Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the thread who dimly suspects that any part of Trump's campaign is maybe acting? That he's intentionally pandering to the tinfoil-hat electorate but doesn't actually support a lot of the crap he's spouting? (In other words, that he's like pretty much every other candidate ever, in that respect)
I don't for a second doubt he's a racist, imperialistic buffoon with the business sense of a squirrel, but all of the "Trump is much worse than Cthulhu!" stuff is starting to seem maybe a bit overblown.
I think Trump is absolutely sincere about running. I do think however that we've been stage-managed to vote for Clinton... as the only establishment candidate left standing. Clinton will, like most Democrats and Republicans, give proper service to the .01 percent who own this country, and throw some bones to the rest of us. Trump and Sanders were the wild cards with the latter considerably more dangerous to the status quo, but he's been contained and assimilated, and Trump is being pointed out as the maniac not to vote for. He's lost a big asset in the ouster of Roger Ailes.
I think Trump is absolutely sincere about running. I do think however that we've been stage-managed to vote for Clinton... as the only establishment candidate left standing. Clinton will, like most Democrats and Republicans, give proper service to the .01 percent who own this country, and throw some bones to the rest of us. Trump and Sanders were the wild cards with the latter considerably more dangerous to the status quo, but he's been contained and assimilated, and Trump is being pointed out as the maniac not to vote for. He's lost a big asset in the ouster of Roger Ailes.Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the thread who dimly suspects that any part of Trump's campaign is maybe acting? That he's intentionally pandering to the tinfoil-hat electorate but doesn't actually support a lot of the crap he's spouting? (In other words, that he's like pretty much every other candidate ever, in that respect)
I don't for a second doubt he's a racist, imperialistic buffoon with the business sense of a squirrel, but all of the "Trump is much worse than Cthulhu!" stuff is starting to seem maybe a bit overblown.
You don't think Sanders started the primary in a contained and assimilated state? I mean, he'd been in the senate for twenty years or whatever. I really think he was just pandering to the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
Full disclosure, I would have voted Linc Chaffee all the way, but he didn't stay in the race past the first Democratic Primary debate. It's a Rhode Island thing.
I think Trump is absolutely sincere about running. I do think however that we've been stage-managed to vote for Clinton... as the only establishment candidate left standing. Clinton will, like most Democrats and Republicans, give proper service to the .01 percent who own this country, and throw some bones to the rest of us. Trump and Sanders were the wild cards with the latter considerably more dangerous to the status quo, but he's been contained and assimilated, and Trump is being pointed out as the maniac not to vote for. He's lost a big asset in the ouster of Roger Ailes.Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the thread who dimly suspects that any part of Trump's campaign is maybe acting? That he's intentionally pandering to the tinfoil-hat electorate but doesn't actually support a lot of the crap he's spouting? (In other words, that he's like pretty much every other candidate ever, in that respect)
I don't for a second doubt he's a racist, imperialistic buffoon with the business sense of a squirrel, but all of the "Trump is much worse than Cthulhu!" stuff is starting to seem maybe a bit overblown.
You don't think Sanders started the primary in a contained and assimilated state? I mean, he'd been in the senate for twenty years or whatever. I really think he was just pandering to the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
Full disclosure, I would have voted Linc Chaffee all the way, but he didn't stay in the race past the first Democratic Primary debate. It's a Rhode Island thing.
Ralph Nader maintained a sceptisim that Sanders was a real candidate from day one. He didn't think too much of him due to his embedded nature with the Democrats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the thread who dimly suspects that any part of Trump's campaign is maybe acting? That he's intentionally pandering to the tinfoil-hat electorate but doesn't actually support a lot of the crap he's spouting? (In other words, that he's like pretty much every other candidate ever, in that respect)
I don't for a second doubt he's a racist, imperialistic buffoon with the business sense of a squirrel, but all of the "Trump is much worse than Cthulhu!" stuff is starting to seem maybe a bit overblown.
I'm sure Trump and his campaign started out playing up the racism, the homophobia, the Islamophobia, the sexism, et al. But they figured out that it worked, and kept doubling down on the hateful rhetoric and bringing in more and more Alt-Reich staff.
"He wears a mask and his face grows to fit it" - Orwell
...JFK is among the more overrated of presidents; the problem, of course, is that he died (and was de-facto canonized) before he had much of a chance to address any long-term issues.
