The Republican Party is the only one that survived. It did *not* come apart. It relocated. The DLC (with a Yuge assist by the Clintons) turned the Democratic Party into the Republican Party.
Nonsense.
The Republican Party is the only one that survived. It did *not* come apart. It relocated. The DLC (with a Yuge assist by the Clintons) turned the Democratic Party into the Republican Party. |
|
What's your goal with this?
"Republican" and "Democrat" are labels used to designate organizations. When someone (except you) says "the Republican Party" they mean the current political organization with that name. Party platforms and the ideals they promote change over time, but the labels belong to the organizations, not the ideals. When you keep bringing up this idea that Hillary is "really a Republican" or that "the Democratic Party no longer exists", it's like you think the no one else in the world but you is perceptive enough to notice that the platform has changed. Like you think all of us are supporting people because they claim a label that used to mean something good and we're too stupid to notice that they don't hold the historical ideals of the old Democratic Party. Let me make this as clear as I can. We know what the current candidates are saying. We know that Hillary is not as far left as Bernie, or as the Democratic Party used to be. We know that "the center" in the U.S. is to the right of what counts as "center" in most of the Western world. And knowing all that, we support Hillary. Not because she claims the label "Democrat" but because she generally supports policies we agree with, she's apparently competent, and she's not a fucking loon like Trump. You're the only one here who seems to care about the labels. Quit boring us with your hang up. -- Drew |
|
Not concerned about labels.
Concerned only that the policies that were identified as a group by a particular label has no champion standing. What is needed is a strong third party. Bernie could have gone a long way to developing a third party with that sort of strength, but chose not to. That's no surprise. He is a man of his word and he always said that he'd endorse the Democratic Party's nominee if he didn't win the nomination. I'm more inline with Chris Hedges: I do not know if we can build a better society. I do not even know if we will survive as a species. But I know these corporate forces have us by the throat. And they have my children by the throat. I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists. And this is a fight which in the face of the overwhelming forces against us requires us to embrace this sublime madness, to find in acts of rebellion the embers of life, an intrinsic meaning that lies outside of certain success. It is to at once grasp reality and then refuse to allow this reality to paralyze us. It is, and I say this to people of all creeds or no creeds, to make an absurd leap of faith, to believe, despite all empirical evidence around us, that good always draws to it the good, that the fight for life always goes somewhere—we do not know where; the Buddhists call it karma—and in these acts we sustain our belief in a better world, even if we cannot see one emerging around us. https://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/i-do-not-fight-fascists-because-i-will-win-i-fight-fascists-because-they-are-fascists/ Here's a debate between he and Robert Reich over the former's refusal to support Hillary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr4cXH3Fil8 Edit: Forgot linky. |
|
"eternal orphans in empires of illusion. ..." Priceless.
Similarly, "following Nietzsche's thoughts"--even peripatetically {heh}--can fry the more-tender jelloware; maybe why so few ever did really Read the sucker! ? Thanks for the Hedges POV. Of course I concur exactly with the first three sentences. And daily it gets Harder even to {force some Pollyanna angle?} imagineer an authentically Adult Murican "society" in some "next." 'Adult Murican' is a prototypical oxymoron, right? As to the barely-ever resolvable Question (re the degree of toxicity that inheres to Hillary], such as she Was, became? Is today?? I "know"-not enough to despise her as viscerally as Box'x anti-fetish; not even enough to parse n+100 of her utterances to discover if she is. truly. capable. of making Nice-judgments [??} within some next. My observation is the obvious basic one: we NEVER "know" what any single One of these Pretenders actually will turn out to Be, once ensconced with an Orb and Sceptre SO.. lay on MacDuff; maybe you will turn up a definitive factoid which can be glued to her forehead? I have NO IDEA if her proffered Grandmother-liness Shall be a sufficient mellowing agent -??- to her desire to use Power against >| corrupt-Power, in that usual mutually-defeating Standard Game. All I Know fershure-enough is: that Trump Shall Be an unmitigated disaster on so many levels, as he catalyzes The Very Worst in the fucking-*Murican* stereotype with which I am familiar because I filled-it-in from experience as a tyke, onwards. |
|
Thanks for reading!
For me, the part that really stuck was this passage. As Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” the only morally reliable people are not those who say “this is wrong” or “this should not be done,” but those who say “I can’t.” They know that as Immanuel Kant wrote: “If justice perishes, human life on earth has lost its meaning.” And this means that, like Socrates, we must come to a place where it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. If it is truly better to suffer wrong than to do wrong, can we vote for Hillary? I'm not certain. I've been saying here that "I can't." But if I'm truly honest, I'm not sure I won't end up saying, "This is wrong." As to Hillary's "true self", I'm not sure she even knows of what that consists. But I simply cannot get out of my mind the video tape of her initial response to Ghaddafi's murder (linked elsewhere). In my view, to joke, "We came. We saw. He died" and then laugh provides a window into a truly dark soul. How can it not be "doing wrong" to support such a person in any way? Of course, one has to weigh the almost unspeakable "wrongness" of allowing Trump to be the "leader of the free world", but for the moment at least, the proposition that "suffering wrong" is better than "doing wrong" is holding sway with me. |
|
And no video has ever been deceptively edited to paint a false picture?
|
|
Oh, please. Next you'll tell me, "What difference does it make NOW anyway?"
|
|
Can't decide how decent a litmus was, the Ghaddafi instant-quip..
