The point is good things *can* happen quickly, if we demand it. And by continuing to elect Clintons we are nowhere near demanding it.
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. |
|
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. -- Drew |
|
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. |
|
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/2015 0% of Sanders’s 29 bills and resolutions had both a Democratic cosponsor and a Republican cosponsor in 2015. Yeah, Bernie gets bipartisan things done! :-/ Cheers, Scott. |
|
The Amendment King.
bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Trump is the one who wants to do that. Yet somehow Hillary is the evil one....?
|
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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." FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. http://origin-www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-11/how-bernie-sanders-spent-his-soviet-honeymoon In 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. |
|
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... |
|
Good post. Thanks.
|
|
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. |
|
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. 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. |
|
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. |
|
NAFTA wasn't just one person pushing/stopping it.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegotiate-clinton Bush signs North American trade pact Clinton says he won't renegotiate 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. (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. |
|
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. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens. |
|
"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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |