Post #410,858
6/8/16 8:08:32 AM
6/8/16 8:08:32 AM
|
No apology needed.
You are one of the few (in fact, the single as far as I can immediately recall) honest Hillary supporters. All the people pulling the lever for her are voting exclusively out of self-interest, but few will admit it, as you have. This is not entirely surprising. We've been on a "Me! Me! ME! ONLY ME!" kick since Ronnie Rayguns.
With California going to the Wall Street handmaiden, former Goldwater Girl, I'm 99.8% certain I'm out of the charade of voting in this neo-fascist state ever again. That .2% chance that I will vote again will happen if and only if Bernie joins Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket. I hope he does, but doubt he will. And that assumes the Green Party candidate will be on Indiana's ballot and it might not.
|
Post #410,861
6/8/16 9:02:32 AM
6/8/16 9:02:32 AM
|
Depends on how one defines "self-interest" doesn't it?
My federal taxes would like go up under Hillary and would likely be cut (some) under Trump. Some people think that's enough "self-interest" to pick a side. I don't.
Your cartoonish picture of the arguments we're presenting here doesn't help your side.
:-/
Quit getting hung-up on labels.
I'm surprised in how your arguments have changed in the last ~ 12 years or so. Back then you saw the big picture and the need to defeat W. Now you seem to have turned into a cranky old man willing to burn the place down because a woman looks likely to win. Kerry voted for the AUMF in Iraq like Hillary did. Kerry became part of "The Establishment" and married into the 0.01% after being as lefty as anyone you could think of. Yet Kerry (apparently) got your vote while Hillary somehow isn't worthy. You're willing to give Trump a pass, and even occasionally play with voting for him, though Trump is objectively much, much worse than even W was.
It's a bit of a mystery to me.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #410,863
6/8/16 10:47:22 AM
6/8/16 10:47:22 AM
|
There's a big flaw in that summary.
[I'm] willing to burn the place down because a woman looks likely to win. That's disingenous. It has nothing to do with her sex. It has everything to do with her record, her coziness with the monied class, her support of fracking and her being in bed with the MIC. No offense, but your statement is reminiscent of my opposition to Obama indicating that I was somehow racist. On second thought, disingenuous is too kind a word. I'm not hung up on labels. You think a Democrat will be better than a Republican because s/he is a Democrat, but I'm the one hung up on labels? My finally coming to the conclusion that not voting makes the most sense is pretty easy to understand. I'd be considered middle-of-the-road in most Western democracies. Thanks to the combined efforts of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Obama, and now apparently Clinton II, that makes me screaming lunatic Left here. Obviously no American politician (save one) is anywhere near where I am on issues. Couple that with being forced to vote for Right Wingers "because" they were not Republicans (our Right Wing party that at least has the decency to admit being Right Wing) over these past decades has finally taken its toll and I don't want to do it anymore. I cannot, in good conscience, add to the apparent legitimacy of oligarchy by holding my nose and voting for the trivially less Right Wing candidate anymore. Clear now?
|
Post #410,864
6/8/16 11:18:54 AM
6/8/16 11:18:54 AM
|
Re: There's a big flaw in that summary.
That's disingenous. It has nothing to do with her sex. It has everything to do with her record, her coziness with the monied class, her support of fracking and her being in bed with the MIC. No offense, but your statement is reminiscent of my opposition to Obama indicating that I was somehow racist. On second thought, disingenuous is too kind a word. She's proposing policies that are to the left of the recent history in American politics. Yet somehow she's a Republican. Kerry married into the 0.01% (or higher), made similar policy choices and arguments, but he (apparently earned your vote due to the need to defeat W, while she is somehow worse than anyone (except maybe Trump). I'm just looking for some consistency here - if it's not because she's a woman, what is it? I'm not hung up on labels. You think a Democrat will be better than a Republican because s/he is a Democrat, but I'm the one hung up on labels?