I mean.. imagine the instant comic-caricatures evoked ... in first-imaginations ... on hearing that bin-L was indeed/finally Dead? To moi, the horreur of the G. denouement was: a mere reminder-to-Self: that probably amidst the {say, Worst-three..?} Mondo-Horreurs of which I am capable to imagine, IS: The utterly despicable Reality of (most-any) HOMO-SAPS! ..once collected/coagulated? devolved-into-Beasts! by morphing into A MOB. "Guys" especially, just like the collective-Penis-as-knows-no-conscience. The resultant mob-mind honed by daydreams of {say} torturing captive females? Adolescent mobs of all ages can be expected to Do the Unforgivable! (the essence of imagined-Machismo variants, I wot.) Hillary, in that brief snip may have been caught schmoozing with local male peers/already in teen-age-Machismo mode ?? That [access-to-male-Privilege] mindset we are often referring to, y'know? Just a W.A.G. of course; it's all you ever get though, of "internal machinations": especially of those who dwell-within a Goldfish Bowl, by vocation. We Are ..so mis-informed on so very-Much, no? For many of us: HRC remains a coin-toss/her inner algorithms all evanescent ..or at least inscrutable. {{sigh}} |
|
Apparently she was doing several interviews in a row.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/libya-video/8839595/Hillary-Clinton-receives-news-of-Gaddafis-capture-on-her-BlackBerry.html is when she first gets the news that he was captured. The news of his death came later. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
FWIW. The laugh apparently came after the death was confirmed.
|
|
It would be nice to see the full clip, no?
|
|
Yes, it would. But I haven't been able to find it.
|
|
Oh FFS
Who gives a shit whether she laughed before, during or after the news that one of the planet's biggest shitbags had met a gruesome end? |
|
Ah. You've no use for the likes of John Donne, I see.
|
|
You're being a total drama llama
What with your talk of "truly dark souls" and whatnot. You know who had a truly dark soul? Saddam Hussein and his sons. You know who else? Muammar Gaddafi. The problem with lacking nuance is that you've painted HRC with the same brush as Uday Hussein, who murdered people just cuz. Or did he have a really truly dark soul? Are we discussing shades of black, here? For the avoidance of doubt, I might not agree with the process by which Hussein got his neck stretched, and indeed would much rather have put him in ADX Florence for his whole life, but I absolutely do not doubt that, in the less-than-perfect circumstances, he got what was coming to him. Ditto his offspring, ditto Gaddafi. None more blacker! |
|
after the craphole that Iraq turned into we should have given sadaam a
"sorry, here is $500 and have a nice day" then let him loose always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
O/T, but as to Saddam Hussein
...a cellphone video of his hasty execution made it to the internets, as you know, and I remember thinking that it was a helluva thing that the only individual in the room displaying any dignity during that sorry spectacle was Saddam-fucking-Hussein. The guy was a dimestore Stalin, of course, but he imagined himself, as despots will, as the embodiment of his people's greatness, a patriot and protector obliged at times to take stern and even harsh measures to secure the nation's greatness and advance its destiny. No doubt he had an enlarged perception of his personal majesty extending to the sense that the lavish comfort of his several palaces were no more than his due for the heavy historical duties he bore uncomplainingly for Iraq. Your garden-variety tyrant, in other words, and if he hadn't got himself crosswise with a slightly sclerotic hegemony by presuming to lay his finger on the imperial carotid a quarter of a century ago, he might still be an ally-of-convenience in good standing against the schemes and plots of the perfidious Persians. His sons, of course, Uday and Donald Junior, were a couple of nasty pieces of work whose native viciousness, never tempered by the absence of privilege, appears to have been unredeemed by any conspicuous administrative gifts. Good riddance to bad rubbish. At the end of his life—in the aftermath of which I am not certain his surviving people are truly enjoying a better life—the dictator left them a a final message. No doubt Stalin's self-evaluation would have been equally easy on himself (Hitler, I suspect, would have used the ink to berate the Germans for proving unworthy of his labors on their behalf), but I think it's interesting for the light it sheds on a condemned man's narrative of his own character and motives, and I get the sense that he believed it: Many of you have known the writer of this letter to be faithful, honest, caring for others, wise, of sound judgement, just, decisive, careful with the wealth of the people and the state... and that his heart is big enough to embrace all without discrimination.I found that last bit rather interesting. Given that Iraq's criminal justice system appears to have defined criminality rather broadly and to have had standards of due process well short of the minimums recognized by Amnesty International or the ACLU, he must have been astonished at the conscientious diligence of the military lawyers assigned to conduct his defense. A bad guy—don't mistake me—but not conspicuously gamier than many of the USA's clients times past, and only marginally less distinguished if at all in points of statesmanship than his successors. And as I said, the only gravitas displayed in the moments preceding that disgraceful education was his own. cordially, |
|
Yep! Republicans were once the party of Lincoln. Now, they are the party of Jefferson Davis.
And that's in only one of their attributes. 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 |
|
now if they can get the foaming xian right wing to declare they have had enuff
and create their own party while taking a few of the destroy the government at any cost crew, the republicans might be able to front a few sensible people for a presidential run. always look out for number one and don't step in number two |