| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Buying him off" seems to imply underhandedness, perhaps of an antidemocratic nature, neither of which I really see here. He may not have won, but he got a rather large minority of votes. I don't see a good reason why he should not have a say in the platform, nor do I see any particular reason to think it would be underhanded to offer him one or for him to accept.
Also, insofar as compromise is frequently necessary to reach consensus, without which democracy in turn becomes dysfunctional (witness: Congress), giving his campaign voices at that table seems generally pro-democratic as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Word I'd use is "concession."
Probably a rather meaningless one. As I understand it, and I may not, the platform isn't binding on any candidate running under the Democratic Party banner, including the presidential candidate.
But it suggests that Bernie and his (mostly Democratic Party lifer) staffers have a better understanding of how to get their voices heard by the party tops than some others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As it turns out, La Principessa has other plans, so I won't make it.
:(
No problem, I wasn't able to make it down to NYC anyway. On the plus side, I have been enjoying watching back episodes of Empire Files.
If you are going to be in NYC at the end of the month, check out the
Global Capitalism: June 2016 Monthly Update
June 30th, 7:30pm.
Also, Bike Film Festival this upcoming weekend at the Anthology Film Archives.
Bernie was just the democrats attempt to get a few more lefties on board for Hillary. I don't think he was supposed to do well at all, and it is amazing that a socialist would be the hands down winner of the election if the two party system were not standing in the way of democracy. Everything seems to be working out well enough, as the democrats can give lip service to the Left, while completely selling out to Wall Street. In an election, she is going to say the right buzz words, but just like Obama, she is going to do whatever The Council on Foreign Relations and Wall Street tell her to do. Like going to trumps third wedding, she does what the ultra rich pay her to do.
Also, you can say that the election matters because of the supreme court, but just look who Obama nominated - hardly a friend to the Left. He doesn't even want to overturn Citizens United. Democrats say nice things, but when it comes down to it, they fold on everything except a few social issues, and even those come pathetically late, and tend to affect a very small minority, while the social and economic policies badly screw the vast majority of Americans.
My prediction* is that trump will win due to the electoral college, and the fact that he is operating on a new level from politicians in the past (with the possible exception of Sarah Palin). It is like the Kennedy Nixon debate. Hillary supporters are like radio listeners thinking their Nixon did a great job, while television watchers thought the exact opposite. The Democrats are going to do everything needed to win an election in the TV Age, but they are going to find out (the same way the Republicans found out) that the TV Age has been over for years.
* My predictions have a margin of error close to 100%, so don't get too bent out of shape over them.
Yeah, it's all a clever conspiracy or something.
I never implied that there was conspiracy involved, only that everyone is doing exactly what they are paid to do. If you look at the money, intentions are as plain as day.
I think "We are to the left of Antonin Scalia!, (And wouldn't make any practical difference)" should be the Democrats new campaign slogan.
Trump is going to win Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and a variety of other swing states. If it can be described as "Rust Belt" trump is going to destroy Hillary. What he lacks in actual voters, he makes up for in disenfranchised voters. Also, many, many people voting for Hillary are just voting against trump. Her supporters are old, and lack enthusiasm. Trump's supporters are actually fired up and believe the stuff he says, even though it contradicts the other stuff he says. You can say Trump's style shows no sign of actually getting elected, but he just defeated the republican establishment. No one predicted it, no one understands it, and for that reason, they are not going to be able to stop it. If you think otherwise, why did you not see the rise of Trump? Why were the Republicans unable to stop it even with Romney's "fraud and a charlatan speech"?
The only way I see Hillary winning is if people like Karl Rove and the Koch Bros get behind her (which they might). I think that would say more about her as a candidate they any words coming out of her mouth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rest assured, not all of us will. I, for one, will not.[High five]
Meh. The time for wishing for a perfect 2016 PotUS candidate is over. On November 9th, 2016, the search can start anew. The choices are either Clinton or The Living Tire Fire burning inside The Garbage Fire That Is The GOP. Not voting is still A Vote. Choosing not to have a say at the polls means you are happy allowing others to speak for you. Not voting to prevent the Great Evil because you intend to keep your ethics pure and unblemished still burnishes those ethics just the same.
The misogynistic and hateful bullsh!t & lies that the Trumpers and NeverHillary peeps keep trying to serve up is largely recycled from the SOP of the 80s & 90s Bill & Hillary haters, and it's still just as full of farts and manure. Having done my due diligence, I feel confident about that; while Clinton isn't perfect (and neither was Sanders or Stein or Johnson or the rest), she is left-of-center on most issues. She is a policy wonk who can get things done, she listens to people's concerns, and she has demonstrated that she can reassess her positions when new concerns and facts come to light. I think she is reasonable, and after swearing in, she can be held accountable for her policies and their effects. I liked Bernie in the beginning and voted for him in the primary, but his and his campaign's actions (and inactions) these last several months have completely disillusioned me of his fitness for PotUS.
Burn it all down.
Most of us in the U.S. don't have the financial and social resources to weather that. I am poor, barely employed, lesbian, and a woman; many of my friends and family are in similar circumstances. If the economic & social collapse comes, our chances for survival are slim to none. That's not giving up or defeatism, it's f!cking reality. I will take building on the incremental progress made so far over the delusion that things will be magically better after the Trumpocalypse/whatevercalypse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump is going to win Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and a variety of other swing states.
I don't discount the crazification factor of Florida, but I wouldn't bet a dime on Trump winning the state. Especially if Clinton's ground game in the state has their act together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Doodlebug and Fergie, I'm very sorry about your cat and your rat, respectively. You both have my sincerest condolences in your grief.
