Not stooges or sell-outs.

Post #410,920 by mmoffitt 6/9/16 4:26:05 PM 6/9/16 4:26:05 PM Reply	Not stooges or sell-outs. Just pragmatic. It's pragmatic to vote for Obama over McCain, just as it was pragmatic to vote for Kerry over Bush, or Clinton over Bush, etc. While I'm certainly not aligned with Trump with respect to his policies, I think all this handwringing is overwrought. If he is elected, he's not going to be King. Of course he'll take the country in a direction I don't want it go in every way he can, but hell, from my perspective, the country's been going in the wrong direction since 1980. It isn't so much that "My judgement trumps (no pun intended) all" as it is that no modern American politician has self identified as a New Deal Democrat until Bernie. With one exception (when I voted for Nader and it didn't count - lesson learned), I've routinely voted for the lesser of evils. I'm tired of doing that is all. And as Alex pointed out, in my state it won't make any difference anyway (just as it won't make any difference if some one in your state votes for Trump). As far as "Who could convince me to once again, drag myself to the polls and vote for another pawn of the Donor Class" goes, well her husband sure as hell isn't making it easy for me. “If I were them, I’d be screaming too because they know they will be toast by election day,” Clinton said, according to a Fox News reporter at the event. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282287-bill-clinton-to-sanders-supporters-they-will-be-toast A Sense of Entitlement runs strong in that household. As does nastiness. But, is there some one who could convince me to vote for Henry Kissinger's pal? I'm doubtful. At least, I can't think of anyone who could convince me that a person who is friends with Henry Kissinger should be in the White House. That is reason enough alone never to support such a person with my vote. I just saw a headline that indicated Bernie says he is going to work with Hillary to defeat Trump. I've been toying with an idea and that announcement has made my decision for me. As soon as practicable (I work 50 miles from where I am registered to vote), I'm going to unregister. I'm officially finished participating in this charade.
Post #410,922 by Another Scott 6/9/16 4:35:29 PM 6/9/16 4:35:29 PM Reply	Unregister? Is that a thing? https://johnlewis.house.gov/issue/voting-rights The right to vote is precious and almost sacred, and one of the most important blessings of our democracy. Today we must be vigilant in protecting that blessing. The history of the right to vote in America is a history of conflict, of struggling for the right to vote. Many people died trying to protect that right. I was beaten, and jailed because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle for the right to vote is not mere history; it is experience. We should not take a step backward with new poll taxes and voter ID laws and barriers to voting. We must ensure every vote and every voter counts. The vote is the most powerful, non-violent tool we have in a democratic society. We must not allow the power of the vote to be neutralized. We must never go back. You have a choice between two candidates representing two parties in the fall. You're either with the people trying to make things better, or you aren't. If you want "better" choices, the time to create them is in the years before the primary and the general election. Bellyaching about how horrible your choices are is just that. It doesn't convince anyone (not even yourself) of your supposed superior principles. Man-up and pick a side. Hillary or Trump. Those are your choices. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,933 by boxley 6/9/16 6:19:24 PM 6/9/16 6:19:24 PM Reply	pick a side? bill the cat is my side THBBFT! always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,934 by Another Scott 6/9/16 6:35:20 PM 6/9/16 6:35:20 PM Reply	You've already said you picked (the Hilldabeast). Mike needs to pick.
Post #410,935 by Andrew Grygus 6/9/16 7:11:11 PM 6/9/16 7:11:11 PM Reply	What I recall the box said was . . . . . if it was Trump vs. Hillary he'd vote for Trump, but if it was Ted Cruz vs. Hillary he'd vote for Hillary.
Post #410,936 by Another Scott 6/9/16 7:42:35 PM 6/9/16 7:42:35 PM Reply	You may be right. Oh well...
Post #410,937 by boxley 6/9/16 7:58:00 PM 6/9/16 7:58:00 PM Reply	and after further reflection I don't see any meaningful differences so will vote bill the cat always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,938 by Another Scott 6/9/16 8:04:26 PM 6/9/16 8:04:26 PM Reply	Meh.
Post #410,998 by Another Scott 6/10/16 6:01:45 PM 6/10/16 6:01:45 PM Reply	That's not the choice. The menu's fixed. Just look at the confusion over the invitations to tonight’s dinner. Guests were asked to check whether they wanted steak or fish, but instead, a whole bunch of you wrote in Paul Ryan. That's not an option, people. Steak or fish. You may not like steak or fish -- but that's your choice. - BHO. He's right you know... Cheers, Scott.
Post #411,000 by boxley 6/10/16 9:39:44 PM 6/10/16 9:39:44 PM Reply	The menu's fixed. you got that right always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,949 by mmoffitt 6/10/16 8:59:38 AM 6/10/16 8:59:38 AM Reply	Good question. Back in the day, when you moved you had to notify your old board of elections and ask to be removed from their roll. More recently, there've been purges for not voting, so I just assumed I could do like I did when I moved from California and North Carolina previously - contact them and ask them to remove me. I've just emailed my current board and asked if I could voluntarily have myself removed and if so, the steps required. I also asked if there was an automatic purge after not voting for some number of elections. Thanks for asking the question. --Mikem
Post #410,966 by mmoffitt 6/10/16 9:36:54 AM 6/10/16 9:36:54 AM Reply	And it is a thing. And even easier than I thought. Before you had to actually show up at their office. Here's the how-to I got back from my board of elections: Just send a note/letter stating you wish to remove your registration. I must have a signature. Sweet. I'll wait to see if Bernie pays any heed to all the petitions asking him to run independent, like this one: http://movement4bernie.org/ If the DNC has any brains, and if Bernie's primary goal really is to defeat Trump, then he should run as an independent for the reasons I posted here: http://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/410954/
Post #410,927 by rcareaga 6/9/16 5:17:30 PM 6/9/16 5:17:30 PM Reply	two roads diverged... Of course [Trump]'ll take the country in a direction I don't want it go in every way he can, but hell, from my perspective, the country's been going in the wrong direction since 1980. So I'm imagining two roads. The first of these is like one of the unpaved routes from The Wages of Fear, only the scenery isn't even as good. The second is straight, freshly-surfaced, brightly-lit, and terminates abruptly after half a mile (just over a rise!) in a two hundred-foot drop into an EPA superfund site. I may not like either route; "from my perspective" both may take me in the wrong direction, but I'm going to protest loudly every time the bus driver appears as though he's aiming for the right fork, and to the passenger across the aisle who shrugs and says "Who cares? Neither road is going to take us to Sugarplum Fairyland," I will persist in shouting "Are you nuts??" As to Kissinger, he is the underserving beneficiary of the Noah Cross Rule ("Politicians, ugly buildings and whores..."), and in a cosmos in which the arc of history truly bent toward justice he would have perished long ago after a prolonged and spectacularly unpleasant wasting disease. No grass would grow within twenty yards of his grave and no decent person would pronounce his name other than in tones of utterest contempt, or fail to follow it up by spitting. So no, when Clinton speaks politely of the old monster, a Villager of long standing, I don't start feeling all warm and fuzzy about her, and were my supreme criterion for bestowing my vote to require the candidate to observe my snarl-and-spit rule, then HRC obviously would not clear this threshold, just as she fails your own all-important requirement that all eighteen year-olds in 1964 have rung doorbells for Lyndon Johnson or at least Gus Hall. The other year my brother, an academic librarian, was required to study a book in which Augusto Pinochet was held up for emulation as "a role model for change management." I was startled, of course. "I don't think the Chilean model would translate well to your school," I told him. "For one thing, the campus doesn't have a stadium". "Change management." Hunh. cordially,
Post #410,948 by mmoffitt 6/10/16 8:47:48 AM 6/10/16 8:47:48 AM Reply	It's not just that she and Bill Christmas with Henry and have for a long time. Her "work" as Secretary of State in Honduras was right out of the old bastard's playbook. That's one of the real damning things in her email. Her AIPAC speech was equally chilling, but I'm sure her pal Henry approved - or even contributed to it. The only way to avoid arriving a destination by road for which there are two roads is to take neither. Is there no evil that should not be embraced, no matter how slightly less evil it is than the other? Is the knowledge that Henry Kissinger and you will be voting for the same person for President in November insufficient to make you change your mind about which way to (or even if you should) vote? Apparently not, because you've told us you voted for Kissinger's candidate in the California primary. Sorry, but I just don't see how your position is "more moral" than mine or any of the 83% of almost 20,000 Young Turks viewers who said they would never vote for Hillary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwOIY3p30-c).