Little publicized fact: Tim Kaine was also recently cannonized. [fake (probably)]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh?! Okay I'm officially confused. Vixen is a woman powered by a magical amulet. Hawkgirl is just a cluster of badness/retcons. So...how does that work?!!I would want it to include a scene where he tells her he's destined to sire a child with Hawkgirl. :)I would have preferred a Vixen movie.
I misread this as Vixen being told she's destined to sire a child with Hawkgirl. Which is now becoming my personal head-canon...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the thread who dimly suspects that any part of Trump's campaign is maybe acting? That he's intentionally pandering to the tinfoil-hat electorate but doesn't actually support a lot of the crap he's spouting? (In other words, that he's like pretty much every other candidate ever, in that respect)
I don't for a second doubt he's a racist, imperialistic buffoon with the business sense of a squirrel, but all of the "Trump is much worse than Cthulhu!" stuff is starting to seem maybe a bit overblown.
To answer your question, yes and no.
No, I don't think he's being honest with the crap he spouts. Which is not necessarily to say that he sets out to lie. I mostly don't think that he cares or tries to keep track.
Yes, in that his behavior is not an act. He's been a bullhit artist since long before he announced his candidacy and what he's doing in politics now is what he's done outside of politics for decades.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh?! Okay I'm officially confused. Vixen is a woman powered by a magical amulet. Hawkgirl is just a cluster of badness/retcons. So...how does that work?!!I would want it to include a scene where he tells her he's destined to sire a child with Hawkgirl. :)I would have preferred a Vixen movie.
A reference to a plot line I believe from the Justice League Unlimited cartoon? At least that's where I'm familiar with it from.
** spoiler omitted **
Goddamn time travel f+~$ing shit up and telling people what they can and can't do grumble grumble...
G*~$#+n time travel f%~!ing s@@~ up and telling people what they can and can't do grumble grumble...Eh?! Okay I'm officially confused. Vixen is a woman powered by a magical amulet. Hawkgirl is just a cluster of badness/retcons. So...how does that work?!!I would want it to include a scene where he tells her he's destined to sire a child with Hawkgirl. :)I would have preferred a Vixen movie.
A reference to a plot line I believe from the Justice League Unlimited cartoon? At least that's where I'm familiar with it from.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah well I can't help timey-whimey stuff Rysky. It's well above my pay grade and abilities.
That's what threw me. I couldn't figure out who "he" was since I only saw Vixen and Hawkgirl mentioned.I misread this as Vixen being told she's destined to sire a child with Hawkgirl. Which is now becoming my personal head-canon...Eh?! Okay I'm officially confused. Vixen is a woman powered by a magical amulet. Hawkgirl is just a cluster of badness/retcons. So...how does that work?!!I would want it to include a scene where he tells her he's destined to sire a child with Hawkgirl. :)I would have preferred a Vixen movie.
Okay I think I get what happened...but not 100% sure if that's accurate since it's just ONE future, like anything else in comics.
"Thrown around" is a very fair description of how I heard it used. As I said in my earlier post, the analysts on the news outlets I follow didn't conflate the two. I certainly didn't hear it used often enough to say that the Clinton campaign used accusations of sexism to gain voter sympathy.
I wouldn't categorize it as a ploy for sympathy, rather an attempt to dismiss a surging opposition to the nomination. It was a way of saying "these young voters don't know this issues, they're just uninformed misogynists that can't stand the idea of a woman president" and had it ended there it would have been laughable, sad but otherwise not particularly noteworthy. The term was used by the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times to name a few. I don't have a problem calling out trolls, but when you attach a candidates name to the term, suggest that they represent typical Sanders supporters, well then we have a problem. I don't doubt for a second that someone was making crude and sexist comments to Clinton and her supporters, you can just look at the typical YouTube comments section to realize what people are capable of, but then to lay that toxicity on another candidate, well that's dirty politics.
Now as to the point about Sanders supports being frustrated by the media, the majority of the press around Sanders was negative, but that's hardly surprising, most of the media is owned by very wealthy individuals who would have payed considerably more under a Sanders tax plan. So is it then surprising that the Sanders supporters objected to the negative press?
Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.