And best wishes to your ill cat, thejeff.
Also, Doodlebug and Fergie, I'm very sorry about your cat and your rat, respectively. You both have my sincerest condolences in your grief.
And best wishes to your ill cat, thejeff.
THANKS Ambrosia! Also, many positive vibes to thejeff's cat!
In a flood of good will, everyone's post gets a favorite! I'm off to watch Star Trek 4 - The One With the Wales In It.
Ugh! I've had to force medicate rats and ferrets, and its ROUGH! Cats are well bigger and have much sharper claws. (House Cat Vs Commoner... FIGHT!)
I gave the ferrets Nutracal brand high calorie paste and that is pretty good. I would recommend attempting many different foods and also feeding arrangements. For example, I thought one of my rats was refusing the medicine, but then realized that he only felt safe enough to eat in his own cage. Maybe try feeding her under the couch or some place secure.
If all else fails, the pills should get easier for both of you with a little time.
For what its worth, I also predict that Clinton is going to win. I think part of it may come from the big moneyed interests who often go Republican but will go Democrat this year because they understand that Hillary is a more trusted and reliable servant of American empire and capital than Trump. I think a lot of it is going to come from the layers the Bernie campaign has stirred up buckling down and voting Hillary when Bernie tells them to.
What else? I don't know if he gets paid for it beyond his senatorial salary, but Bernie's doing what's he done for the last twenty years. I don't have any links at the moment but the story goes: Bernie lost an election (I forget for which office) back in the early to mid '90s and he took a season off to go study at some government studies program at one of the Harvard grad schools. Somewhere in there he struck a deal with the Democratic Party: he would do his best to block any further third-party/independent runs in Vermont, the Dems wouldn't run anyone against him. He also got to caucus with them in DC and get those committee appointments he's got and whatnot.
Anyway, after watching that Abby Martin piece on Hillary, which, again, didn't include a single talking point that I recognized as originating from Fox News or a right-wing '90s smear, it's kind of hard to imagine what Bernie has done over the past couple of months that diminished his fitness to be the president. But anyway, if and when Hillary defeats Trump, I further predict it's going to be with a lot of help dutifully delivered by the Bernie crowd.
And then we'll all congratulate ourselves that we defeated Cheeto Jesus while Hillary continues to push neoliberal trade agreements that benefit her backers, push bloody American imperialism to ride roughshod over the world, weapons-trafficking, fracking-exporting, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Hooray.
No problem, I wasn't able to make it down to NYC anyway. On the plus side, I have been enjoying watching back episodes of Empire Files.
As it turns out, La Principessa has other plans, so I won't make it.
:(
I was on Facebook and noticed they posted a video of her talk on the page, but I haven't watched it yet. Got through the first couple of lines where she declared her support for PSL and couldn't continue out of jealousy.
(You have to log in and then it's under the Discussion tab:
Building Alternative Media with Abby Martin/Pride Means Struggle: Responding to the Orlando Massacre)
Instead tagged along with La Principessa to a planning meeting for a March Against Gentrification, Racism and Police Violence being held by a nice little group she met called Equality for Flatbush.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
G!ddamn it, I wasn't posting to debate. I just wanted to voice an alternative opinion against all the $hillary/"just as bad as Trump" bullsh!t. {sigh}
Anyway, after watching that Abby Martin piece on Hillary, which, again, didn't include a single talking point that I recognized as originating from Fox News or a right-wing '90s smear,...
I'm going to have to find the time to go through this Martin piece, so I'll have to come back to this. This post is going to be long enough as it is.
...it's kind of hard to imagine what Bernie has done over the past couple of months that diminished his fitness to be the president.
I was with Sanders when he stuck to the issues and wasn't distracted by media-driven bullsh!t about Clinton. But then when he started losing, he was happy to publicly give weight to that very same bullsh!t. He decided that those superdelegates he was against, because they could overrule the will of the voters, were now acceptable and even desirable to lobby to his side to pull out a win. After losing the South, his campaign was happy to write them off as poorly-informed, vote-against-their-own-interests instead of acknowledging his real failure to reach them; they want(ed) social justice for all ethnicities, which means a candidate must acknowledge that economic reform and free college doesn't solve all the other issues and entrenched obstacles standing in the way of social justice. Sanders was happy to laud caucuses over primaries, even though caucuses are less democratic. He was happy to downplay and dismiss real documented harassment, threats of violence, and death threats by his own supporters against predominantly women, then refused to admonish or reign in those assh!les if the pressure meant he could still win.
He met with Peter Staley and the AHF about AIDS, only to roundly ignore them and just publicize on his outreach; when called on it, his campaign dismissed Staley's and the other attendee's accounts, accusing Staley of being in Big Pharmas pocket! (Seriously, WTF?!?!)
He continues to push the false narratives that he was somehow conspired against, that he was cheated out of delegates, and that his supporters votes were ignored... and worse still, refuses to concede his loss and lead on his hopeful supporters that he can still actually win! Sander's primary reforms call for the Democratic Party to 1) switch to open primaries (because those helped him) totally ignoring the Limbaughian ratf!cking it'll cause, and 2) elimination of superdelegates (which he was against, then for when he thought they could give him the win, and now gave up on), even though superdelegates exist to stop a Trump or a clusterf!ck of Kennedy vs. Carter at the 1980 DNC. He mentions nothing of improving voting access or eliminating undemocratic caucuses (because caucuses wins helped him).