Why do you continue to call her a Republican if you think that labels aren't important? My finally coming to the conclusion that not voting makes the most sense is pretty easy to understand. I'd be considered middle-of-the-road in most Western democracies. A label. Thanks to the combined efforts of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Obama, and now apparently Clinton II, that makes me screaming lunatic Left here. A label. Obviously no American politician (save one) is anywhere near where I am on issues. No, that's not obvious at all. You're refusing to see it because of your preference for acting like labels are most important. Bernie's and Hillary's policies aren't that different. He pushes a little farther on some things and less on others (e.g. guns). But they're not that different. Yet somehow she's a Republican. Where they're different is in the specificity and plausibility of how they would get their policy proposals enacted. And how quickly. Couple that with being forced to vote for Right Wingers "because" they were not Republicans (our Right Wing party that at least has the decency to admit being Right Wing) over these past decades has finally taken its toll and I don't want to do it anymore. Labels. I cannot, in good conscience, add to the apparent legitimacy of oligarchy by holding my nose and voting for the trivially less Right Wing candidate anymore. Labels. You're hung up on labels. You're not comparing their actual policy proposals and their plans to get there. You're insisting that supporting a better label is more important than actual progress. You're better than that, or at least your were in the past. ;-) Bernie lost. Politicians lose all the time. Get over it and support the better remaining candidate. Insisting that politics only exists in a world of labels isn't the way to move things forward. If you believe that Bernie was the best path forward, how is it sensible to act against him and his wishes by sitting the election out or by voting for someone else? You know he's going to endorse her. You know he's going to work to elect her and defeat Trump. When he does that, does he become a Sellout, a Republican just like all the others, a Supporter of the Oligarchy? If so, then why did you support him previously? Snap out of it old man!! :-) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #410,867
6/8/16 12:28:22 PM
6/8/16 12:28:22 PM
|
You're not comparing their actual policy proposals and their plans to get there bwaHAHAHAHAHA
Since I am firmly out of the coming dog fight I will pop some corn, pull up a chair and cheer the ensuing (rhetorical) bloodshed. May the best crooked liar win. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #410,868
6/8/16 12:31:45 PM
6/8/16 12:38:42 PM
|
(sigh) - edited.
NY Daily News interview from April 1: Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?
Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.
You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.
Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That's number one.
Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power.
And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.
Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?
Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.
Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?
Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"
Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.
Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?
Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.
Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have...JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of...
Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.
Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?
Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.
Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.
Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.
You're asking a question, which is a fair question. But let me just take your question and take it to another issue. Alright? It would be fair for you to say, "Well, Bernie, you got on there that you are strongly concerned about climate change and that we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. What happens to the people in the fossil fuel industry?"
That's a fair question. But the other part of that is if we do not address that issue the planet we’re gonna leave your kids and your grandchildren may not be a particularly healthy or habitable one. So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.
Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...
Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.
Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...
Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.
Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?
Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that. Bernie wants to Break Up The Big Banks™. But he can't articulate how that would be done. Even though he's been running on breaking up the big banks since, what, 2009 or earlier? (sigh) Yeah, it's all about his policy proposals and how he would get things done. Yup. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #410,870
6/8/16 12:35:45 PM
6/8/16 12:35:45 PM
|
Re: (sigh)
mmoffitt's wounded idealism, even when it involves him in baring his fangs, is a little easier to take than boxley's incessant trollish ball-licking.
cordially,
|
Post #410,874
6/8/16 3:14:16 PM
6/8/16 3:14:16 PM
|
What he should say
"It's not up to me how they are broken up. What we need is a standard defining how much of the economy one institution is allowed to control. If in any quarterly SEC filings a corporation is found to exceed that amount, then they have until the end of the next quarter to divest whatever assets they need to drop below. If they fail to achieve that mandate, then their fine will be 110% of the amount by which they exceed the cap for the second consecutive quarter."
|
Post #410,875
6/8/16 3:28:44 PM
6/8/16 3:28:44 PM
|
Yeah, but...
