Post #415,062
11/2/16 4:32:36 PM
11/2/16 4:32:36 PM
|
So, President Trump.
It looks like yes, America is collectively retarded enough to elect Trump.
I mean, this is going to be four years of really fucking funny stuff from this side of the water. Horrific, yes, but also funny.
But that's with 3000 miles of separation.
What does four years of Trump/Pence look like to you guys?
|
Post #415,063
11/2/16 4:37:25 PM
11/2/16 4:37:25 PM
|
Probably a lot like Brexit
|
Post #415,064
11/2/16 4:42:19 PM
11/2/16 4:42:19 PM
|
Re: Probably a lot like Brexit
There's a difference though: brexit (if it ever happens; there's an increasingly non-zero chance that Article 50 will be invoked and then aborted) is just a risk to my wallet, not to my personal freedom.
I'm thinking of what happens if you guys get a super-conservative SCOTUS, for example. Or even better, Trump carks it two days after inauguration and you have four years of President Pence.
|
Post #415,066
11/2/16 5:13:17 PM
11/2/16 5:13:17 PM
|
Sam Wang still says it's Hillary's and nothing has changed in many months.
http://election.princeton.edu/Were Trump to be elected, there's no telling what would happen - he's that much of a wild card. E.g. there have been people speculating that he would be immediately impeached so that Pence could take over. Don't worry - she's got this. :-) Cheers, Scott. (Who expects her margin will be larger than the polls because so many of Hillary's voters aren't assumed to be interested in voting.)
|
Post #415,067
11/2/16 5:48:58 PM
11/2/16 5:48:58 PM
|
Re: so many of Hillary's voters aren't assumed to be interested in voting
That's where the big concern is.
In NC, one of the swing states, black voters have not turned out yet as well as they did for Obama. Being in the Charlotte, NC TV viewing area it's incredible the number of incendiary political ads that are being aired. I think the "deplorables" are well motivated. Hopefully the gender gap and Hispanics will compensate for that.
I have heard that early voting Republicans in Florida are voting 3 times as much for Clinton as Democrats for Trump.
SC, my state, is a lost cause. Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #415,079
11/3/16 11:32:18 AM
11/3/16 11:32:18 AM
|
Interesting analysis at Vox
|
Post #415,069
11/2/16 6:26:46 PM
11/2/16 6:26:46 PM
|
no, its a clinton landslide, I have been assured by stalwart clintonians.
After all when her head politico asked the question, why didnt they bring this stuff up months ago, the answer was, because they thought they would get away with it.
Dont worry, If Clinton gets in the investigations will be in full hue and cry. The skullduggery will be hemmed in by congress.
If Trump gets in the skullduggery will be hemmed in by congress. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,074
11/3/16 3:57:40 AM
11/3/16 3:57:40 AM
|
Well.. PBS--our ~Beeb?--has been showing the "Eyes on the Prize" doc. ..generate some Backbone?
This was/is a finely crafted documentary of students' actions to end various anti-Constitutional practices of our retarded-WhiteReactionary Class.. (nearly a century after the Uncivil endless war [still-On within the Murican-Nazi contingents] had determined that: all that shit henceforth Is Against The Law..
(The obfuscations of the perps seemed to begin their collapse when a Nashville mayor--asked if he believed that people should be denied service because of skin color (?)--had the guts to reply as a Man/not as a shameless-Pol.)
Such clarity as that last, re the modrin same/old Drumpf Pestilence: has. yet. to. escape. the bloodless-pursed-lips pf the Sothrun New-segregationalists du jour... who provide the Sceptered Isle with such bouts of mirth
(because a seeming plurality! of '16 Muricans are the plethora of assholes seen on Tee Vee.)
And so it goes..
PS.. also too, there's now a doc-film re another of our embarrassing gaggles of over-armed/infra-human 'correctional officers' at a place called Riker's Island
... a prototype for Abu Ghraib (whose methods so appeal to anyone still Drumpf-drunk.) It's Too-fucked for any soliution short of: Shut it Down.
|
Post #415,077
11/3/16 8:59:51 AM
11/3/16 8:59:51 AM
|
We're fairly well doomed either way.
You hear much about the Republican Party shifting wildly Right over the past 30 years, but rarely, if ever, do you hear the real reason behind that. Jimmy Carter was a very conservative Democrat. Bill Clinton, himself, once bragged about being "an Eisenhower Republican." The reason the Republican Party has shifted Right, arguably off the face of the earth, is the pressure to move in that direction so as to stay Right of the Democratic Party. If Hillary wins, we'll endure at least four more years of Republican policies. That means a lot more defense spending, austerity measures and, incredibly, even more corporate/banker influence over our lives. Take a look at her Vice President - YUGE Right to Work (aka union busting) fan, thinks Wall Street needs less regulation, etc. sic nauseum. If Trump wins, no one can say for certain what will happen. I, like most, think it will not be good. But, the Supreme Court? Really? Take a look at who Obama nominated and you tell me how Trump could do worse. Another thing, its been our history that a judge's history doesn't always dictate what they'll do on the Supreme Court. And it's not really like we pay all that much attention to the Constitution anymore anyway. This Democratic President has claimed and executed a "Constitutional Right" to decide for himself which Americans to assassinate. If a President can execute an imaginary "Constitutional Right to Assassinate you," would any additional power cleared by the USSC really matter? We've got about 50 million people living in poverty here and roughly 14% of us are "food insecure", meaning that 14% of us can't reliably feed ourselves. How much have you heard from either side of our two corporate parties about that? Whomever wins, expect nothing to change with respect to the chart below.  bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,078
11/3/16 10:47:22 AM
11/3/16 10:47:22 AM
|
Re: We're fairly well doomed either way.
|
Post #415,080
11/3/16 12:33:36 PM
11/3/16 12:33:36 PM
|
You did not contrast that with the Trump plan.
What have you got to lose?
Yep, that's the whole plan. Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #415,081
11/3/16 1:32:07 PM
11/3/16 1:32:07 PM
|
Ah yes, her public view
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,082
11/3/16 1:40:03 PM
11/3/16 1:40:03 PM
|
She has an actual record you could examine if you'd like.
|
Post #415,083
11/3/16 2:00:19 PM
11/3/16 2:00:19 PM
|
Curious that no one is reporting on the good emails
Lots of stuff like "can we get these people in Haiti food?" and the like, stuff that they wouldn't have expected to be public. Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #415,084
11/3/16 2:58:43 PM
11/3/16 2:58:43 PM
|
Yup.
|
Post #415,096
11/3/16 4:08:11 PM
11/3/16 4:08:11 PM
|
i thought you said she has never been convicted?
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,097
11/3/16 4:11:06 PM
11/3/16 4:11:06 PM
|
nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. :-)
|
Post #415,098
11/3/16 4:14:13 PM
11/3/16 4:14:35 PM
|
You could have said the record went platinum! :)
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
Edited by a6l6e6x
Nov. 3, 2016, 04:14:35 PM EDT
|
Post #415,107
11/3/16 4:36:49 PM
11/3/16 4:36:49 PM
|
D'Oh! :-)
|
Post #415,085
11/3/16 3:14:44 PM
11/3/16 3:14:44 PM
|
You might want to look at that chart again.
Paying special attention to the slope of the curve from 1992 to 2000 for the 1% under her husband. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,086
11/3/16 3:28:42 PM
11/3/16 3:28:42 PM
|
The rich get richer when the economy does well. Film at 11.
Taxes on the wealthy went up under Bill Clinton. If that's your main concern - sticking it to the 1% - then you should support her. http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-taxes/The top 1% of households -- defined as bringing in more than $730,000 a year -- would see their tax burden go up by more than $78,000 on average, according to an analysis of Clinton's original tax plan from the Tax Policy Center.
All told, they would pay more than three-quarters of her proposed tax increases. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,087
11/3/16 3:38:52 PM
11/3/16 3:38:52 PM
|
So, nothing wrong with wealth distribution here, move along.
The richest country the world has ever seen cannot distribute wealth equitably enough to feed 14% of its people. Nice socio-economic system you're promoting there. :-p bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,090
11/3/16 3:41:56 PM
11/3/16 3:41:56 PM
|
Eh?
One of the best ways to redistribute income is to increase taxes on people who have accumlated great wealth and who have high incomes. That's what Hillary wants to do.
But something something heighten the contradictions something something. Amirite?
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #415,092
11/3/16 3:47:47 PM
11/3/16 3:47:47 PM
|
How about increasing the top rate *BACK* to 70%? You know, the Pre-Reagan rate, 30.4% higher.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,094
11/3/16 3:59:31 PM
11/3/16 3:59:31 PM
|
How about it?
Half a loaf is better than none, isn't it?
Throwing Clinton under the bus is the way to have the top rate cut rather than increased. The opposite of what you (and I) want.
Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Progress is always incremental.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #415,099
11/3/16 4:15:43 PM
11/3/16 4:15:43 PM
|
Oh sure. Nothing happens fast. Reagan and Bush's cuts were incremental, of course.
Stop letting incrementalism be the enemy of progress. ;0) bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,102
11/3/16 4:18:17 PM
11/3/16 4:18:17 PM
|
I don't call Reagan's tax cuts "progress" myself. YMMV. ;-)
|
Post #415,103
11/3/16 4:19:34 PM
11/3/16 4:19:34 PM
|
So bad things happen fast, but we have to be patient for good things?
The point is good things *can* happen quickly, if we demand it. And by continuing to elect Clintons we are nowhere near demanding it. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,104
11/3/16 4:25:43 PM
11/3/16 4:25:43 PM
|
So who should we elect instead?
Please confine your answer to one of the two people with a chance at winning in the next week.
|
Post #415,108
11/3/16 4:50:46 PM
11/3/16 4:50:46 PM
|
As I've already said, I think it doesn't matter much.
Let's assume I am *completely wrong* about Hillary Clinton. Let's assume that the Whacko Party doesn't really despise her and that she really is a Progressive who "knows how to get things done" and will combat the MIC, Wall Street, Big Pharma and all the rest. Do you really think that the other Wall Street purchased tools in both the House and the Senate will let her, of all people, do anything other than be the subject of endless investigations, innuendo and perhaps, like her husband before her, impeachment hearings? That idiot Chaffetz has already publicly stated that he and his fellow loonie tunes are going to tie her administration up for years if she's elected.
Even if I assume I'd support her policies there's not a snowball's chance in hell she'll ever be able to implement them because unlike Bernie, she doesn't know how to work with those assholes to get meaningful amendments into her legislation. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,110
11/3/16 4:56:29 PM
11/3/16 4:56:29 PM
|
Bernie who can't get hardly anyone to co-sponsor his legislation? That Bernie?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/20150% of Sanders’s 29 bills and resolutions had both a Democratic cosponsor and a Republican cosponsor in 2015.
3 of Sanders’s bills and resolutions in 2015 had a cosponsor who was a chair or ranking member of a committee that the bill was referred to. Getting support from committee leaders on relevant committees is a crucial step in moving legislation forward.
Most bills and resolutions languish in committee without any action. Sanders introduced 0 bills and resolutions in 2015 that got a committee vote sending it to the floor for further consideration. Yeah, Bernie gets bipartisan things done! :-/ Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,112
11/3/16 5:01:55 PM
11/3/16 5:01:55 PM
|
The Amendment King.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,113
11/3/16 5:08:26 PM
11/3/16 5:08:26 PM
|
Meh.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/During his 25 years in Congress, Sanders introduced 324 bills, three of which became law. This includes a bill in a Republican Congress naming a post office in Vermont and two more while Democrats had control (one naming another Vermont post office and another increasing veterans’ disability compensation). Clinton, for the record, also passed three bills in eight years. Feel the Bern! He's the man to see if you want to name a post office! ;-p Bernie lost. He's not on the ballot. Either Hillary or Donnie is going to be the next POTUS. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,118
11/4/16 8:09:04 AM
11/4/16 8:09:04 AM
|
It's EASY to pass PRO WALL STREET/BIG PHARMA/BANKSTER/MIC legislation. HTH.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,120
11/4/16 8:17:23 AM
11/4/16 8:17:23 AM
|
Trump is the one who wants to do that. Yet somehow Hillary is the evil one....?
|
Post #415,123
11/4/16 8:52:21 AM
11/4/16 8:52:21 AM
|
See: TARP, Patriot Act, Wall St speeches, etc.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,127
11/4/16 9:23:45 AM
11/4/16 9:23:45 AM
|
Re: See: TARP, Patriot Act, Wall St speeches, etc.
TARP was the best that could be obtained at the time. Obama and others have tried to roll back parts of the Patriot Act. If you want those laws to be changed, vote for more and better Democrats for Congress. OMG Hillary gave speeches!! Who knows what she promised to the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority - I'll bet she sold us out there!!1 I hear that a group she was with didn't leave a tip 25 years ago, also too. Better vote for Trump because "we don't know what he'll do" - maybe we'll have a nuclear war and declare martial law. That would be "different", amirite? (sigh) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,137
11/4/16 11:52:39 AM
11/4/16 11:52:39 AM
|
were you speaking about senator obama, the prez obama just steamrolled over it
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,143
11/4/16 12:21:11 PM
11/4/16 12:21:11 PM
|
Dude. Enough with the binary thinking.
