't be counted; it's the same as not voting for PotUS at all. If you want to make a protest vote (or vote to help a third-party hit the percentage needed to receive Federal funding & be in debates), vote for Stein... or Johnson or McMullen or one of the other write-ins registered in your state.

Quark Blast: I'd personally much rather you vote for Clinton to stop Trump, but if you're going to vote for someone else, at least pick a choice that will be counted.

Ok, so I don't vouch for any of this, but I was bopping about on Facebook reading about various communist things and watching videos of kittens raised by huskies and such*, and I run across a conversation between some Paizonian that I friended but don't know who they are and Crimson Jester. It was about this article:

Apparently Bernie IS registered as a write-in in nearly all states

I had heard from some Green Party types that the whole "Write-In Bernie" campaign was a Machiavellian ploy by the Hillbots to siphon votes from Dr. Stein (irony, huh?), so I read through the comments and find the same accusation there. I also find a comment by somebody claiming to be friends with the author and the two of them disseminated the article honestly, but incorrectly. I don't know (or care), but then I was led to another article:

The Write-In Vote - What you NEED To Know!

Again, I don't vouch for any of this, but if the second article is to be belived, you can write-in Bernie and not have your vote tossed in: Alabama, Iowa, New Hampshire (Live free or die!!!), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. Parenthetically, I wonder if that's why Vermin Supreme (a Massachusetts resident, I believe) spends so much time campaigning in New Hampshire.

I, personally, don't care Citizen Blast who you vote for or if you vote at all, but I thought of you while looking at the articles, so I thought I'd share.

*I remember, not too long ago, before I joined Facebook, I used to read more books.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Running Subtheme: Standing Rock

But this sounds good:

Breaking: Judge Rejects "Riot" Charges Against Amy Goodman in North Dakota

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hillary Clinton’s email problems just came roaring back

Beats me, but this doesn't sound good:

"On Monday, however, the various issues associated with Clinton's email setup came roaring back. According to emails released by the FBI, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go. The words 'quid pro quo' were used to describe the proposed exchange by the FBI official."

KingOfAnything wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Speaking of chances... at the moment, 538 gives Clinton an 88% chance of winning, slightly below her peak of 89.2% on August 14th.
Which model are you looking at? Polls-only?

Polls-only is at 88%, polls-plus is 84.9%.

Yeah, I've been watching 538 pretty much every day since the post I called (some of) you a bunch of Chicken Littles and it looks to me like she's had it under lock for quite a while.

As far as my own neck of the woods goes, as I thought would happen, since Pussygate, the senatorial race in NH, according to 538, has swung from a slight lead for Kelly Ayotte* (R) to Maggie Hassan (D) leading 57.2% to 42.8%.

*Her latest ad features her intoning "I'm not perfect and neither is Trump." Not sure if she made tht pre- or post-Grabghazi, but it's funny nonetheless.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
If the likes of Comrade Anklebiter manage to do their thing correctly, the next major American party might rise on the backs of the (hopefully) vast pool of potential votes that finds the current democratic political entity far too right wing for their tastes.

[Crosses fingers]

Build a Party of the 99%!

And, NYT on longtime Clinton aide-de-camp Cheryl Mills, Clinton Foundation relationships and sweatshops. Note: No smoking guns, just the usual imperialists-helping-companies-with-terrible-labor-records-exploit-the-Thir d-World.

Haiti and Africa Projects Shed Light on Clinton’s Public-Private Web

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Also, the whole NAFTA bit is nonsense, as has been pointed out by others.

Oh man, listening to Clinton voters justify NAFTA... that brings me back...

Puts on oversized flannel and slides Depeche Mode CD into Discman Velcroed to bicep.

It should. Like NAFTA, all those things predate the Clinton presidency.

That is not a Clinton signing the NAFTA treaty.

And here's the speech Clinton gave before signing the NAFTA treaty into American* law.

Clinton Signs NAFTA

*Lo siento, "estadounidense".