Of course he should have had a coherent answer. Maybe something along those lines. But I don't think the various regulatory agencies have the power to fine a bank for being too big. New legislation would almost certainly be required. And given how hard it was to get even Dodd-Frank passed, what are the chances of that happening anytime soon? Ok, he could say, we'll I know that passing new legislation is hard, so I'd have the Fed do it. The Fed has a hard enough time keeping to its explicit mandate of interest rate policies for stable prices and maximum employment. The Governors are picked by the banks. They're going to be hard on the banksters without being explicitly told what and how? It's hard to see... That's the trouble with Bernie's proposals. They're great sound bites and they sound so easy and so obviously correct, but Step 2 is almost always missing. Yes, he was absolutely correct that the government isn't going to tell Citi and Chase how to cut where to end up being smaller. But we have a mechanism in place already that is encouraging them to get smaller - they have extra-oversight and they have to carry extra capital if they're "systemtically important" ( SIFI). And banks are actually (slowly) using that. Bernie could have said he'd strengthen that mechanism under Dodd-Frank. But Bernie think's it's not pure enough, or something. He's more interested in rhetorical points than actually getting the problems addressed. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #410,882
6/8/16 5:11:48 PM
6/8/16 5:11:48 PM
|
Please enjoy four more years of Wall Street hegemony.
|
Post #410,884
6/8/16 5:14:32 PM
6/8/16 5:14:32 PM
|
rofl.
|
Post #410,869
6/8/16 12:32:26 PM
6/8/16 12:32:26 PM
|
As you point out...
If Sanders should endorse Clinton, an undertaking to which I suspect he will eventually consent and thereupon perform with a notable want of graciousness following some sustained arm-twisting administered by some of his fellows (Howard Dean will likely be among these; the President will likely counsel the campaign to seek death with dignity), it will indeed make him a sellout, and our friend will in that event be the first to acknowledge that his earlier support was misplaced, that the scales have fallen from his eyes and still another false messiah unmasked. He has said as much already. I fear, you see, that mmoffittism can never fail, it can only be failed.
cordially,
|
Post #410,871
6/8/16 12:39:21 PM
6/8/16 12:39:21 PM
|
I'm thinking we can open his eyes. He did, after all, give up the Confederate flag... ;-)
|
Post #418,435
6/6/17 5:14:40 AM
6/6/17 5:14:40 AM
|
And Oh, how right you turned out to be.
At least about Bernie, if not our pet Stalinist. --
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
|
Post #418,437
6/6/17 8:18:12 AM
6/6/17 8:18:12 AM
|
Trotskyist. Thankyouverymuch.
bcnu,
Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #418,439
6/6/17 10:12:17 AM
6/6/17 10:12:17 AM
|
People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front.
|
Post #418,440
6/6/17 10:24:01 AM
6/6/17 10:24:01 AM
|
+5 Funny
|
Post #418,441
6/6/17 11:52:12 AM
6/6/17 11:52:12 AM
|
I *HATE* the Judean People's Front.
bcnu,
Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #418,446
6/6/17 8:04:15 PM
6/6/17 8:04:15 PM
|
Also, what have the Rom-- eh, Democrats ever done for us?
|
Post #418,472
6/8/17 1:15:26 PM
6/8/17 1:15:26 PM
|
pick yer pocket, steal yer kids, predict a glowing future?
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #410,872
6/8/16 2:14:52 PM
6/8/16 2:14:52 PM
|
You get to use shorthand and I don't?
In the context of that post, "Right Wing" means supporting the idea that corporations are people, fully entitled to Constitutional protections afforded citizens, yet not also carrying the baggage of duties from a citizen. It also means supporting the idea that we absolutely cannot raise taxes on household incomes above 440K per year (in adjusted dollars) from the current 30-some per cent to the 75% it was under Saint Reagan. Want to know why state college isn't free anymore? Look no further. It means working against trade unionists. It means having a disastrous environmental policy. It means being pro-premptive war, it means being anti-Single Payer (despite a majority of our citizens still! supporting that idea), it means being delusional enough to think that you can embrace the multinationals and their view of the world and have them win along with the people, etc.