Not voting for Hillary is not the same thing as voting for Trump.
They don't count votes "against" anybody. They count only votes for somebody. So when the TPP passes, US-Russian relations plummet even further - perhaps to a shooting war, we're still in Syria, college students continue to suffer untenable debt (note: at least Stein calls for forgiving all student debt in her platform), the last union shop closes and we get a swell new Wall Street driven alternative to Social Security, defense spending increases, the social safety net suffers even more austerity measures, the Missouri river is contaminated by an oil leak, and she's impeached you should fess up to owning all of that because you voted for it. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,149
11/4/16 12:38:11 PM
11/4/16 12:38:11 PM
|
Re: Not voting for Hillary is not the same thing as voting for Trump.
No, it's like not voting at all.
As someone said recently, it's like flushing your ballot down the toilet. Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #415,160
11/4/16 3:49:19 PM
11/4/16 3:49:19 PM
|
More than that.
Part of the problem with our politics is that leaders have a great deal of trouble getting support of much more than half of the country. They would be able to do more if they had bigger margins in elections.
People on our side (the side of Progress) need to recognize that we're not ever going to get perfect candidates and, yes, the choice is binary when it comes to the General election for President. Voting for Bill the Cat or Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or Evan McMullen isn't going to "send a message" or somehow make the winner pay more attention to (generic) you. Pushing the winner's share below 50% doesn't make them stronger in pushing for Progress.
Politicians pay attention to the people who vote for them.
If (generic) you're not voting for the Democrat in the General, don't be upset when she can't push the needle toward Progress.
My (oft repeated) $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #415,162
11/4/16 4:48:07 PM
11/4/16 4:48:07 PM
|
Funny that.
If (generic) you're not voting for the Democrat in the General, don't be upset when she can't push the needle toward Progress. I've voted in every Presidential election from 1980 through 2012. That's 9 general elections. In one third of those, the person I voted for in the primary became the candidate. So, two-thirds of the time my candidate was not the nominee. In five of those six cases I held my nose and voted Party in the general and each time I was "disappointed" because what I got was increasingly Right Wing policies with every general that the "Democrat" won. Contrary to what you state, it is the act of voting for the Democrat because s/he is a Democrat that leads to disappointment. I will not be able to be disappointed with next Tuesday's results and the forthcoming next four years because unlike every other general election save one, I won't be doing anything to support either Right Wing Party. In short, none of the responsibility for the absolute mess that is sure to come in the next four years can be laid at my feet. That will be solely on the people who vote for one of these two neo-fascists. The only way to not be disappointed is to not take part in the charade. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,164
11/4/16 6:00:45 PM
11/4/16 6:00:45 PM
|
No, it's not funny.
It's impossible to argue with a straight face that Obama's administration is more "right wing" than W's, or that WJC's was more "right wing" than GHWB's. We're just going round and round and not convincing anyone, but I'll close with a couple of things. 1) Neither you nor I are special voters who have concerns or insights greater than our fellow citizens (with some notable exceptions!!). We each get a small voice in the outcome of an election, but we can't be silly or deranged enough to think that our small voice is the only one that matters. Sometime the better candidate loses - such is life. 2) We elect a President, not a King. A President can only do so much on their own. If you want them to enact Progressive legislation, give them a Progressive Congress. All the things you're upset with the Clintons about wasn't something that they imposed upon us by fiat. Congress has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to pass substantive progressive legislation these days. It's the easiest thing in the world to cut taxes or regulations or shift everything back to the states. Keeping the GOP from doing that isn't sexy, but it's vitally important. Congress writes the laws. Congress confirms (or doesn't) judges and agency heads. Congress butts into foreign affairs by passing resolutions about who we should overthrow next. A President has to work with whatever Congress is willing to give him or her. Hillary won't be able to do everything that she proposes on her web site and in the party platform. She'll have to compromise because Congress writes and passes the legislation. We all, I would hope, recognize that. Being petulant because a President doesn't do all they campaigned on is silly. Refusing to take a stand and choose between the only two people who have a chance to be elected President this time doesn't make you somehow free of the taint of the result. You're an American and a citizen and have as much responsibility as any other. Our national government is created and controlled by us. If we don't like what it's doing, we have a responsibility to work effectively to see that it is changed. In an election, that means choosing people who advocate for, and work toward, progress, even if they're flawed, even if they have baggage. Even if they have a screechy laugh and didn't leave a tip 25 years ago... Sitting it out, or voting 3rd party, doesn't change anything for the better. Listen to Bernie: Former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Sunday discouraged voters from picking a third-party nominee, saying the issues facing the U.S. are too dire for a "protest vote."
