Clinton's concession speech.

nittany ram wrote:

Mackeyser wrote:

But hey. At least now, hopefully, that corporatist Clintonista bullshit is dead and we can go back to work on the progressive agenda. Hopefully.

That’s pretty good, Nittany.

But I’m not getting Mac’s comment, really. How could the existent of the Clintons prevent “progressives” from working on their agenda? It didn’t stop Sanders or Warren. To me, it’s still far too weak tea. We need something much stronger than the “progressive movement.” We’re not going to solve this mess until we get rid of THE main cause:

capitalism.

Having an economic system in which the few get to own the many is not amenable to any effective “reform,” and it’s set up to either prevent that reform in the first place, or if it slips by to snuff it out all too soon. Letting a few people own a ton of other people is morally reprehensible, and that’s capitalism in a nutshell. Aside from ownership, it’s designed to concentrate wealth (which means power) at the very top, sucking it up from everyone else, and unify all markets. This also requires massive government intrusion and the coordination of governments around the world.

It’s the opposite of “freedom and liberty,” the phony battle cry of its supporters. Unless one is talking solely about “freedom and liberty” for the super rich.

That’s my take, anyway. Good use of Yoda, though.

;>)

wv wrote:

— X — wrote:

This stuff makes my eyes roll back in my head. Leave your fucking children alone, idiots. Seriously – just stop being drama queens. “Children” have no business being involved in your irrational fears. What elementary school kid is sitting around determining that a new immigration policy is going to spell the deportation of his friends? They don’t pick up on that stuff by themselves. They’re exposed to it deliberately because of your irresponsibility and your ignorance. “Don’t worry, Timmy, daddy will protect you from the big orange man who wants all your friends to die in Mexico.” Asshats. And Sorkin’s letter to his daughters? It would have been literally the funniest thing I have ever read in my life if it wasn’t so offensive that he had to drag his daughters into his personal hell. The fuck is wrong with people anymore?

—————-
Well, there’s a lot of drama out there in the country right now. Lots of raw emotions. We knew there would be no matter who won. Lots of passions in this divided country.

w
v

I find it interesting that some of the very same righties who screamed “Listen to us!! You guys aren’t listening to us and our needs!!!” are now making fun of the people who are voicing their grievances on the other side of the aisle.

For decades I’ve seen this. It boils down to IOKIYAAR.

Then you have this guy, who called for Trump supporters to get out there pitchforks and revolt earlier this year:

Sheriff David A. Clarke

“These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled. There is no legitimate reason to protest the will of the people.

“Will of the people.” That seems to only count when Republicans win, and get to name Supreme Court justices, etc. etc. It’s apparently not “the will of the people” when Democrats win.

Well, quick follow up. To me, it’s not “the will of the people” when either party wins. We’re not given anything like a full slate of choices, and the few choices we do get have ginormous strings attached to further push us into our respective pens, waiting for the slaughter.

But, when it comes to just a contest between the two halves of the duopoly and their partisans, I see the Republican right asking for special treatment they never give to the Democratic side. Do as I say, not as I do, etc. etc. It’s like the bully kicking the shit out of the little kid, screaming at him, “Stop picking on me!! Stop picking on me!!”

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

“Will of the people.” That seems to only count when Republicans win, and get to name Supreme Court justices, etc. etc. It’s apparently not “the will of the people” when Democrats win.

Same holds true for Democrats. That was actually spotlighted during the protests when reporters tried to interview some of those people. The ones who couldn’t articulate anything without using 49 expletives (while holding a ‘Love Trumps Hate’ sign, no less – lol), gave way to the ones who could, and that was even worse. One guy [educated?] railed on like a madman that the popular vote being in favor of Clinton should be grounds for her to kick the doors in at the Supreme Court and slap a lawsuit down on the table entitled Clinton v US. Ah, the good ole’ days. I remember when Obama won and all of those protesters marched on Pennsylvania Avenue. Oh, wait. Yeah, that didn’t happen. Because, Democracy.

So you agree with the sheriff who says it’s wrong to protest the verdict? And you don’t think Trump would have if he had lost? He told us he wouldn’t accept it unless he won. Some of his supporters said they were ready for a revolution if he lost.

McConnell basically voided Obama’s last year in office, saying it was up to the next president to name Scalia’s replacement. Nothing about that in the Constitution. A president gets a full four-year term, not three. And they flipped again on that one when everyone thought Clinton would win, saying they were going to block all of her nominees.

So, Trump wins, and “the will of the people” is again in effect, even though that will chose Clinton, not Trump.

IOKIYAAR.

nittany ram wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

Mackeyser wrote:

But hey. At least now, hopefully, that corporatist Clintonista bullshit is dead and we can go back to work on the progressive agenda. Hopefully.

That’s pretty good, Nittany.

But I’m not getting Mac’s comment, really. How could the existent of the Clintons prevent “progressives” from working on their agenda? It didn’t stop Sanders or Warren. To me, it’s still far too weak tea. We need something much stronger than the “progressive movement.” We’re not going to solve this mess until we get rid of THE main cause:

capitalism.

Having an economic system in which the few get to own the many is not amenable to any effective “reform,” and it’s set up to either prevent that reform in the first place, or if it slips by to snuff it out all too soon. Letting a few people own a ton of other people is morally reprehensible, and that’s capitalism in a nutshell. Aside from ownership, it’s designed to concentrate wealth (which means power) at the very top, sucking it up from everyone else, and unify all markets. This also requires massive government intrusion and the coordination of governments around the world.

It’s the opposite of “freedom and liberty,” the phony battle cry of its supporters. Unless one is talking solely about “freedom and liberty” for the super rich.

That’s my take, anyway. Good use of Yoda, though.

;>)

Well, I think he just meant that with the Clintons gone it will be easier for progressives to make inroads into the DNC. Maybe now a true progressive like Warren can become the face of the Democratic party and garner all the support of the DNC instead of it secretly working against her like it did for Sanders. I could be wrong though.

That would be an improvement, definitely. But it’s still not nearly enough in my book. I think the Dems have an historical opportunity to really “give people change.” Talk about alternatives to the very system that spawns this inequality and corruption in the first place.

It really doesn’t make any sense to me to spend so much time trying to replace the bad parts of an old, worn out car, just to watch it sputter along a few more miles. Time to get a brand new vehicle, with a brand new technology. Something actually “revolutionary.”