Finally, you think I didn't absolutely *hate* the idea of voting for Kerry, Bill Clinton, Dukakis and Obama? I wanted to vomit after voting for them.
How could I have voted for Kerry back then? Because I was still delusional. I still believed that it really did make a difference who was in the White House. That is a fiction I no longer believe in.
|
Post #410,873
6/8/16 2:48:45 PM
6/8/16 2:48:45 PM
|
But it's not about you (or me), really.
I've done enough point-by-point rebuttals of your posts for now. ;-) There are only two choices in the fall, and it's not really about us as individual voters. It's about what's clearly better for the country and the world. Business Insider: BRUSSELS (AP) — Following Donald Trump's breathtaking string of Super Tuesday victories, politicians, editorial writers and ordinary people worldwide were coming to grips Wednesday with the growing possibility the brash New York billionaire might become America's next president, a thought that aroused widespread befuddlement and a good deal of horror.
"The Trump candidacy has opened the door to madness: for the unthinkable to happen, a bad joke to become reality," German business daily Handelsblatt wrote in a commentary for its Thursday edition. "What looked grotesque must now be discussed seriously."
[...] Don't enable the monsters. Purity kills. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #410,876
6/8/16 3:34:57 PM
6/8/16 3:34:57 PM
|
FIFY
I still believed that it really did make a difference who was in the White House. That is a fiction I no longer believe in. Because I was am still delusional. If you think it makes no difference whether Clinton or Trump is president next year, your view is so grotesquely at odds with any rational extrapolation we may make today that "delusional" is the very kindest construction that may be placed upon it. cordially,
|
Post #410,881
6/8/16 5:09:34 PM
6/8/16 5:09:34 PM
|
I mispoke.
I should have said, "If the Left is represented by a Clinton (Bill or Hillary), it doesn't matter who is in the White House." Was gonna make this an LRPD, but what the heck? Clinton's nomination (and possible Presidency) will mean the same thing as Obama's did... a symbolic victory to parade in front of clueless 'issue voters' and the continued wholesale devastation of our planet by corporate-driven militarism and avarice. This is, as were Obama's 'wins', nothing to celebrate. A real feminist 'win' would look like Jill Stein or Gloria LaRiva... not Jamie Dimon with a vagina. Comment section: http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-makes-history/
|
Post #410,883
6/8/16 5:14:11 PM
6/8/16 5:14:11 PM
|
You're just trolling us, aren't you? ;-p
John Cole has something to say, also too. So right now, this is where we stand.
– Hillary has won an outright majority of pledged delegates. She has won 2184 of them to Bernie’s 1804.
– Hillary has won an outright majority of the votes, She has, as of right now, 15,571,64 to Bernie’s 11,888,779, a margin of 3,682,864.
– She has won the majority of primaries. Bernie has most of his wins in caucuses.
– She has an overwhelming majority of Superdelegates.
And yet we are met daily with a barrage of “the system is rigged,” pissing and moaning about closed primaries, and mentions about the kids and the future.
I’m sick of it. The future is the future. This is about here and now. She’s won. End of story. Anything else is just delusional.
But let me get back to the god damned kids. I honestly don’t care if a bunch of political neophytes have a sad because Bernie isn’t going to win. I don’t care if they hold a hissy fit. It’s time for them to grow the fuck up, and I am tired of the Bernie or Busters trashing the Democratic party because they don’t get their way.
Here’s the deal. I was a republican for years. I was a member of the party. I donated to them, voted for them, and worked to elect Republicans. I then realized I was an idiot and all the things I thought they stood for they don’t, and I beat a hasty retreat.
I looked around. I thought about just going independent. I nixed the idea because I realized this is a two party system, and if I want to be an effective part of the process, I had to be involved. So I joined the Democrats. I donate to the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC, to individual candidates, to Democratic causes. I went and will go door to door. I phone banked. I helped raise money for Democrats. I feel a bit of ownership in my party. And my party chose Hillary Clinton, and that is who I am going to support in the fall.