"This moment in history for a presidential election is not the time for a protest vote," the Vermont senator said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"It's time to look at which candidate will work best for the middle class and working families." FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,234
11/7/16 8:21:00 AM
11/7/16 8:21:00 AM
|
I'm not completely unsympathetic to your argument. I bought Moore's Trumpland this week-end.
I bought it because I was a gigantic Hillary fan in 1992/3 and through her husband's first term. My dad and I agreed that the country would be better off if she were president instead of her husband. She was savaged by nearly everyone: Big insurance, Reagan Era Republicans, the Meedja and not least of all her own husband and the great unwashed at large. I bought and watched Trumpland because I thought if anyone could give me a good reason to vote for HRC, it would be as likely to be Michael Moore as anyone. He almost had me. During his act, he makes people recall the savagery Hillary had to endure during the 1990's, how she at least tried to get us universal healthcare, but the health insurance industry was able to convince the majority of Murican Morons that was a bad thing. It famously failed and has never been attempted since, Moore rightly points out. He said the people abandoned her back then, and he's largely correct. He focused on her early days (that time when I was a fan) and basically said to look at the changes she'd made to promote her husband. He said he was hoping that the past 12 years or so she'd been laying back in the weeds, waiting for her opportunity when she had real power. That after she was elected it would be up to all of us to keep her honest and on the Progressive track.
He almost had me. But upon further reflection, I realized what he was saying is akin to what you've been saying, "Vote for her in the hope that she isn't really what she appears to be." I've done that sort of voting for most of my adult life and I'm finished doing that. I will henceforth cease to ever again vote for the evil of two lessers. If no one on the ballot represents the policies I support, then I will abstain from voting. You may differ, but refusing to support someone who does not share your values and does not support the policies you support is the only sane approach to the solemn duty of voting. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,238
11/7/16 9:07:21 AM
11/7/16 9:07:21 AM
|
So you were OK with Bernie?
His waffling on gun legislation? His support of the "$1T" F-35? Where are his federal tax returns, anyway? Why is it you give Bernie a pass on things like this, but Hillary is a "lesser evil" that you cannot actually support now - when a know-nothing brain-damaged fascist bully has the GOP nomination - under (seemingly) any circumstance? Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,240
11/7/16 9:55:17 AM
11/7/16 9:55:17 AM
|
He supports airplanes and guns and that's supposed to make him a bad guy with me? :-)
I admit Bernie is not great on War issues. But to say he is as hawkish as Hillary is a bit much, don't you think? Also, despite what you may think, I am not looking for the perfect candidate. I'm looking for a candidate who, on the whole, holds positions I support and does not support any positions I am adamantly against. Like, for instance, the USA Patriot Act, the bank bailout (I love how capitalists are all about capitalism until they need socialism to save them), the Iraq War, allowing banks to "capitalize education" for the benefit of their shareholders, and so on. Hillary has embraced the contrary view to mine on many of the issues that are most important to me. I also do not care much for the way she (and some of her supporters) have run the Clinton campaign. From collusion with the DNC to the "He spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union! He's a Commie!", to the invention of the mythic "BernieBros" and on and on. Let's just take one example of the dripping propaganda that spewed from HRC's campaign: Senator Bernie Sanders's long-ago "honeymoon" in the Soviet Union is held up by his opponents as evidence of dubious judgment, and even Communist sympathies or anti-American tendencies. The self-described socialist was questioned about the visit during a debate of Democratic presidential candidates in October as a way to raise doubts about his electability.
Those descriptions and concerns are based on distortions and exaggerations: The trip, which began the day after his wedding with his second wife, Jane, in May 1988, was undertaken as part of Sanders' official duties as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. And in any case, most of his critics seem to have forgotten that the Soviet Union at the time was hardly the place for an admirer of communism to find comfort.
Under Sanders, Burlington developed sister-city programs with places that reflected his sympathies, notably Puerta Cabezas, Nicaragua. That pairing was in keeping with Sanders' opposition to President Ronald Reagan's attempts to undermine the leftist Sandinista government. Sanders and the Burlington Board of Aldermen even wrote angry letters demanding that the president "stop killing the innocent people of Nicaragua."