That might be good data to suggest that you need to include more news sources in your life.
It certainly wasn't happening on Democracy Now! or NPR
It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.
I'll grant Hawaii, but I can't think of any other states where he did win a majority of PoC voters. Are there any I'm missing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The onion? That's a reliable source....JFK is among the more overrated of presidents; the problem, of course, is that he died (and was de-facto canonized) before he had much of a chance to address any long-term issues.Little publicized fact: Tim Kaine was also recently cannonized. [fake (probably)]
If only Ambrosia Slaad would put in an appearance to explain her early misconception of the canonization of the saints. :)
Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men."Thrown around" is a very fair description of how I heard it used. As I said in my earlier post, the analysts on the news outlets I follow didn't conflate the two. I certainly didn't hear it used often enough to say that the Clinton campaign used accusations of sexism to gain voter sympathy.
I wouldn't categorize it as a ploy for sympathy, rather an attempt to dismiss a surging opposition to the nomination. It was a way of saying "these young voters don't know this issues, they're just uninformed misogynists that can't stand the idea of a woman president" and had it ended there it would have been laughable, sad but otherwise not particularly noteworthy. The term was used by the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times to name a few. I don't have a problem calling out trolls, but when you attach a candidates name to the term, suggest that they represent typical Sanders supporters, well then we have a problem. I don't doubt for a second that someone was making crude and sexist comments to Clinton and her supporters, you can just look at the typical YouTube comments section to realize what people are capable of, but then to lay that toxicity on another candidate, well that's dirty politics.
Now as to the point about Sanders supports being frustrated by the media, the majority of the press around Sanders was negative, but that's hardly surprising, most of the media is owned by very wealthy individuals who would have payed considerably more under a Sanders tax plan. So is it then surprising that the Sanders supporters objected to the negative press?
Which "news sources" were those exactly? If every single "news source" you pay attention to does it wrong, maybe that's that's a problem with the scope of your attention. Maybe you should be looking for better news sources.
Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.That might be good data to suggest that you need to include more news sources in your life.
It certainly wasn't happening on Democracy Now! or NPR
That is a factually incorrect statement. Mara Liasson (of NPR) in particular was greatly fond of the term.
Which "news sources" were those exactly? If every single "news source" you pay attention to does it wrong
Circular. It's wrong because the news sources are inadequate and we know they're inadequate because they have the issue "wrong".
Examples would break the cycle but it would take a large number.
That is a factually incorrect statement. Mara Liasson (of NPR) in particular was greatly fond of the term.Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.That might be good data to suggest that you need to include more news sources in your life.
It certainly wasn't happening on Democracy Now! or NPR
Did she use the term pejoratively or descriptively? Up until a certain date, she was just covering the primary race as it happened right in front of her.
*Raises hand*
I saw the term "Bernie Bro" used a few times, but not in a negative way. Honestly, it sounded like the sort of thing male Millennials would call themselves if they supported his campaign...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If only Ambrosia Slaad would put in an appearance to explain her early misconception of the canonization of the saints. :)The onion? That's a reliable source....JFK is among the more overrated of presidents; the problem, of course, is that he died (and was de-facto canonized) before he had much of a chance to address any long-term issues.Little publicized fact: Tim Kaine was also recently cannonized. [fake (probably)]
How did...? {searches posts} I forgot I'd posted that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Trump is absolutely sincere about running. I do think however that we've been stage-managed to vote for Clinton... as the only establishment candidate left standing. Clinton will, like most Democrats and Republicans, give proper service to the .01 percent who own this country, and throw some bones to the rest of us. Trump and Sanders were the wild cards with the latter considerably more dangerous to the status quo, but he's been contained and assimilated, and Trump is being pointed out as the maniac not to vote for. He's lost a big asset in the ouster of Roger Ailes.Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the thread who dimly suspects that any part of Trump's campaign is maybe acting? That he's intentionally pandering to the tinfoil-hat electorate but doesn't actually support a lot of the crap he's spouting? (In other words, that he's like pretty much every other candidate ever, in that respect)
I don't for a second doubt he's a racist, imperialistic buffoon with the business sense of a squirrel, but all of the "Trump is much worse than Cthulhu!" stuff is starting to seem maybe a bit overblown.
You should read up on how Trump has run his foundation. It is one of many, many insights into how he would run the presidency.