I am also an adult, and realize that you take the good with the bad in a party. For every Sherrod Brown and Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, there is a Ben Nelson. But that doesn’t change the fact that overall, the Democratic party has and continues to be, overall, a force for good. I’m proud to be a Democrat. I like putting the sticker on my car and the sign in my yard, because I am proud of the party. I feel a sense of ownership an d personal pride because I have helped to make the party what it is.
So it really fucking pisses me off when I hear a bunch of kids who just recently even became old enough to vote, or a bunch of disaffected independents who could never bother to commit to a party because they are just above it all or too special to fit into the confines of the two parties or angry bitter old leftists screaming that Nader was right and the Democratic party is no different than the Republicans screaming that their guy, who has been a Democrat for a year, doesn’t get to win because they have really strong feels.
I want to kick puppies when I hear the whining about closed primaries. I wish they were all closed primaries. I think Democrats should choose the Democratic candidates. Fuck you, you special flower. Go join the Greens and vote for Jill Stein. In the general, you can vote for whomever is on the ballot. But in the primaries, you have to choose a party. Fucking deal.
I’m sick of the bullshit. Every time I hear the whining about the kids- “They love Bernie. They are the future!” – all I can think is well, maybe the can join the Democrats, put in the money, blood, sweat, and tears, and in a couple cycles they will create a movement within the party large enough that someone like Bernie Sanders will win. And you know what, if they do, loyal Dems like me will phone bank and go door to door and work to elect that person.
Basically, what we are dealing with when we hear about the kids not getting their way with Bernie is the political equivalent as the same annoying entitled fucks who at the age of 22 go on House Hunters and demand granite countertops and stainless steel appliances and his and her en suite bathrooms and wood floors and a big deck because “they like to entertain.” Go earn that shit, and until then, go fuck yourself. Here- a bunch of old dudes wrote a song about this before you were born, you obnoxious little shits.
Your drum circle entitles you to zero votes. Also, get off my grass. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #410,885
6/8/16 5:16:32 PM
6/8/16 5:16:32 PM
|
No question Clinton is the nominee, now its who gets paid what between now and the convention
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #410,895
6/9/16 8:04:42 AM
6/9/16 8:04:42 AM
|
Yes.
"Grow the fuck up and don't question your masters."
|
Post #410,911
6/9/16 2:01:19 PM
6/9/16 2:01:19 PM
|
Kaufman over at LGM
Scott Kaufman, or "SEK," was in the tank for Saint Bernard, but has composed a screed as heartfelt, and only a trifle less splenetic than Cole's, on the imperative of getting with the program and defeating Trump even by means of such an imperfect instrument as Clinton. So here's the deal. A lot of people were heavily invested, emotionally, ethically, politically, in the Sanders campaign, and many of these strongly disliked Clinton. You could have sat down and talked politics over a beer with them a couple of months ago, and concluded that they were capital characters. 'Nother couple of beers and you'd have established a deep spiritual bond: what excellent fellows! How keen their judgments, how penetrating their insights, how like your own their desire for America to flower into a genuine social democracy! But now your virtual drinking buddies are telling you to vote for Clinton if, as now appears likely, she's her party's nominee. You have been deceived. Beneath your former companions' fine plumage beat the hearts of stooges and sellouts whose unwillingness to risk a Trump presidency as the necessary cost to be paid for repudiating the DLC in the person of the Dread Butch Hillary betrays their cowardice and damns them as neoliberal fellow-travelers. Permit me to ask whether there is anyone you know whose opinion you respect sufficiently that you would seriously ponder that individual's advice if (I lay on the stress anticipating your non-response that no one whose opinion you respect could possibly do this) such a person were to advise you to swallow your purity and vote for Clinton? You have already told us that you would not accept such counsel from your preferred candidate himself. You reject every argument that any meaningful distinction is to be drawn between candidates Clinton and Trump, or between their likely conduct in office, their judicial appointments, their policies. It is difficult to escape the impression you have conveyed that you regard your own judgment in these matters as the absolute and unassailable touchstone of principle, sense, morality, and dismiss all contending models out of hand. For my part, as the late Nora Ephron once wrote in a different context, I think you're full of shit. cordially,
|
Post #410,913
6/9/16 3:30:18 PM
6/9/16 3:30:18 PM
|
IRLRPD
You as stupid as you are wrong, and vice versa.