Burlington also had a link-up with the city of Yaroslavl, in Russia. But as Sanders wrote in his 1998 political memoir, "Outsider in the White House," the motivations were quite different:
Like the Puerto Cabezas project, the sister-city program with Yaroslavl has been very successful. Each has different constituencies of support. Puerto Cabezas mostly attracted the energy of left-wing activists who were initially involved because of their support for the Sandinista Revolution and opposition to U.S. intervention in Central America. The Yaroslavl project received more broad-based backing, including from a number of business people in the city. http://origin-www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-11/how-bernie-sanders-spent-his-soviet-honeymoonIn the end, I think Hillary was beaten down in the 1990's and came to, essentially, give up hope for progress and instead (and here I am being pretty charitable) focus on incrementally decreasing the rate of damage. Moore wants me to believe that's not the real her and vote for her based upon what she once was, not what all the evidence suggests she is today. I think that is a fool's errand. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,254
11/7/16 8:39:24 PM
11/7/16 8:39:24 PM
|
I am
The core of his message has been the same since I first encountered him around '92: things are not going to get better, and will continue to get worse, if we do not rein in the greed that is now running unchecked. Events since then pretty much have borne that out. No one I know here has ever considered Sanders a saint (we knew he was Jewish ;) Politicians will end up with dirty hands but of anyone in this campaign, he is the one that has devolved the least. That is why I voted for Sanders in the primaries. And I put my vote against Trump in the mail two days ago. And from there, it went left all the way down ballot. Although, quite a few here are intrigued to see what would happen to a certain policy if the GOP wins the Governor's race... [The one where the Governor is always driven by a state trooper: http://speed51.com/phil-scott-racing-to-win-the-milk-bowl-and-the-state-house/] And as I'm writing this, one of the Bernie for Unicorn wranglers is bouncing off the answering machine. Aye...
|
Post #415,256
11/8/16 7:43:20 AM
11/8/16 7:43:20 AM
|
Good post. Thanks.
|
Post #415,258
11/8/16 9:05:50 AM
11/8/16 9:05:50 AM
|
I just reread a part of your post and you COULD NOT be more wrong.
t's impossible to argue with a straight face that ... WJC's was more "right wing" than GHWB's. You couldn't be more wrong. GHWB tried his entire first term to get NAFTA passed and failed. It took Eisenhower Republican WJC to do that. Republicans tried for years to destroy welfare and couldn't. It took WJC to do that. Republicans tried for years to get Glass-Stegall repealed and couldn't. It took WJC to do that. Those successes of WJC were not only more Right Wing than anything we'd seen out of Republicans, but were in fact fascist pieces of legislation. HTH. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,265
11/8/16 11:09:25 AM
11/8/16 11:09:25 AM
|
Yeah, Bill was just a Taft Republican
Or something. Contemporary history, from 1995: Consider the role of California liberals in health care reform. Last summer Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein abandoned employer mandates and universal coverage and fatally wounded Senator George Mitchell's effort to build a majority for a revised version of Clinton's plan. At no point did California's highly articulate liberals apply pressure on Feinstein to support Clinton and Mitchell. Instead, many health care advocates and liberal groups campaigned for a single-payer ballot initiative. Thousands of enthusiastic volunteers collected signatures. Most proponents knew that this radical proposal had little chance of adoption (it garnered only 27 percent of the vote). But progressives defended their approach with claims that they were "really" helping the president, though they harshly criticized Clinton's plan for retaining private insurance. By mobilizing to demand a pure measure, activists explained, they would counter conservative attacks on all reform and create "space" in the center for Clinton's efforts.
Yet if this energy had been mobilized directly for the Clinton plan (with those volunteers organizing rallies or circulating petitions), Feinstein might not have dared abandon it, and it might have survived. The "space" that progressives created was the running room for Feinstein to abandon Clinton and universal coverage. A President is constrained by his/her times and his/her Congress (and the Courts). Going Lefty McLeftish on a Democratic president too often gets us no loaf at all. Key Events for GHWB: GHWB gave us Clarence Thomas. He gave us a stepped-up drug war. He vetoed a raise to the minimum wage (and signed a smaller increase months later). He invaded Panama. He vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1990. Yeah Bubba was worse than Bush. (groucho-roll-eyes.gif) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,267
11/8/16 11:23:52 AM
11/8/16 11:23:52 AM
|
Riddle me this. If "A President is constrained by his/her times ..."
