wv wrote:

One man thinks back about his decision to not vote for the lesser evil of Hubert Humphrey.
w
v
1968:https://zcomm.org/zmagazine/the-lousy-reason-i-didnt-vote-in-1968-and-why-sanderss-supporters-shouldnt-fall-for-it/

“…We failed to understand Nixon and what was at stake

Our failure was not in our assessment of Humphrey but in our failure to understand Nixon and what was at stake. We could have turned the close election in favor of Humphrey. We could not have moved the election results by 5 points, but we certainly could have moved the needed one….” see link

Thanks, WV. Great article. Though I think his description of 1968 is much better than his description of now. I’m guessing he thought he already made his case in the first part, and he didn’t need to go over the obvious similarities/paralles between Trump and George Wallace, for instance, or Trump and Nixon . . . or the fact that if America elects Trump, it’s electing a hard-right GOP along with him. It’s electing hard-right government, and pretty much giving it carte blanche.

Trump, just like Wallace, has mobilized white supremacist anger and hatred, and helped mainstream and normalize it. He’s also been preaching hate against immigrants and black and brown people, and is calling for his brown shirts to intimidate PoCs at polling places. He’s real big on “stop and frisk” and “law and order,” as long as no one takes away guns from white people. Perfectly okay with him if this happens in the “ghetto.” But not white folks in Oregon, etc. etc.

In short, I see far too many direct connections between Trump and the hard right, historically — and, yes, that includes fascism and nazism. Just the proposed ban on Muslims alone is Nazi-like, and he added shutting down mosques and mass surveillance of Muslims. I was shocked initially that that didn’t sink him all by itself, and his words and deeds before and after that have been just as revolting.

Again, yes, the Dems suck and HRC is awful. But Trump and the GOP, their “base,” and where they want to take this country? Waaay worse. It’s like a choice between a broken arm and an amputation. The former can heal. The latter?

That said:

Yes, it was absolutely wrong for Brazile and Roland Martin to do that. And Wikileaks points to all kinds of rotten back-room dealings by the Dems. Sleazy, contemptible, rotten, no good dealings. Unfortunately for the American people, Assange has ONLY gone after the Dems, so folks aren’t getting the full picture.

As if the GOP doesn’t do this and more. As if the GOP doesn’t engage in at least the same kinds of rotten, dirty, back-room, despicable machinations.

Trump is extremely lucky that he has the GOP going to war with the Clintons on his behalf, and for decades prior to this race, and that an entire country, Russia, seems bound and determined to hack the election in Trump’s favor. He’s extremely lucky that his own party hasn’t been hacked, their emails released to the public, and that the Dems aren’t in charge of Congress. We might have a different candidate being hounded about phony “scandals” like Benghazi and email-gate.

Better yet, in a better world, neither party is in charge so Americans get the whole truth for once. Neither party gets to play partisan witchhunters and our government actually concentrates on the people’s business — for once.

Neither party has earned the right to govern. Both have lost that right a thousand times over through the decades. And this particular election makes that all too apparent. To me, anyone who thinks one party is “good” and the other is “evil” — which is how all too many Americans see things — is flat out blind.

bnw wrote:

— X — wrote:

wv wrote:

Billy loathes Hillary, X. Just so you know. Not sure you know that.

I didn’t.

I was just giving my opinion based on the only two realistic choices.
But kudos to Billy for being on the right side of that one.

Billy loathes Hildabeast so much he wants people to vote for her.

I’ve never advocated for her, bnw. Have never said people should vote for Clinton. I’d much rather people vote Green or Socialist. If they ran a candidate, I’d probably advocate for the Democratic Socialists of America more than the Greens.

Yeah, I’ve advocated against voting for Trump. But not for Clinton. To me, it’s crazy to talk about wanting real change in America while choosing Trump and the GOP. He’s not going to “drain the swamp” or alter the status quo. He’s not going to shake things up. He’s just going to give us the same old same old GOP version, and put lipstick on that pig.

Though he will owe the Alt-Right in large part for his win. And white supremacists are going to want a return on their investment and their votes. Bottom line: As terrible as Clinton is, Trump is bigly worse.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Billy_T.

Joe,

Personally, I think both parties are guilty of major crimes against humanity that tragically aren’t considered “criminal” at all. The endless wars, coups, propping up of dictators, the mass surveillance, the persecution of dissidents, Native peoples, the destruction of the environment, etc. etc. Both parties. Going back nearly two centuries.

But if we’re talking in strictly legal terms, and we focus on the (bogus) email “scandal,” there is no “crime” there. That would take intent. Clinton would have to be found guilty of intentionally sending classified information to people without clearance.

Intent.

Without that, she’s not guilty of a crime, according to our legal system. Extreme carelessness? Yeah, that’s likely. Serious negligence regarding communications and IT matters? Yeah, likely. Arrogance and a sense of privilege? I’d say definitely. But a “crime” under our legal codes? There just isn’t any evidence for that. So far, at least.

As mentioned before, the GOP has hounded Clinton about nothingburgers for decades now. They’ve stayed away from the real horrors, the real crimes against humanity, because they’re at least as guilty as she is, if not moreso.

Trump was never the answer for what ails us. He’s a major part of the problem, and his close connection to the Alt-Right makes him even more odious than the Clintons. It puts him in or all too near the fascist camp to ever be president, in my view.

X,

We both want major changes. We both want an end to the status quo. But I’m guessing we want wildly different alternatives to replace the current situation.

As in, I want an end to the capitalist system entirely, and no more political parties. I’d much rather see a near-pure form of democracy, in which we literally have one person, one vote, and no one’s vote counts more than anyone else’s, because money is no longer in charge. Capital is no longer in charge. We the people are instead. The presence or absence of money no longer determines our destinies.

Politically, civics-wise, I want us to go to a lottery system, and rotate reps in and out. You do your stint and go home. Do you civic duty locally, then regionally, then nationally, and then go home. Say, four years total. No “elections.” No permanent seats of power. No permanent power centers of any kind, anywhere. And the people own the means of production directly, literally. It’s ours, not through government proxies, parties, etc. etc. But directly, by right. By constitutional right.

That’s my vision of a much, much better world for everyone and all future generations. A cooperative, egalitarian, fully democratic, localized economic model, federated with all the other egalitarian, democratic, cooperatives, etc.

And this would allow us to have the smallest possible government footprint in the history of the modern age. We can’t ever have “small government” as long as we have capitalism in place. Capitalism demands, requires, and can’t survive without massive government, locked and dependent upon other massive governments. In order to go to true self-governance and self-sufficiency to the degree possible, we must repeal and replace capitalism, IMO.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

This latest scandal is coming out too late to impact the election, but it looks more and more like Trump made his fortune by screwing over workers, contractors, taxpayers and refusing to pay people for the work they did for him. He used “other people’s money” to massively decrease his own tax liabilities so he could avoid them for two decades.

Latest case of him not paying for work done? His own pollsters. He’s refusing to pay them roughly 750K.

The man is fascist garbage, and he may well be our next president.

So he gamed the system? Do you pay more than you’re supposed to pay on your taxes? Willingly? And I don’t slight him for refusing to pay for things he shouldn’t have to pay. How do you know there weren’t liquidated damages in place for some of the work he contracted and the contractor failed to meet certain benchmarks? Shit, I made a living on writing contracts with those provisions in them, and had a great Construction Lawyer to enforce them. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, and don’t do shitty work. Not saying I know for sure that’s the case, but you might as well hate me too, because I fucked a bunch of huge corporations out of lots of money for failure to perform.

X,

You should read the two articles I posted, in full. He went well beyond what you or I would do, regarding taking advantage of existing tax exemptions.

And, remember, Trump is super-rich. He tells us this constantly. So it’s not like your situation. He didn’t punch up, like you. He punched down, screwing over “the little guy,” for decades/

This latest scandal is coming out too late to impact the election, but it looks more and more like Trump made his fortune by screwing over workers, contractors, taxpayers and refusing to pay people for the work they did for him. He used “other people’s money” to massively decrease his own tax liabilities so he could avoid them for two decades.

Latest case of him not paying for work done? His own pollsters. He’s refusing to pay them roughly 750K.

The man is fascist garbage, and he may well be our next president.

— X — wrote:

wv wrote:

Wait a minute. Did you not READ the terms of this board? It clearly states that bnw is the authorized, official Trump supporter.

Thats his role. You think you can just come in here and stomp all over someone’s
authorized official ROLE?

I might have to sue.

w
v

I’m a reluctant Trump supporter (and just voted for him 10 minutes ago). I also don’t really identify with any particular party, though I am right-leaning. Kinda just try to find my way through the labyrinth of bullshit both parties lead us down to find the hidden kernels of truth. Something that resonates with me, ya know? I like Trump’s ‘big picture’, and I think he’ll hire the right people. I kind of identify with him, even though we’re nothing alike. I don’t have the best words (lol), nor did I go to Wharton to receive the bestest education, but I applied myself and relied on my ability to hire the right people in order to meet and exceed my own goals; which subsequently led to me being able to sell a successful business and semi-retire to the mountains of Western North Carolina.

Vote for a liar who’s currently under FBI investigation? lol. Yeah, no thanks.

X,

I know it’s too late, cuz you already voted. But if lying is your reason not to vote for someone, Trump should have been the last person you picked. Every independent fact-checking group has demonstrated that no one lies more than Trump, and he often does so for the most repulsive of reasons: To stoke up hate and fear.

As for that investigation. I’m not at all a fan of Clinton, and won’t vote for her. But Trump is being investigated too. It’s just that Comey chose to apply double standards, saying it wouldn’t be right to talk about Trump’s while it’s ongoing, but it was apparently necessary when it came to Clinton.