|
Post #410,915
6/9/16 3:42:48 PM
6/9/16 3:42:48 PM
|
Yeah, it was a little sloppy even...
for something that began life as a Facebook rant. "Measure seven times, cut once."
cordially,
|
Post #410,920
6/9/16 4:26:05 PM
6/9/16 4:26:05 PM
|
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-toastA 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
6/9/16 4:35:29 PM
6/9/16 4:35:29 PM
|
Unregister? Is that a thing?
https://johnlewis.house.gov/issue/voting-rightsThe 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
6/9/16 6:19:24 PM
6/9/16 6:19:24 PM
|
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
6/9/16 6:35:20 PM
6/9/16 6:35:20 PM
|
You've already said you picked (the Hilldabeast). Mike needs to pick.
|
Post #410,935
6/9/16 7:11:11 PM
6/9/16 7:11:11 PM
|
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
6/9/16 7:42:35 PM
6/9/16 7:42:35 PM
|
You may be right. Oh well...
|
Post #410,937
6/9/16 7:58:00 PM
6/9/16 7:58:00 PM
|
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
6/9/16 8:04:26 PM
6/9/16 8:04:26 PM
|
Meh.
|
Post #410,998
6/10/16 6:01:45 PM
6/10/16 6:01:45 PM
|
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
6/10/16 9:39:44 PM
6/10/16 9:39:44 PM
|
The menu's fixed. you got that right
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #410,949
6/10/16 8:59:38 AM
6/10/16 8:59:38 AM
|
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
6/10/16 9:36:54 AM
6/10/16 9:36:54 AM
|
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
6/9/16 5:17:30 PM
6/9/16 5:17:30 PM
|
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
6/10/16 8:47:48 AM
6/10/16 8:47:48 AM
|
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
6/10/16 9:11:35 AM
6/10/16 9:11:35 AM
|
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
6/10/16 9:16:42 AM
6/10/16 9:16:42 AM
|
Cenk Uygur is a racist? Go back on your meds.
|
Post #410,959
6/10/16 9:19:46 AM
6/10/16 9:19:46 AM
|
Young Turks != young Turks.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #410,960
6/10/16 9:21:16 AM
6/10/16 9:21:16 AM
|
heh. Thanks.
|
Post #410,968
6/10/16 10:20:29 AM
6/10/16 6:29:04 PM
|
"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
|
Post #410,971
6/10/16 10:33:13 AM
6/10/16 10:33:13 AM
|
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
6/10/16 11:33:50 AM
6/10/16 11:33:50 AM
|
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
6/10/16 2:21:07 PM
6/10/16 2:21:07 PM
|
Now tell me about her handling of Honduras
|
Post #410,987
6/10/16 2:34:47 PM
6/10/16 2:34:47 PM
|
You tell me.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125564.htmOur 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
6/11/16 8:20:02 AM
6/11/16 8:20:02 AM
|
Lying about it being a coup for openers.
In her own words: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/hear_hillary_clinton_defend_her_roleThen 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
6/11/16 9:50:04 AM
6/11/16 9:50:04 AM
|
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
6/11/16 4:01:51 PM
6/11/16 4:01:51 PM
|
Sheesh Indeed.
Did you watch the video? Or are you on full-on apology mode now?
|
Post #411,027
6/11/16 4:44:08 PM
6/11/16 4:44:08 PM
|
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.
|