Irontruth wrote:

That doesn't seem very likely to me, as I've never even heard someone talking about energy policy needing "open borders" before. To me the excerpt of her speech sounds more like open borders for labor. Maybe that's just me though.

Besides, it's not like you limit your analysis of Clinton to only what her campaign says.

I posted that one above when we were talking about it a couple of days ago.

Since then, according to the Miami Herald:

But a campaign spokesman pointed to statements by Podesta and Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook on Oct. 9. Both said the context of that sentence related to green energy -- and wasn’t about people immigrating to the United States.

On Face the Nation, Mook said she was talking about integrating green energy between north and south America.

"But if the question is does Hillary Clinton support throwing open our borders, absolutely not. And she is going to do everything she can to fight to protect the interest of workers in this country. That is actually why she voted against the Central American free trade agreement when she was a senator," Mook said.

On Fox News Sunday, Podesta also said she was referring to clean energy.

"When she was secretary of state, she talked about creating a hemispheric effort to bring clean energy across the continent from the tip of South America to Canada, to invest in clean and renewable energy, to invest in the transmission that would clean up our energy system," Podesta said. "And I think when you look at what she said about immigration, she's for comprehensive immigration reform that takes people out of the shadows, emphasizes family unity, but also has -- modernizes our border security.

Irontruth wrote:

One of the things Hillary mentioned in her Goldman-Sachs speech was opening borders for labor, not just goods. Legal migrant workers would give them legal protections, letting them unionize, pay taxes, etc. Legal status would give Mexican and Central American workers greater rights and opportunities.

All this will have consequences and side effects, and we'd need to hold lawmakers accountable for implementing this in a fair way that allows businesses to operate, but protects workers rights.

Is that the same one we were discussing before, or another one?

If another one, I haven't seen it, do you have a link?

If the same one, the speech was to Banco Itau in Brazil and it had nothing to do with immigration, but with energy policy, said her campaign.

Clinton Campaign: Hillary’s Previous Support Of Open Borders Is About ‘Energy Policy’

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, traveled out to Keene, NH, yesterday, ground zero for the Free State Project, to meet up with our new comrade, peddle socialist newspapers and hand out Jill Stein lit.

We were expecting long arguments with libertarians, but were surprised that we kept getting heckled by Hillary supporters. I took a walk down the street at one point and discovered that we were set up a block away from the Dems' campaign office. Mystery solved.

Recruited another Keene-ite, huzzah!

There's another woman, I forget her name at the moment, a filmmaker, who, the headlines said, is facing 45 years for reporting from Standing Rock.


Filmmaker Faces 45 Years in Prison for Reporting on Dakota Access Protests

Irontruth wrote:

The rate of manufacturing plant closings was the same after NAFTA as it had been before NAFTA.

On the other hand, manufacturing increased faster after NAFTA than it had before.

Low skilled manufacturing is always going to move out of wealthier countries. This will be true regardless of trade agreements, because even with protectionist tariffs, eventually the cost of employment is too high for low skilled jobs.

For example, the only way to keep low wage textile jobs in this country is to pay the workers next to nothing. I'd love to hear the argument that we should keep those jobs here AND only pay them 50 cents a day. Convince me that would be beneficial to our country. Or maybe we should just pay $100 for low quality white t-shirts.

Interestingly, with the rise of wages in China "and other countries" (I'm not sure which ones), increasing transportation costs, and more reliance on automation, American textile jobs are returning to the US south.

Textile industry comes back to life, especially in South

Damnit! Thank you, Comrade Slaad.

SmiloDan wrote:
Limeylongears wrote:
Long train journeys mean lots of reading, so am also 3/4 of the way through 'Perdido Street Station'. I like it an awful lot; you can tell he was in the SWP, though.

The Britishiznoid Socialist Workers Party.

He resigned in the wake of their sexual assault scandal.

He was active in the short-lived International Socialist Network, but resigned from them with their other celebrity writer (well, less so in these circles) Richard Seymour, over, well, you can read for yourself:

Sex, Power Play, and Trotskyism

Don't know where he went after that.

1 to 50 of 8,124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.