Now that Sanders has been pushed into upholding his pledge of support of downticket candidates, he's been throwing his support for only the candidates who openly endorsed him--even though they usually are pretty secure of being re-elected--while ignoring more progressive candidates who are in much tighter races that could really use the exposure and financial support. Hell, he's happy to endorse Marcy Kaptur, who's voted reliably pro-Forced Birther/anti-Choice/anti-embryonic stem cell research for 30+ years and (again) isn't really in danger of losing her seat; apparently women's bodily-autonomy takes a backseat gives up any seat to good ol' Cronyism.
But anyway, if and when Hillary defeats Trump, I further predict it's going to be with a lot of help dutifully delivered by the Bernie crowd.
And then we'll all congratulate ourselves that we defeated Cheeto Jesus while Hillary continues to push neoliberal trade agreements that benefit her backers, push bloody American imperialism to ride roughshod over the world, weapons-trafficking, fracking-exporting, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Too often, the only choices the U.S. state department has about foreign conflicts are all varying degrees of "pretty sh!tty" to "unimaginably sh!tty." It isn't helped by the decades of the CIA, NSA, and previous administrations f!cking around in those countries affairs, like deliberately undermining democratic movements who "are opposed to U.S. (aka business) interests", propping up brutal dictators to keep the region stable (for business interests), and plain ol' looting resources and profiteering (by business interests). So what's the choices: Put overwhelming forces on the ground and watch minority and poor kids killed and maimed with insufficient infrastructure and funding to take care of the survivors? Drone strikes and cruise missiles that have a high risk of also taking out total innocents and not-so-innocents-but-really-don't-need-to-be-killed? Diplomacy with unfriendly governments and groups that have no real interest outside of total control of their area, that rarely works, requires payoffs and lowering sanctions, and requires constant monitoring... all while interests abroad and in Congress work to undermine and derail the whole thing for their own gain and/or spite? Or ignore the whole f!cking mess and have another genocide like what started in Rwanda and pushed across a huge chunk of Africa?
Yeah, I too would like to see the influence of big multinats and billionaire interests using American power--military, financial, and otherwise--greatly diminished in their influence. Clinton has been pushed to not supporting the TPP, something even Obama (and everyone's f!cking favorite uncle/cult-of-personality, Biden) and most Congresspeeps are still in favor of. I think she can also be pushed into better trade deals that don't loot overseas resources and workers, yet are still good (or not awful) for domestic labor. Yes, it's going to take overwatch and participation by the largely disinclined/disengaged American citizens, but that's true of any administration. I think Clinton can be reached, especially with facts and personal accounts, and can be swayed to take better positions.
If Trump is elected, everything that comes out of Congress or a lobbyist firm that doesn't hurt Trump will get rubberstamped, especially if they fatten his wallet. Trump has declared his SCotUS picks, and they are awful or worse for unions, voting rights, women's reproductive choices, LGBT marriage and equality, overturning Citizen's United, protecting the ACA, etc.; odds are President Trump would pick more than just Scalia's replacement, overturning decades of major and incremental progress and f!cking progressive justice for decades. All of which is moot, as there is a real likelihood will get us into hot wars with any number of countries just because of his willful ignorance, tissue-paper skin, and general narcissistic sociopathy.
Hooray.
C'mon, man. There is no perfect candidate or perfect solution. Even with the right people, smart policies, a sh!tload of hard work, plenty of patience, and active participation with most of the American citizens, there is still no guarantee anything will work. Right now, it's Trump vs. Clinton. Complain or bemoan it all we like, but that's our f!cking choices. So on 11/8, we vote for the best available choice, or least evil choice, for PotUS and all the downticket candidates, amendments, and laws. Then on 11/9, we start the process again, paying special attention to local candidates who will hopefully be courageous enough to let their Lefty/Progressive flag fly. We work for improved voting access and voter education, and we push local & state school officials to do a better job educating students with the fundamentals of critical thinking, knowledge of history, and civic engagement. If it was easy and quick, we'd be doing it wrong.
As for Trump, him actually getting arrested for something might be the only way out for the Republican Party at this point.
Not quite true. Apparantly now the Republicans want to introduce a new rule allowing delegates to "unbind themselves" if they feel they must as an "act of conscience".
I'd love to go to the Republican Convention... with plenty of fireworks protection and popcorn. I was going to feel the same about the Democrats but it looks like Sanders is making a gradual nuanced process towards concession. Wasserman has already been served up as a sacrficial lamb as per his demands.
|
C'mon, man. There is no perfect candidate or perfect solution.
Nobody's asking for "perfect." "Perfect" is an absurd concept from the get-go (how good does something have to be for it to be impossible to improve upon? The perfect knife, for example, would never dull, could somehow be utilized even by Stephen Hawking, could slice the universe in half with one gentle chop, would have a moral compass so that it would only cut things that it was right to cut, et cetera), and strictly a term of manipulation and deceit when talking politics (either used against others to paint them as ignorant, irrational, and unrealistic, or as a defense that translates in practice to "person/place/thing X does not need to be changed, no matter what's wrong with it.")
I, for one, am just asking for a paradigm I can tolerate in good conscience - the more I learn, the more I see that that is tragically not the case.
Wasserman has already been served up as a sacrficial lamb as per his demands.
That is news to me. This is my response to it.
One has to draw a line to clearly demarcate the limits of what they will tolerate and forgive. The Hillary camp's blatantly Bush-like election-rigging is where they've transgressed mine, and lost my support for good.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
To take one relatively recent example, as Secretary of State, Clinton worked to legitimize the 2009 coup in Honduras that has since led to the deaths of "thousands of indigenous activists, peasant leaders, trade unionists, journalists, environmentalists, judges, opposition political candidates, [and] human rights activists"* but Sanders is unfit to be president because he flipflopped on superdelegates and has nasty Berniebro followers.