From 1988 to 2008 he put about $5.3 million of his own money into the Trump Foundation. During that period, nothing strange really happened, it was run like a lot of family foundations. He gave to a diverse set of causes. His last donation was in 2008.
In 2009 it had a cash total of about $4,000. Since then it has only received donations from sources other than Trump. Vince and Linda McMahon are the largest donators, and essentially their donation was an appearance fee for Trump to be on WWE. This in itself isn't that damning, lots of celebrities use their celebrity to raise money for charity. Other major contributors have been NBC and the company that installs carpets in his buildings in NYC.
What's interesting is where the money gets spent. Since 2009 major shift has happened with major donations going to political groups. As far as the IRS is concerned, there is no difference between something like the Red Cross and Citizen's United (yes, THAT Citizen's United). Citizen's United is the single largest recipient of money from the Trump Foundation in the past 7 years. At the time, Citizen's United was suing the NY Attorney General who was pressing a lawsuit against Trump University.
Money has gone to several large Christian political groups run by the Graham family. A member of which was very vocal in defending him when he proposed he ban on Muslim immigrants.
It's also donated money to police organizations. Which then host fundraisers at Trump owned golf courses.
During his time on the Apprentice, he regularly consoled losers that he would donate to a charity of their choosing. He said he'd do it out of his own pocket. Not only did he never actually do it, sometimes his foundation didn't even do it. Instead show sponsors would foot the bill.
Then of course there's the times he's:
- bought a six-foot tall portrait of himself for $20,000
- bought a football helmet signed by Tim Tebow for $12,000
- Donated (illegally) to a campaign of an Attorney General that was considering investigating him at that time.
All the things that people have accused (without proof) the Clinton Foundation of doing, there is literally proof that Trump has done it. He's funneling money to friends, political allies, buying himself things and probably laundering money.
To add, Trump is not disclosing his assets to the public (ie. his tax returns), nor is he putting his assets in a blind trust. He's going to put Trump Organization in the hands of his children, who are also his closest political advisors.
Trump isn't going to run this country for the benefit of the 0.01%. He's going to run this country to benefit himself.
Edit: removed an item off the list, thanks Rednal.
Actually, some of those charities did find records of getting stuff when they doublechecked.
...
Assuming we're talking about some of the same ones. o wo/ I think one of em's still missing stuff, though.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that update. Corrected my post. There's enough other actual shady things about his foundation.
No problem. ^^/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know when you have to reach back to before the realignment after the Civil Rights Movement to attack Democrats you've lost, right?As the Comrade has so aptly pointed out, I only have to reach back to Hillary herself and her husband.Yeah, well, you've convinced me.
I'm going to go out and whitesplain to all the black folks supporting Clinton that she's the real racist and they shouldn't vote for her.
Or maybe I could trust them to have a better idea where their interests actually lie. Nah.
Hillary's met with Black Lives Matter representatives.
Donald has said that they instigated police killings.
I'm not saying Hillary is going to be great for African-Americans. I suspect she'll do at least one thing to screw them over. I think she might be a better alternative to Donye Trump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The article is from February and isn't trying to say that black people should vote for Trump.
However, before Comrade Jeff whipped out his "whitesplaining," I don't believe Citizen Moonrunner was arguing that people shouldn't vote for Hillary, just an honest assessment of the Democrats and the Clintons.
I think this article provides that.
Oh, and I guess The Nation published an article by Aviva Chomsky whom I recently read, so I'll post that, too:
America Wanted to Keep Immigrants Out Long Before Donald Trump Was Even Born
EDIT:
Oh, I like that second paragraph:
"Donald Trump may differ from other contemporary politicians in so openly stating his antipathy to immigrants of a certain sort. (He’s actually urged the opening of the country to more European immigrants.) Democrats like Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton sound so much less hateful and so much more tolerant. But the policies Trump is advocating, including that well-publicized wall and mass deportations, are really nothing new. They are the very policies initiated by Bill Clinton in the 1990s and—from border militarization to mass deportations—enthusiastically promoted by Barack Obama. The president is, in fact, responsible for raising such deportations to levels previously unknown in American history."
Yes. The article is from February and isn't trying to say that black people should vote for Trump.
However, before Comrade Jeff whipped out his "whitesplaining," I don't believe Citizen Moonrunner was arguing that people shouldn't vote for Hillary, just an honest assessment of the Democrats and the Clintons.
I think this article provides that.
Don't forget the article's inherent sexism.
Cause we see a whole lot of articles blaming men for what their wife did at her previous job....
The article does spend time on Hillary herself, but it also talks about what Bill did an awful lot. Does it talk about Sander's wife at all? Heck, did any article ever? Hyperbole, I'm sure that there was at least one article that talked about her, possibly even a handful. The point is that male candidates are never asked to account for their wife's behavior.
And a little story that makes me unhappy, but should delight the honest liberals among you that are voting Democrat:
Today was Congressional primaries day here in New Hampshire and, as it turned out, Citizen Stein made an appearance at UNH out on the coast. None of us in the commie club could make it (it was at five o'clock an hour away and we have jobs) but Mr. Comrade was on the private thread planning the logistics of the appearance.
[I didn't actually read the thread, so these quotes might be made up]
"Well, we've got the signs and buttons," somebody said. "What else should we do?"
"Today is the primaries," someone else piped up, "Maybe we should hold signs for Marchand." Steve Marchand is (was, I believe he lost) the "progressive" Democratic contender for the gubernatorial nomination. His platform is pretty run-of-the-mill pro-business, tax cuts to incentivize, blah, blah, blah, but he's in favor of legalized weed and, I guess, that's enough to be considered the "progressive" candidate.
"Wait a minute," said Mr. Comrade, "Aren't you guys supposed to be the Green Party, why would you stump for a Democrat?"
And all our leftie liberal Berniecrat friends that we've been cultivating for the past month turned on him, denounced him as a "troll from Massachusetts" and sent him angry private messages.
Finally one of the other organizers piped up, "You know, I'm not telling people how to vote this time, but Mr. Comrade's right, next time we should be fielding our own candidates." Crickets.
Later, the guy who ran the whole campaign chimed in his agreement with Mr. Comrade, but the guy's a member of the Socialist Party of Maine, so I imagine that's two strikes against him.
Anyway, if this is any indication of how it's going around the country, then it pains me to say,
Never fear, liberal Democrats! The Bernie-or-Busters-turned-Jill-Stein-fans are all down-ticket Democrats and, as I predicted in my Revolutionary Socialism thread, will probably do more to try to change your party than you will. Whether that change will be meaningful or real, I tend to doubt, but that's just me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The article is from February and isn't trying to say that black people should vote for Trump.
However, before Comrade Jeff whipped out his "whitesplaining," I don't believe Citizen Moonrunner was arguing that people shouldn't vote for Hillary, just an honest assessment of the Democrats and the Clintons.
I think this article provides that.
Don't forget the article's inherent sexism.
Cause we see a whole lot of articles blaming men for what their wife did at her previous job....
The article does spend time on Hillary herself, but it also talks about what Bill did an awful lot. Does it talk about Sander's wife at all? Heck, did any article ever? Hyperbole, I'm sure that there was at least one article that talked about her, possibly even a handful. The point is that male candidates are never asked to account for their wife's behavior.
I saw occasional mention of Jane's job at the university and said university's closing.
I like how you describe his disastrous attacks on welfare and his role in creating the mass incarceration state as his "behavior" as if it was no different than his sexual infidelities.*
I think your accusations of sexism are nonsense. Hillary reinvented the role of the First Lady and used it to support the crime bill and welfare reform, the latter a pretty odd position for someone who's calling card is her lifelong service to women and children.
---
*Eh, I should probably rewrite this paragraph, but I'm tired. Anyway, whether you think it's sexist to hold Hillary accountable for Bill's policies in the White House or not, nonetheless, the role of racism in Democratic Party politics wasn't happily washed aside because of the Dixiecrat desertion after the Civil Rights Act.
Again, I can see it on the Republican side - the Tea Party (run though it is by a handful of billionaires) is an actual challenge to the establishment Republican party. One they're completely failing to handle.There's nothing equivalent on the left. I'm sorry, but there isn't. I'd love it if there was. I'd fight for it if there was, but there isn't.
That's one of the reasons I'm so critical of the "my candidate or no one" whiners on this threat and elsewhere. The Republicans have a very deep bench because they're willing to focus on what is actually important; getting the "better" of the realistic candidates into office. Any office. And build a movement that's worth co-opting.