How is that Clinton got NAFTA through when GHWB couldn't? bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,272
11/8/16 11:56:11 AM
11/8/16 11:56:11 AM
|
NAFTA wasn't just one person pushing/stopping it.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegotiate-clintonBush signs North American trade pact Clinton says he won't renegotiate
December 18, 1992|By Gilbert A. Lewthwaite | Gilbert A. Lewthwaite,Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- President Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement yesterday, and his successor-in-waiting Bill Clinton immediately announced that he would not seek the treaty's renegotiation.
Mr. Clinton, in a statement issued in Little Rock, Ark., said the signing represented "an important step" toward the economic integration of North America. He repeated his campaign assertion that there would have to be new job and environmental protections, and safeguards against sudden trade "surges," but these could be settled without renegotiating the treaty with Mexico and Canada before he submitted implementing legislation.
"I will pursue those other things that I think need to be done in the public interest, then I will prepare implementing legislation and try to pass it in Congress," he said.
His new administration would also take domestic action on assisting workers, protecting the U.S. environment, helping farmers, encouraging public participation in consideration of the agreement and closing loopholes for foreign workers, he said.
"I believe these steps do not require renegotiation of NAFTA," said Mr. Clinton, promising to work closely with the two neighboring governments and with congress to "move this process forward."
[...]
Mr. Bush's action yesterday fulfilled the requirements of the "fast-track" legislative process, under which Congress can now only vote the agreement up or down. It cannot change the signed document.
Mr. Bush had to allow Congress 90 days to consider the agreement before signing. Yesterday was the first possible day for his signature. The clock will start ticking again when Mr. Clinton submits implementing legislation to make the necessary changes in U.S. law and tariffs required by the treaty. There is no deadline for Mr. Clinton to take this action, but once he does Congress will have up to 90 legislative days to vote up or down on the implementing legislation or change it.
The vote on the implementing legislation will ratify the treaty, which is due to go into effect Jan. 1, 1994. Clinton signed the enabling legislation in December 1993: When I affix my signature to the NAFTA legislation a few moments from now, I do so with this pledge: To the men and women of our country who were afraid of these changes and found in their opposition to NAFTA an expression of that fear—what I thought was a wrong expression and what I know was a wrong expression but nonetheless represented legitimate fears—the gains from this agreement will be your gains, too.
I ask those who opposed NAFTA to work with us to guarantee that the labor and side agreements are enforced, and I call on all of us who believe in NAFTA to join with me to urge the Congress to create the world's best worker training and retraining system. We owe it to the business community as well as to the working men and women of this country. It means greater productivity, lower unemployment, greater worker efficiency, and higher wages and greater security for our people. We have to do that.
We seek a new and more open global trading system not for its own sake but for our own sake. Good jobs, rewarding careers, broadened horizons for the middle class Americans can only be secured by expanding exports and global growth. For too long our step has been unsteady as the ground has shifted beneath our feet. Today, as I sign the North American Free Trade Agreement into law and call for further progress on GATT, I believe we have found our footing. And I ask all of you to be steady, to recognize that there is no turning back from the world of today and tomorrow. We must face the challenges, embrace them with confidence, deal with the problems honestly and openly, and make this world work for all of us. America is where it should be, in the lead, setting the pace, showing the confidence that all of us need to face tomorrow. We are ready to compete, and we can win. (Emphasis added.) Did Congress do that? Not that I recall. NAFTA was a GOP idea. GHWB signed it - it's kinda hard for him to see it enacted when he signed it, as a lame duck a few weeks before he left office. Bill seemed to try to use it to help people who were already being affected by increased global trade - not a bad idea. Was there insufficient followup? Maybe. Did NAFTA destroy the US economy? No. Was it a boon for the US? No. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,275
11/8/16 1:19:07 PM
11/8/16 1:19:07 PM
|
700,000 of your countrymen would disagree about the destruction.
The historic agreement, signed just three years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, tore down trade barriers between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, making trade and investment easier for businesses without allowing for the cross-border movement of labor. Despite the agreement being considered a boon for Mexico, the country’s economy grew only 1.6 percent per capita on average between 1992 and 2007, The New York Times reported in 2009.