As I hope I've repeatedly made clear, I'm not a Bernie supporter, but, and no offense, [vomit].
---
The US Role in the Honduras Coup and Subsequent Violence
Well, this might cheer up some progressive Democrats (not me):
In 24 Hours Bernie Sanders gets 6,700 people to sign up to run for office for the Democratic Party
Rest assured, not all of us will. I, for one, will not.[High five]Meh. The time for wishing for a perfect 2016 PotUS candidate is over. On November 9th, 2016, the search can start anew. The choices are either Clinton or The Living Tire Fire burning inside The Garbage Fire That Is The GOP. Not voting is still A Vote. Choosing not to have a say at the polls means you are happy allowing others to speak for you. Not voting to prevent the Great Evil because you intend to keep your ethics pure and unblemished still burnishes those ethics just the same.
The misogynistic and hateful bullsh!t & lies that the Trumpers and NeverHillary peeps keep trying to serve up is largely recycled from the SOP of the 80s & 90s Bill & Hillary haters, and it's still just as full of farts and manure. Having done my due diligence, I feel confident about that; while Clinton isn't perfect (and neither was Sanders or Stein or Johnson or the rest), she is left-of-center on most issues. She is a policy wonk who can get things done, she listens to people's concerns, and she has demonstrated that she can reassess her positions when new concerns and facts come to light. I think she is reasonable, and after swearing in, she can be held accountable for her policies and their effects. I liked Bernie in the beginning and voted for him in the primary, but his and his campaign's actions (and inactions) these last several months have completely disillusioned me of his fitness for PotUS.
Burn it all down.Most of us in the U.S. don't have the financial and social resources to weather that. I am poor, barely employed, lesbian, and a woman; many of my friends and family are in similar circumstances. If the economic & social collapse comes, our chances for survival are slim to none. That's not giving up or defeatism, it's f!cking reality. I will take building on the incremental progress made so far over the delusion that things will be magically...
All I have said is that I won't be voting for Hillary. Period.
Never fear, I *will* pitch in my two coppers on election day, and have them summarily ignored by virtue of statistics. I *will* vote for someone whom I can support in good conscience; I *will* vote at the local and state levels with the same commitment. I understand my brothers' resignation to the lunacy of American politics, which drives them to find other things to do on election day (I have to confess, Election Day 2012 was spent NOT at the polls voting for Ron Paul, but at a buddy's house learning the intricacies of Halo 4; I reasoned, make the effort to get shouted down again, or have some quality time with friends?), but I firmly believe in saying something with my vote, no matter how little it tips the scales.
Consequently, I have remained largely silent on Obama's last four years in office. The idea of "If you don't vote, you don't get to gripe" doesn't really wash with me simply because it presumes that the functional system we have in place is "fine", but I have largely kept to that adage lately, if only because I have been more concerned with "this daily bread" (yes, in the Biblical sense) than the far-reaching implications of national policy. Living all of 2014 below the poverty line (as determined by our governmental standards -- HA!) had repercussions I'm still fielding today.
And just for clarification: my "un-support" of Clinton is not based upon her sex/gender, nor is it rooted in hate of her as a person (though David Brooks recently published an article that I think nailed part of the reason why she's disliked -- I've never seen the woman have a good time, have fun, be spontaneous: takes away from her "person-ism", to an extent, but all she wants is to be in charge, and I can get that {I'd love to be in charge -- who wouldn't?}).
So she's a woman. Cool. She's leading the charge for gender equality, just by virtue of seeking the highest elected office in the nation? Yeah, kinda. Being female and pushing for gender equality (by default, in my estimation) are not bad things; in fact, they're good things. That being said -- breaking the glass ceiling and advancing some kind of feminism, in my opinion, ought NOT be sufficient grounds to win a national election for the presidency. Which leads us to the issues.
Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the economy is the most important issue to me in this election cycle. Right around the time she was being lauded as the presumptive nominee, she unveiled/mentioned her economic recovery "secret weapon" -- Bill. I understand that delegation is all part of leadership (I was a manufacturing supervisor for a period of time, and built the best-performing team in our department -- delegation was critical), but I want to vote for a leader on his or her *own merits*. Bill did his 8 years; if not for Constitutional Amendments, and he were running for the office, I might vote for him for his economic savvy. But, then again, this is the same First Couple team that had one signature of NAFTA . . . . Which quickly brings to mind the TPP -- I oppose it, and she's waffled already. And that makes me suspicious.
Then, speaking of money, I can't help but indicate Citizens United again (sidebar: *how* many times did I abbreviate it CA earlier? ). Her rhetoric regarding CU has not been as forceful as Sanders' and Sanders' rhetoric is not anywhere near as exclusive as Lessig's was. I may be a crummy Christian, but my faith definitely informs my worldview and political leanings -- and Citizens United holds a direct parallel with the admonition from I Timothy 6:10, from my point of view. Breeding gold with gold while leaving behind so many Americans certainly isn't the best that could be done with those assets, and (again, just my opinion) truly speaks to what's important to those who make use of it in that fashion. For Hillary to have a chance at getting my vote, her stance regarding CU must become a resolute, unwavering, deafening "Overturn it!" And I think we all know whether or not I should hold my breath on that.
Now we get to an interesting twist in this economics discussion: poverty and pro-life. I've already told you I am a Christian in terms of my beliefs and actions (at least, I try to be). However, I do not oppose the presence of the Roe v. Wade decision as foundational for applicable laws/policies. At the same time, though, I'm not a pro-choice advocate. Here's the bottom line for me -- It is better to have *some* law in place that will actually save some number of lives, rather than leave those in morally questionable circumstances at risk of predation, death, and worse. It is better not to conceive than it is to end a conceived life, essentially. [Insert all historical cautions here.] If abortion is used to save a mother's life, I mourn the unborn but rejoice that a life was saved; if abortion is used to end an unwanted pregnancy resulting from an instance of rape or similar sexual misconduct, I won't like it, but I respect that it is not my decision to make; if abortion is simply used to remove the burden of responsibility from sexual activity, then I've got to express my opposition.
But why does that have anything to do with my ideas about economic policy? Not too long ago I encountered a pro-choice meme that displayed images of children suffering from impoverished conditions, and the caption could be paraphrased thus: "Pro-life: helping XX% of American children grow up in poverty." My rebuttal is this: "That's true simply because we will not advocate strongly enough for wages that would reduce that possibility/challenge." Hillary has gone on the record as supporting a $12 minimum wage, and supporting states' options to push for $15. Well, being the oldest of four children from the 80s and 90s in a household that had one income until about the time I was 15 years old (1995), I can attest to the validity of the results of a recent University of Memphis study that indicated the minimum non-poverty wage for a single-income family of four in the 80s would have been . My parents fought tooth and toenail to provide for the four of us, and did a very commendable job of it -- kudos to them. But wages aren't just stagnant -- they're rotten. For most of us, anyway. If it is on the back of the labor of the masses that we put out trillions of dollars of GDP every year, for so many of us to endure a lack of healthcare, poor nutritional options, future-breaking student debt (for underemployment??!!), etc., I call into question the goodwill and humanitarianism of those who support the contributing policies, and likewise those whose stances against those same policies are effectively summed up as "Meh."
With all the hullabaloo that would come from pushing the minimum wage up by an additional 65%, it could well precipitate the economic/social collapse we have good reason to dread. It seems there is too much at stake for some people to put enfranchisement and well-being of all Americans at the fore of their actions and efforts. We might get there one day, but I can honestly say that I'm glad I have no children of my own to put through that tempest.
Hillary may be "better" than Trump, but I have yet to see enough from her that would suggest she's "good enough" for my vote. The purity of Lawrence Lessig's campaign would have gotten him my vote, and may still. But, then, there's always Cthulhu.
For what its worth, I also predict that Clinton is going to win. I think part of it may come from the big moneyed interests who often go Republican but will go Democrat this year because they understand that Hillary is a more trusted and reliable servant of American empire and capital than Trump.
Which ties into this: I expect the big moneyed interests who usually go Republican to focus on the rest of the ticket, not to switch support to Clinton. Some will throw some money to her to cover their bets, but they'll mostly focus on holding the Senate (or if things start looking really bad - the House) and state races.
So when I wrote that, I was thinking of more middle-of-the-road donors like, for example, UPS, which IIRC, goes something like 60% Republican/40% Democrat. When I started googling I found that way more hardcore rightist donors have been dumping into Hillary's warchest.
Wealthy Cruz Donor’s Firm Pours Millions Into Clinton Campaign
And it appears to have been going on for quite a while:
Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors
Whether this will become a more general trend, I couldn't say.
On a more lighthearted note,
Sanders Slams Down Magic: The Gathering Troll Card For Control Of Clinton’s Entire Platform
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I decided to do a Google Images search for Bernie Bras.
Gods, I wish I hadn't.
|
|
On a more lighthearted note,
Sanders Slams Down Magic: The Gathering Troll Card For Control Of Clinton’s Entire Platform
"There is a problem with this website's security certificate."
Anyone else get that message?
I know it was a wall of text, but I specifically indicated that I was not opposed to Roe v. Wade. I don't like abortion, and wouldn't want to be in a position to be faced with that decision (fortunately I'm male), but while I disagree with abortion being used as an "out" for personal irresponsibility, it's not a driving force behind my political advocacies. As in, I don't like it, but I'm not pushing to overturn the decision that put some official protections in place. So, yes, I disagree with both Clinton and Sanders on some of that issue.
And that disagreement was far from the point. Read it again.
I'm curious what people actually mean by "overturn Citizen's United". Exactly what do you want a President to do about it? Other than have more forceful rhetoric.
If we can go to war at a President's whim without such a declaration by Congress, if various and sundry "executive actions" can be utilized to circumvent laws and/or exploit legal loopholes, etc., there's plenty that can be accomplished by a President, with or without the rhetoric.
I am committed to the idea that reversing the implications of CU and the other lower-court decision that really allowed for the eruption of Super-PACs (which name I can never recall) is among the barest minimums of acceptable political positions. If you want my vote AT ALL, you've got to oppose the idea that $$ = speech, and oppose it loudly, foundationally, and without equivocation. Hillary may appoint a SC justice that would decide against the previous two court rulings, but that's another matter than standing against those rulings in the first place. Setting up the system to allow for the possibility of such an overturn isn't a forceful enough position for me -- oppose it. Say it. Don't redirect, don't mumble, don't imply, don't allow for the interpretation.
Heck, even a nominated/approved SC justice is only half of the battle. There has to be a case that can be heard in the first place, right? Any relevant court cases got a chance of being on the SCotUS docket anytime soon?
I don't know, or particularly care, about Lessig.
With hindsight, wouldn't you say it could be pretty easy to take that statement the wrong way?