"Be the change you would like to see in the world," or at least in the US political system. You're not going to be able to get a Green president, but you might be able to get a Green on the county council, You might not be able to get a decent minimum wage nationally, but you might be able to do it in Jackson County. And when the press realize that a living wage, free bathroom access for all, a mandate for low flush toilets, and reasonable restrictions on police authority do not cause the sky to fall -- they might even make Jackson County more livable -- maybe some more influential politicians will start pushing for those causes.
(Obligatory snark: but it's a lot easier for keyboard warriors simply to post messages about how Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are indistinguishable, and only an imaginary candidate like Princess Peach, Han Solo, Robin Hood, or Jill Stein could actually accomplish anything.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The article is from February and isn't trying to say that black people should vote for Trump.
However, before Comrade Jeff whipped out his "whitesplaining," I don't believe Citizen Moonrunner was arguing that people shouldn't vote for Hillary, just an honest assessment of the Democrats and the Clintons.
I think this article provides that.
Don't forget the article's inherent sexism.
Cause we see a whole lot of articles blaming men for what their wife did at her previous job....
The article does spend time on Hillary herself, but it also talks about what Bill did an awful lot. Does it talk about Sander's wife at all? Heck, did any article ever? Hyperbole, I'm sure that there was at least one article that talked about her, possibly even a handful. The point is that male candidates are never asked to account for their wife's behavior.
I didn't know that Jane Sanders used to be a Vermont senator whose husband served as a salesman / surrogate for her misguided policies. Huh. Learn something new everyday.
"Be the change you would like to see in the world," or at least in the US political system. You're not going to be able to get a Green president, but you might be able to get a Green on the county council, You might not be able to get a decent minimum wage nationally, but you might be able to do it in Jackson County. And when the press realize that a living wage, free bathroom access for all, a mandate for low flush toilets, and reasonable restrictions on police authority do not cause the sky to fall -- they might even make Jackson County more livable -- maybe some more influential politicians will start pushing for those causes.
How the Minimum-Wage Movement Entered the Mainstream
My comrade, the keyboard warrior, Kshama Sawant.
For Minneapolis news, which I know Comrade Pravda values so much, the latest I've heard:
SUPREME COURT TAKES $15 OFF BALLOT IN MINNEAPOLIS – THE FIGHT CONTINUES
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's one of the reasons I'm so critical of the "my candidate or no one" whiners on this threat and elsewhere. ...
I find it very funny that you are using a Gandhi quote to press for getting on board with establishment candidates that are screwing the poor. Would Gandhi vote for Hillary Clinton?
It seems you (and some others) seem to be attributing a sense of absolutism to people who don't want to vote for Hillary or Trump. Several times we have been accused of failing to understand compromise, or expecting a candidate who aligns with every single one of our interests. This is especially true when it is pointed out that the Republican Party and Democratic Party share similar views on most issues.
NO ONE EXPECTS A PERFECT CANDIDATE!
NO ONE THINKS COMPROMISE ISN'T REQUIRED!
I would add that almost no one thinks that the parties are exactly the same. Arguments around this points are just going to be pointless and annoying because they are strawmen. It might make you feel good to post some quote about the virtue of compromise, but it just shows you are either not listening, or failing to understand other peoples perspectives. You are arguing against no one, and often being rather smug about it.
Clinton represents the worst of Democratic establishment policies: Free-Trade (not fair trade), outsourcing/globalism, militarism, surveillance state, pro-prison, pro wall street, trickle-down economics, etc, etc. These policies are not a compromise, they are the polar opposite of many peoples values.
I find it very funny that you are using a Gandhi quote to press for getting on board with establishment candidates that are screwing the poor. Would Gandhi vote for Hillary Clinton?
That's one of the reasons I'm so critical of the "my candidate or no one" whiners on this threat and elsewhere. ...
Almost certainly, yes. Mohandas Gandhi was a very smart man, and he understood the difference between playing a long game and playing a losing one.
Voting for local progressive candidates is playing a long game.
Voting for Jill Stein is a losing one.
It seems you (and some others) seem to be attributing a sense of absolutism to people who don't want to vote for Hillary or Trump.