Post #410,951 by boxley 6/10/16 9:11:35 AM 6/10/16 9:11:35 AM Reply	turks have been reactionary racists for a long time (see kurds and armenians) the young are ignorant always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,956 by mmoffitt 6/10/16 9:16:42 AM 6/10/16 9:16:42 AM Reply	Cenk Uygur is a racist? Go back on your meds.
Post #410,959 by malraux 6/10/16 9:19:46 AM 6/10/16 9:19:46 AM Reply	Young Turks != young Turks. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #410,960 by mmoffitt 6/10/16 9:21:16 AM 6/10/16 9:21:16 AM Reply	heh. Thanks.
Post #410,968 by rcareaga 6/10/16 10:20:29 AM 6/10/16 6:29:04 PM Reply	"Kissinger's candidate" Has the distinguished old statesman actually made a public statement of preference? But that's a silly game even for you. You've idly contemplated voting for Trump, who may be called "David Duke's candidate" with far more justification. And I do not doubt that some horrible individuals have voted for Sanders this year. Fatuous, drunk and disingenuous is no way to go through life, son. cordially, Edited by rcareaga June 10, 2016, 01:25:39 PM EDT Edited by rcareaga June 10, 2016, 06:29:04 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #410,971 by Another Scott 6/10/16 10:33:13 AM 6/10/16 10:33:13 AM Reply	She knows how diplomacy works. The horror. Hard Choices (scroll down to the bottom of the page) OMG!!1 She knew Henry and asked him to help in a diplomatic crisis. Clearly she should be sent to Gitmo!!1 International relations are complicated and nuanced. Purity kills. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,976 by boxley 6/10/16 11:33:50 AM 6/10/16 11:33:50 AM Reply	yup, pay the foundation and we work for you! always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,985 by mmoffitt 6/10/16 2:21:07 PM 6/10/16 2:21:07 PM Reply	Now tell me about her handling of Honduras
Post #410,987 by Another Scott 6/10/16 2:34:47 PM 6/10/16 2:34:47 PM Reply	You tell me. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125564.htm Our first question is from Arshad Mohammed. You may ask your question. QUESTION: Thanks very much for doing the call. Two things: One, can you give us a – earlier this week, Secretary Clinton gave us to understand that you were holding off on a determination on whether it was indeed a military coup. And there was the inference that this was to open up diplomatic space to reach a negotiated outcome. Is that still your stance, even though I know that you are – that the Legal Adviser’s Office has begun the process of determining whether it was a military coup and, therefore, whether the aid cutoff is triggered? And secondly, beyond calling for the restoration of – you know, beyond calling for the restoration of President Zelaya, do you believe that any political solution that may be achieved must also address the misgivings of those Hondurans about the referendum that he had planned to hold on the possibility of allowing Honduran presidents to serve more than one four-year term? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: In regard to the first question, both the President and the Secretary have described events in Honduras as a coup, which they certainly were once the current claimant to the presidency swore – was sworn in before the congress after the forcible removal of the legal and constitutional president, Mel Zelaya. In regard to assistance, obviously, we’re evaluating the impact of these actions on our assistance programs. The focus of our assistance programs is the well-being of the Honduran people. That remains our focus as we conduct this evaluation. But it’s important to note at this moment that we are working with our partners in the OAS, through the Inter-American Democratic Charter, to try to fashion a resolution of this interruption of democratic and constitutional order. And therefore, we have determined that we will wait until the Secretary General has finished his diplomatic initiatives and reports back to the General Assembly on July 6th before we take any further action in relationship to assistance. What was your second question again? QUESTION: The second question was whether you thought that – I mean, the Administration, I think, has been fairly clear in calling for the restoration of President Zelaya, and please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted that. And the question is: Do you think a political solution needs to also address the concerns about – the concerns in many parts of the political elite about the referendum he planned to hold? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, there are two different things here. In regard to the illegal detention and expulsion of President Zelaya, this was an act which was unconstitutional and illegal and cannot be tolerated. And in the resolutions that we have associated ourselves with, or co-sponsored in the UN, we have called for the unconditional return of President Zelaya. In other words, concerns or doubts about the wisdom of his actions relating to his proposed non-binding referendum have – are independent of the unconstitutional act taken against him. In that regard, obviously, as the Secretary General attempts to fashion diplomatic initiatives and outreach to those people who undertook the coup, there will be political discussions in which, obviously, the concerns that led them to take action against the president will be raised. And it would be reasonable to assume that the continuing viability of democratic government in Honduras would have to take those into account in some fashion. It was a mess, as Wikipedia points out. What do you think that she did that she shouldn't have? Cheers, Scott.