Do some research on him.
I reiterate -- do some research on Lessig.
But here's your summary: he was running as a referendum candidate with the sole intention of getting CU overturned and passing a law that would establish that overturning as part of campaign finance. At which point he would have stepped down from the Presidency.
Lessig's candidacy:
1) Direct opposition to Citizens United -- check
2) Proposed passage of a law to keep similar abuse of money in the political arena from happening again -- check
3) Any other policies to advance? No. -- check
4) A quiet voice speaking moral truths drowned out by the billions of dollars in others' coffers -- check
I've never inquired about his stance on abortion, nor did I need to. Whether he and I agreed on that point is immaterial.
|
|
5) A prayer of actually getting the nomination, much less winning the general election -- no check.
You realize that's largely (not entirely, but largely) a self-fulfilling prophecy, correct? Like I said previously, reality in politics is determined entirely by fiat. Sure, the power to create fiat presently goes mostly to those who control the media (it sure as hell isn't "liberals" - but present company is clear on that) and have the most money and the most access to the Washington string-pulling access, but the Internet Age can change that - it only takes a handful of clever citizens willing to use the power of propaganda for Good.
On that note, I should like to point out that the word 'propaganda' is, first of all, itself propaganda in its present usage; a Cold War holdover tossed like a bucket of paint on people to make their message sound nefarious and those who listen to it look gullible. This leads me to my second concern about that word, which is: It doesn't deserve to be so horribly maligned. Propaganda simply means 'mass communication,' and it will be with us forevermore, so we mustn't think of it as inherently nefarious.
This post? Propaganda!
Everyone else's post? Propaganda!
This website? Propaganda!
MAD Magazine? Propaganda!
Tonya Woldridge? Chief Minister of Propaganda for the Pathfinder Society!
That ridiculous "God hates you" moment with then-PM Gordon Brown's hot mike? The propaganda there was the hot mike in question!
My Little Pony? Propaganda!
Sesame Street? Propaganda (and the best part, of course, is that all the right-wing conspiracy rumors about it are true)!
Mr. Rogers? Chief Minister of Propaganda for the Neighborhood of Make-Believe!
You get the idea. We cannot AFFORD to permit the word to have strong connotations of any sort. It's just how we communicate now.
/soapbox
I'm not particularly a Lessig fan but, according to On the Issues, his position on abortion apparently is: "I would veto a law defunding Planned Parenthood."
Anyway, a few non-2016 Democratic Party election articles:
It Was A West Virginia Tragedy That Gave Birth To Father's Day
|
|
No. Really I don't. There's this fallacy on both the left and the right that extreme ideas really are tremendously popular....5) A prayer of actually getting the nomination, much less winning the general election -- no check.You realize that's largely (not entirely, but largely) a self-fulfilling prophecy, correct? Like I said previously, reality in politics is determined entirely by fiat. Sure, the power to create fiat presently goes mostly to those who control the media (it sure as hell isn't "liberals" - but present company is clear on that) and have the most money and the most access to the Washington string-pulling access, but the Internet Age can change that - it only takes a handful of clever citizens willing to use the power of propaganda for Good.
"Fallacy?" You're soaking in it.
For starters, this "Left-Right" h!$$~**+& is nothing but a throwback to 18th-Century French architecture, and a political tableau that applies poorly, if at all, to 21st-Century America. So, too, is the concept of "extremes" and "balance."
The truth is that there is no "center" (save for the individual ego). The fringe is a privileged position - not only do those "farthest out" dictate the boundaries of what is seen and thought about, but they're where all the IDEAS come from. "Centrists/moderates" are suckers who hold in disdain those who are in fact puppeteering them.
It always makes me think of one of my high school teachers, one of the few halfway-qualified teachers at the crappy high school I was stuck at for my final two years of K-12. He prided himself on being a "moderate/centrist," even insisting that Dr. King was a "moderate" compared to, for example, Malcolm X (you don't need to look through too many Dr. King quotes to know the man himself would have been inclined to disagree). Funny thing about him, though: One of his hobby horses he got on occasionally was when he lamented the fact that "you need a license to go hunting, you need a license to get married...but you don't need a licence...to have a baby." Imagine this for a second: CHILD-BEARING LICENSES. Sound good to you? Maybe, maybe not. There are reasons against, but also strong reasons for (he cited the example of a retarded woman who'd given birth, run away from whatever institution she'd been in or something, and was discovered in an abandoned building, lovingly cradling her baby, not realizing it was DEAD, presumably from neglect). Just the same...CHILD-BEARING LICENSES! Imagine. Would YOU like to be the one to advance this paragon of moderation's pet idea?
"The word 'radical' derives from the Latin word for root. Therefore, if you want to get to the root of anything, you must be radical. It is no accident that the word has now been totally demonized..."
- Gore Vidal
As we say in old country: "Must...crush...capitalism..."
Also for the record, one the dictionary definition of propaganda is:
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
The word can be a positive or negative thing, but it certainly isn't a neutral term to only mean mass communication. Just sayin xP
I'm not particularly a Lessig fan but, according to On the Issues, his position on abortion apparently is: "I would veto a law defunding Planned Parenthood."
And most likely, so would Sanders AND Clinton. Lessing isn't a standout on this issue.
|
|
You...seem to be talking about half a dozen thing at once here. I think this is partly a "not on same page" problem.
Still, the center is an illusion - and equating all those groups you mentioned there is likewise a fallacy; they're not equivalent.