That's right. Because voting for Jill Stein is the equivalent of not voting, and as such deprives whoever you dislike less of even your marginal support.
Conversely, it seems that you (and some others) seem to be attributing some sort of positive effect to not bothering to vote against the worst realistic candidate. This is stupid, short-sighted, and selfish. I might even say it's absolutely so.
Yes, because this is helpful for a civil discussion and debate. I was almost ready to agree with you and give you a +1 but then sully your whole response with this ignorance.(Obligatory snark: but it's a lot easier for keyboard warriors simply to post messages about how Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are indistinguishable, and only an imaginary candidate like Princess Peach, Han Solo, Robin Hood, or Jill Stein could actually accomplish anything.)
You're right; I apologize. Robin Hood was not imaginary, he's merely been dead for approximately 800 years.
"Be the change you would like to see in the world," or at least in the US political system. You're not going to be able to get a Green president, but you might be able to get a Green on the county council, You might not be able to get a decent minimum wage nationally, but you might be able to do it in Jackson County. And when the press realize that a living wage, free bathroom access for all, a mandate for low flush toilets, and reasonable restrictions on police authority do not cause the sky to fall -- they might even make Jackson County more livable -- maybe some more influential politicians will start pushing for those causes.How the Minimum-Wage Movement Entered the Mainstream
My comrade, the keyboard warrior, Kshama Sawant.
Yeah, did you actually read the article you cited? The opening words are significant:
When Kshama Sawant ...
In other words, she did exactly what I have advised everyone else pissing and moaning about the lack of progressive politics to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which "news sources" were those exactly? If every single "news...Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men."Thrown around" is a very fair description of how I heard it used. As I said in my earlier post, the analysts on the news outlets I follow didn't conflate the two. I certainly didn't hear it used often enough to say that the Clinton campaign used accusations of sexism to gain voter sympathy.
I wouldn't categorize it as a ploy for sympathy, rather an attempt to dismiss a surging opposition to the nomination. It was a way of saying "these young voters don't know this issues, they're just uninformed misogynists that can't stand the idea of a woman president" and had it ended there it would have been laughable, sad but otherwise not particularly noteworthy. The term was used by the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times to name a few. I don't have a problem calling out trolls, but when you attach a candidates name to the term, suggest that they represent typical Sanders supporters, well then we have a problem. I don't doubt for a second that someone was making crude and sexist comments to Clinton and her supporters, you can just look at the typical YouTube comments section to realize what people are capable of, but then to lay that toxicity on another candidate, well that's dirty politics.
Now as to the point about Sanders supports being frustrated by the media, the majority of the press around Sanders was negative, but that's hardly surprising, most of the media is owned by very wealthy individuals who would have payed considerably more under a Sanders tax plan. So is it then surprising that the Sanders supporters objected to the negative press?
I saw it on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post...
As for diverse states, Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington are 3 of the top 10 most diverse states in the country. The night he won 2 of them by huge margins was filled with how he only does well among whites. CCN called Hawaii "one of the whitest states of the country" while at the same time espousing the diversity of Wisconsin, one of the actual whitest states.
"Be the change you would like to see in the world," or at least in the US political system. You're not going to be able to get a Green president, but you might be able to get a Green on the county council, You might not be able to get a decent minimum wage nationally, but you might be able to do it in Jackson County. And when the press realize that a living wage, free bathroom access for all, a mandate for low flush toilets, and reasonable restrictions on police authority do not cause the sky to fall -- they might even make Jackson County more livable -- maybe some more influential politicians will start pushing for those causes.How the Minimum-Wage Movement Entered the Mainstream
My comrade, the keyboard warrior, Kshama Sawant.
Yeah, did you actually read the article you cited? The opening words are significant:
When Kshama Sawant ...In other words, she did exactly what I have advised everyone else pissing and moaning about the lack of progressive politics to do.
Yeah, I read the article. I've been in the same organization with her for four or five years now. Even worked on the Boston campaign we ran at the same time, but we lost. IIRC, Comrade Pravda voted for our Minneapolis comrade at the same time, although, he, too, lost*. We've been doing all the things you wrote above, that was my point.
And we're still calling for a vote for Citizen Stein.
---
*II further RC, his opponent won with a big infusion of money from both Michelle Bachmann AND Al Franken.