The EPI’s calculation of 682,900 jobs lost to NAFTA takes into account jobs created as a result, too. Last year, for example, U.S. exports to Mexico supported 791,900 jobs. It’s just that those jobs created pale in comparison to the 1.47 million U.S. jobs that would be necessary without the imports resulting from NAFTA, the report found. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.htmlbcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,278
11/8/16 1:29:08 PM
11/8/16 1:29:08 PM
|
"without allowing for the cross-border movement of labor" that is what was wrong with it
a truly capitalist society would allow capital to move freely. Those of us who are poor the only capital is their labor always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,279
11/8/16 1:32:15 PM
11/8/16 1:32:15 PM
|
It, like everything else in this country, wasn't written for labor.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,280
11/8/16 2:36:15 PM
11/8/16 2:47:41 PM
|
Dunno.
How about a dispassionate look at the manufacturing employment numbers over a long period of time? Isn't manufacturing the thing that was "decimated" in the US by NAFTA? http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001[edit: Here's the graph - dunno how long it will last]  If you look at the BLS data for Manufacturing Employment from, say, 1970 - 2016 you see a three obvious features: 1) lots of oscillations around a level of about 17.5 M (oscillations apparently due to the business cycle) 2) a dramatic fall from 2001 - 2010 3) a rise from 2010 - 2015 It's hard for me to see that you can tie the changes in manufacturing employment from 2001 on to NAFTA. NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. It took 7 years for it to have a big impact on manufacturing employment? Really? And manufacturing employment did go up from 1994 - 1998 according to those numbers. Maybe electing W, and the bursting of the Tech Bubble, and the freakout over 9/11 and the rise in oil prices, and a bunch of other things, had much more to do with fall in manufacturing employment than NAFTA. Maybe. (I haven't read your link yet, but I'm suspicious of too much precision in numbers like "682,900 jobs lost to NAFTA".) FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #417,987
5/2/17 8:41:28 AM
5/2/17 8:41:28 AM
|
Not voting for Hillary turned out to be EXACTLY the same thing as voting for Trump, dinnit?
Depending on which state you were in, yadda yadda. But still.
|
Post #417,989
5/2/17 9:18:46 AM
5/2/17 9:18:46 AM
|
Not for me. My failure to vote for her meant nothing.
Indiana's Results.
Donald J. Trump: 56.5%
Hillary Clinton: 37.5%
Gary Johnson: 4.9%
Others: 1.2%
I could have voted for her over a half a million times and it wouldn't have mattered. (Not that I'd do that even once). bcnu,
Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #415,088
11/3/16 3:41:13 PM
11/3/16 3:41:13 PM
|
Perhaps the most important thing to note.
If we end up with President Trump, it will be entirely the fault of every useful idiot who voted for Clinton in a primary. bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,091
11/3/16 3:44:00 PM
11/3/16 3:44:00 PM
|
Meh.
 Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #415,093
11/3/16 3:49:06 PM
11/3/16 3:49:06 PM
|
Bernie would have buried Trump.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,095
11/3/16 4:03:09 PM
11/3/16 4:03:09 PM
|
Only in your dreams.
|
Post #415,130
11/4/16 10:04:19 AM
11/4/16 10:07:40 AM
|
I don't agree with this
Clinton hatred isn't rational (cf. others on this board). Once the Access Hollywood stuff came out Sanders would have killed Trump: same populist message, but not a raging racist misogynist fascist asshole.
The only reason this race is close is because Clinton has so much baggage. People are looking anywhere and everywhere for an alternative.
That said, Sanders isn't on the ballot now.
Full disclosure: I voted for Sanders in the primary. Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Edited by malraux
Nov. 4, 2016, 10:07:40 AM EDT
|
Post #415,131
11/4/16 10:27:03 AM
11/4/16 10:27:03 AM
|
Bernie has different baggage.
Honeymooning in the USSR, his taxes, his wife's (apparently) incompetent running of the college, his Lefty McLeftist days supporting the Sandinistas, etc., etc.
Most of that stuff wasn't brought up much in the primary because it wasn't necessary. The nomination was always Hillary's to lose - not Bernie's to win.
But that's just my $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #415,138
11/4/16 11:53:58 AM
11/4/16 11:53:58 AM
|
yup, hers to lose as she had the entire DNC and press in her pocket
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #415,144
11/4/16 12:22:23 PM
11/4/16 12:22:23 PM
|
Amen.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,145
11/4/16 12:23:08 PM
11/4/16 12:23:08 PM
|
This Neo-McCarthyism is getting creepy.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
|
Post #415,089
11/3/16 3:41:14 PM
11/3/16 3:41:43 PM
|
Dupe.
bcnu,
Mikem
I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
Edited by mmoffitt
Nov. 3, 2016, 03:41:43 PM EDT
|