Keep in mind what's considered "mainstream" because the Republicans and corporate media insist on it (that there's ANY controversy about global warming, that 19th-Century economics didn't die a well-deserved death in 1929, that America is a "Christian nation," that the rule of law and the Geneva Convention are dispensable, etc) - these are all fringe crackpot ideas. The fact that a major party has been taken over by them doesn't mean they're no longer crackpot. American politics have been skewed to the extreme right by a consensus-manipulating minority. Hillary Clinton is NOT a liberal (and as I pointed out earlier, Bernie really isn't either - he just wants to preserve/restore the New Deal) - and nobody would say she would were it not for a loud, antirational, lavishly-funded minority projecting their delusions onto us, shouting down every other voice, and determinedly trying to erase the Post-War Liberal Consensus and smother a new, better America in its cradle.
Also for the record, one the dictionary definition of propaganda is:
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
The word can be a positive or negative thing, but it certainly isn't a neutral term to only mean mass communication. Just sayin xP
Okay, I guess I missed the mark on that one - I must have leaned too heavily on judging it by its wholly apolitical Latin roots ("propago" just means "extend, enlarge, increase"*).
* = Given this, it is somewhat shocking that there does not yet appear to be a "male enhancement" pill brand-named Propago. Where's Bob Dole when you need him?
Beyond that, ideas aren't fringe when the they're widespread. That's pretty much inherent in the meaning of fringe. They may well be wrong or stupid, but they're not fringe. Politics are skewed to the right*, but that's mostly by changing actual public opinion.
We're not living in the immediate post war period. Politics have changed. Public opinion has changed. The parties have changed with it. Sure, in many ways Clinton is more conservative than say an Eisenhower Republican. In other ways not only is she incredibly liberal, but so are modern Republicans. That "Post-War Liberal Consensus" accepted Jim Crow and sent women back to being housewives.And that's not incidental, because changing that is exactly what broke the "Post-War Liberal Consensus".
Every Democrat that had two brain cells knew that passing the Civil Rights Act was going to cost them the South. And it did.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
To take one relatively recent example, as Secretary of State, Clinton worked to legitimize the 2009 coup in Honduras that has since led to the deaths of "thousands of indigenous activists, peasant leaders, trade unionists, journalists, environmentalists, judges, opposition political candidates, [and] human rights activists"*...
Honduras was a clusterf!ck with no good realistic choices. What magical fix-everthing no-one-gets-killed solution was Clinton and the Obama administration supposed to pull off with the existing situation, knowns and unknowns, the power players there, and the limited means at her disposal? Read Clinton's own response to this very question (CTRl+F for "Honduras"):
Well, let me again try to put this in context. The legislature, the national legislature in Honduras and the national judiciary actually followed the law in removing President Zelaya. Now I didn't like the way it looked or the way they did it but they had a very strong argument that they had followed the constitution and the legal precedence. And as you know, they really undercut their argument by spiriting him out of the country in his pajamas, where they sent the military to take him out of his bed and get him out of the country. So this began as a very mixed and difficult situation.
If the United States government declares a coup, you immediately have to shut off all aid including humanitarian aid, the Agency for International Development aid, the support that we were providing at that time for a lot of very poor people, and that triggers a legal necessity. There's no way to get around it. So our assessment was, we will just make the situation worse by punishing the Honduran people if we declare a coup and we immediately have to stop all aid for the people, but we should slow walk and try to stop anything that the government could take advantage of without calling it a coup.
So you're right. I worked very hard with leaders in the region and got Oscar Arias, the Nobel Prize winner, to take the lead on trying to broker a resolution. Without bloodshed. And that was very important to us that… Zelaya had friends and allies not just in Honduras but in some of the neighboring countries like Nicaragua, and that we could have had a terrible civil war that would have been just terrifying in its loss of life.
So I think we came out with a solution that did hold new elections, but it did not in any way address the structural, systemic problems in that society. And I share your concern that it's not just government actions. Drug gangs, traffickers of all kinds are preying on the people of Honduras.
So I think we need to do more of a Colombian plan for Central America, because remember what was going in Colombia when first my husband and then followed by President Bush had Plan Colombia, which was to try to use our leverage to rein in the government in their actions against the FARC and the guerillas, but also to help the government stop the advance of the FARC and guerillas.
And now we're in the middle of peace talks. It didn't happen overnight. It took a number of years, but I want to see a much more comprehensive approach towards Central America because it's just Honduras. The highest murder rate is in El Salvador and we've got Guatemala with all the problems you know so well.
So I think in retrospect we managed a very difficult situation without bloodshed, without a civil war that led to a new election, and I think that was better for the Honduran people, but we have a lot of work to do to try to help stabilize that and deal with corruption, deal with violence and the gangs and so much else.
If it were up to Sanders or Trump, do you honestly think they could have played the cards Clinton was dealt any better?
... but Sanders is unfit to be president because he flipflopped on superdelegates and has nasty Berniebro followers....
As I hope I've repeatedly made clear, I'm not a Bernie supporter, but, and no offense, [vomit].
There's more to my Sanders dislike than what I listed previously, but I didn't include those issues there because in my original political calculations last year, I was willing to overlook them because he seemed a better option than Clinton.