Post #411,011 by mmoffitt 6/11/16 8:20:02 AM 6/11/16 8:20:02 AM Reply	Lying about it being a coup for openers. In her own words: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/hear_hillary_clinton_defend_her_role Then there's this: How Hillary Clinton Militarized US Policy in Honduras She used a State Department office closely involved with counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to aid the coup regime in Honduras. In 2012, as Honduras descended into social and political chaos in the wake of a US-sanctioned military coup, the civilian aid arm of Hillary Clinton’s State Department spent over $26 million on a propaganda program aimed at encouraging anti-violence “alliances” between Honduran community groups and local police and security forces. The program, called “Honduras Convive,” was designed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to reduce violent crimes in a country that had simultaneously become the murder capital of the world and a staging ground for one of the largest deployments of US Special Operations forces outside of the Middle East. It was part of a larger US program to support the conservative government of Pepe Lobo, who came to power in 2009 after the Honduran military ousted the elected president, José Manuel Zelaya, in a coup that was widely condemned in Central America. In reality, critics say, the program was an attempt by the State Department to scrub the image of a country where security forces have a record of domestic repression that continues to the present day. “This was all about erasing memories of the coup and the structural causes of violence,” says Adrienne Pine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University who spent the 2013-14 school year teaching at the National Autonomous University of Honduras. “It’s related to the complete absence of participatory democracy in Honduras, in which the United States is deeply complicit.” “With the coup, Clinton had a real opportunity to do the right thing and shift US policy to respect democratic processes,” added Alex Main, an expert on US policy in Central America at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, after being told of the program. “But she completely messed it up, and we’re seeing the consequences of it now.” Honduras Convive (“Honduras Coexists”) was the brainchild of the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), a controversial unit of USAID that operates overseas much like the CIA did during the Cold War. Sanctioned by Congress in 1994, OTI intervenes under the direction of the State Department, the Pentagon, and other security agencies in places like Afghanistan, Haiti, and Colombia to boost support for local governments backed by the United States. Sometimes, as it has in Cuba and Venezuela, its programs are directed at stirring opposition to leftist regimes. Clinton gave the office a major boost after she became Secretary of State; its programs are overseen by an under secretary of state as well as the top administrator of USAID. http://www.thenation.com/article/how-hillary-clinton-militarized-us-policy-in-honduras/ Right out of Henry's fucking playbook.
Post #411,015 by Another Scott 6/11/16 9:50:04 AM 6/11/16 9:50:04 AM Reply	She has a time machine like Obama now? The coup was in 2009. How is something that supposedly happened in 2012 an indication that she "lied" about what she said about it in 2009? An opinion piece years later doesn't change what was actually said about it at the time, as I documented above. (sheesh) Cheers, Scott.
Post #411,024 by mmoffitt 6/11/16 4:01:51 PM 6/11/16 4:01:51 PM Reply	Sheesh Indeed. Did you watch the video? Or are you on full-on apology mode now?
Post #411,027 by Another Scott 6/11/16 4:44:08 PM 6/11/16 4:44:08 PM Reply	No I didn't watch the April 13, 2016 video. All I saw was a link and a bunch of text. The contemporaneous statements out of the State Department were clear as day. Do you dispute them? Nothing I saw in the contemporaneous State department statements contradict what she said in that interview with Gonzales in spite of Amy coloring the events as Hillary being "involved in" the coup. See the link at #410987 for what was going on then. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!