It provides a window into his character under fire. It exposes his hypocrisy, his inability to face painful truths, and his willfully-worn blinders. It illustrates he wasn't the Moses of Democratic Socialism, but instead a fallible politician with a big ego and big blindspots. Clinton, imperfect and her own blindspots, has (IMO) more experience, a cooler temperament, and wider-picture perspective & knowledge. If it was down to Trump vs. Sanders, I'd still vote for Sanders in a heartbeat... and then try to work with groups to push Sanders to recognize other very pressing issues outside his laser-focus on economic reform. I can still wish we had better, more progressive candidates; I can still think that that politicians can do much more to live up to their potential for good. But right now, I'm still left with Clinton vs. Trump. As it is now, I think that of the actual choices we have, Clinton is the better choice for PotUS, and Sanders (like Warren and Franken) can do a better job with greater effect for progressive change (admittedly probably incremental at best) from within the Senate.
Honduras
[Reads Hillary's response and vomits more]
Oh, she said it was legal, so it must be legal. Pretty vague. Here's the analysis by the American ambassador released by wikileaks and published in the New York Times:
The American Embassy in Honduras sends to Washington its legal analysis of the forced removal of the Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, addressing the much debated question of whether it was an illegal coup
With excellent subheading titles such as "Forced Removal by Military was Clearly Illegal" and "Congress Had no Authority to Remove Zelaya."
So I think in retrospect we managed a very difficult situation without bloodshed, without a civil war that led to a new election, and I think that was better for the Honduran people...
Yeah, tell it to Berta Carceres and the other unionists, peasants, indigenous activists, etc., etc. killed by the death squads and corporate security forces made safe by Hillary's management. Her until recently held position that child refugees from Honduras should be deported was just the icing on the cake.
(An op-ed response to the Daily News piece with a great title that, I alas, haven't read yet but am posting anyway because, IIRC, WaPo is pretty firmly in her camp: Hillary Clinton’s dodgy answers on Honduras coup)
Bernie the Bomber vs. Killary
Hey, you don't like Bernie? Fine. I don't like Bernie, either*. He voted for the same crime bill the Clintons are rightly castigated for by Michelle Alexander and the #BLM crew ("It was the only way to fund battered women shelters!"); while he didn't vote for Bush II's war, as Hillary did, he did vote for most (all?) the military appropriations bills to fund it ("It was the only way to fund veteran's care!"); he stood with Israel during their latest razing of Gaza, etc., etc. Believe me, I've got no problem with people not liking Bernie.
But my mind boggles trying to imagine a calculus that disqualifies Bernie from the presidency because of his personal foibles and how he ran his campaign vs. Hillary's long and well-documented history of service to American capital and empire. Well, actually, that's not true, I can imagine such a calculus (see post above Cruz and Bush donors switching to Hillary), I am just surprised at seeing it used here.
The Rest of It
As an ultraleft communist, there's an awful lot in here that I don't think it would be terribly fruitful to discuss. My opinions are well-known and, more importatly, boringly predictable (hint: international proletarian socialist revolution) so I'll just say this:
I should have stuck to my guns and ignored a discussion of who would make the better presidential candidate for the Other Party of Racist American Imperialism. I didn't because,
a) As Comrade Jeff agreed earlier, there hasn't been any good politroll threads in a while; and
b) There's a school of Paizonian leftie thought that what needs to be done is work within the Democratic Party to change it for the better, and vote for progressive candidates locally, downticket, etc. I disagree, obviously (see: boringly predictable answer above), but it raised my hackles to see the most aggressive, successful exponent of this strategy to date (although maybe it's too early to tell) get called a "dick" for aggressively and successfully pursuing this tactic.
The Orange Elephant in the Room
If I were to guess, a lot of the Bernie backlash, possibly not here, but in the wider discourse certainly, is fear of Trump. And, you know, fair enough, he scares me, too. I'll spare you the "You Can't Fight Republicans with Democrats" rhetoric and just reiterate my (perhaps worthless) prediction: If Hillary defeats Trump, it's going to be because of, not despite, Bernie Sanders and his voters. Far from being the Moses of Socialism, he's a tried-and-true bourgeois politician and may end up the best friend the Democratic Party ever had.
---
*In fact, I just spent a not very pleasant six months in pre-factional opposition to my party's line [vomit vomit vomit] because I dislike Bernie so much.
I'm not particularly a Lessig fan but, according to On the Issues, his position on abortion apparently is: "I would veto a law defunding Planned Parenthood."And most likely, so would Sanders AND Clinton. Lessing isn't a standout on this issue.
No, but skimming through Comrade Jeff and Citizen Terrigan's post I got curious and went and googled it and shared.
I like to share.
It does temper my earlier enthusiasm for him, and to touch your later point, it's largely because it's shifting him from working within the Democratic Party to attacking it. That's the part that I think is dickish. I suspect he'll circle back around (and to some extent I think that's started), but I do think he lost sight of his original intent and focus on making policy change and got caught up in winning.
I obviously disagree. I think he's stayed the course all along and put up the best "save the Democrats" campaign in a generation. Maybe two. And I despise for him it.
I obviously disagree. I think he's stayed the course all along and put up the best "save the Democrats" campaign in a generation. Maybe two. And I despise for him it.
It does temper my earlier enthusiasm for him, and to touch your later point, it's largely because it's shifting him from working within the Democratic Party to attacking it. That's the part that I think is dickish. I suspect he'll circle back around (and to some extent I think that's started), but I do think he lost sight of his original intent and focus on making policy change and got caught up in winning.
By definition, you were despising him for his entire career. Unless he became a white haired version of Che Guevera, nothing he was going to do, has done, or could do would make you happy anyway.
You've got company by the way, Ralph Nader hasn't had a single nice thing to say about him for the entire duration. He's said all along that Sanders isn't the real deal, that he's simply playing for greater influence with the Democrats, and will ultimately betray everyone who's followed him.
Now I've got visions of Bernie on a motorcyle.