And, of course, the entire email thing is a nothingburger. The GOP knew it couldn’t go after her for the real stuff, because that would implicate them as well. The wars, the surveillance, the attempted coups, etc. etc. The GOP has been involved with all of that for decades. So it had to gin up a phony “scandal” when it came to Benghazi and the email server, because it was never going to attack Clinton for doing exactly what Republicans do:

Work their tales off for billionaires and corporate America’s interests, including starting wars, bailing out capitalism endlessly, privatizing public assets here and abroad, etc. etc.

They had to put on the circus for America to distract attention from all of that and retain their own power.

Both parties suck, and both candidates are horrible. But Trump is decidedly worse, IMO.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Billy_T.

— X — wrote:

bnw wrote:

So you have competing visions of America, and that particular group felt strongly enough about theirs to seek redress in court. Be careful what you wish for, because if our government takes that away, it may backfire against your own preferred vision for society as well.

Perhaps, but I’m willing to take that chance.
The alternative, and current course, is pretty distasteful to me.

But yeah, you’re right. We have competing visions of America.
Thanks for the civil discourse Billeh.

X,

Back atcha for the civil discourse. Much appreciated.

The thing is, of course, it’s not up to just you or just me to make that decision — regarding the presence or absence of certain kinds of lawsuits. We have to make it together. The entire nation, supported by the Constitution, etc.

An aside: Our different visions probably also include — to get all meta about it — different vision of what is actually happening in this country. As in, I see the Obama era as an attempt to hold onto the status quo passed on to him by Bush. With a few wrinkles here and there when it comes to “culture war” issues. Very, very minor wrinkles. IMO, the vast majority of his tenure has been in service of keeping things the same as they were before he took office — to the degree that was possible.

I see him as having governed from the center-right, and he would have been at home as a Republican in the not too distant past. I’d say right up to the Gingrich era, he would have been a moderate Republican, and I’m pretty sure most of us leftists would agree with that, give or take.

I think a fundamental point of departure for leftists and right-wingers is in the perception of the Dems, Obama, the Clintons, etc. etc. We see them as center-right on most issues. Actually “conservative,” in the historical sense. From my encounters with righties, they tend to see the current crop of Dems as “far left.” To be honest, those of us who ID as leftists find that perception wildly absurd.

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Billy T,
The convention wasn’t the only time Trump has brought this issue up. There’s more reports (I saw him holding an LGBTQ flag up at one time in another news photo).
By the way, I oppose Trump on this issue.
I’m just bringing up the point that the author doesn’t have his facts correct.

But, again, you’re assuming Trump really will be good on those issues, just because he mentioned it once or twice. He doesn’t have any history of actual activism on their behalf, and has long-standing issues with racism and misogyny in his business practices. Bigotry, xenophobia and the appeal to the Alt-Right — white nationalists — have been central to his campaign. Given that he’s whipped up hate and fearmongered against racial, ethnic and religious minorities and women, I think it’s a pretty safe bet to say he’s not going to be a friend to LGBTQ folks either.

In short, to me, his article on Trump and LGBTQ issues in no ways diminishes the other one.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

X,

First off, you posted one example. Just one. And it’s about public space, that belongs to all of us. It’s not about suing anyone for expressing their “religious freedom” on their own property, or at their chosen place of worship. Just on “city” property.

The founders and the Constitution were pretty clear about the separation of church and state. In fact, Madison and Jefferson, especially, as men of the Enlightenment, wanted to make sure America never devolved into the sectarian bloodbaths raging throughout Europe while this nation was forming, and going back centuries before that. They knew the only way to do that was to make sure governments never put their thumb on the scale in favor of any one religion, or in religious belief overall. They knew that the merger of Church and State was a death-knell for freedom and liberty. It’s always been exactly that.

So if you’re concerned about the principles set forth by the founders and the Constitution, you would be in favor of that lawsuit, not opposed to it. And, again, it’s just one case. Given the fact that America is easily the most Christianized nation on earth, with the most churches, the most space set aside for Christian worship, the most carveouts when it comes to tax exemptions and other benefits . . . . . well, in short, to think of it as being under some kind of assault is ridiculous. No nation on earth supports its dominant religion like we do, and that, by definition, goes against the Constitution — and, for what it’s worth, the wishes of “the founders.”

I appreciate your thoughts on this, but I think missed the point of that article. That monument has been on that property for years, has caused harm to nobody, and has been the focus of honoring sacrifice and celebrating ALL religions – not just Christianity. And yet, a group whose motivation is likely FAR removed from promoting tolerance and unity, decided to use a Supreme Court ruling of 45 years ago to further their own agenda of intolerance. Are you really suggesting that leaving that monument alone, and leaving the citizens of that City alone, is somehow going to prove to be the catalyst for a sectarian bloodbath? Just because there’s a means to cause disruption and promote intolerance doesn’t mean it *has to be* used. And yes, it was one example. Would you like me to waste both of our time and find you hundreds more? You know full well that this is not an isolated incident perpetrated by one intolerant group. It’s a reoccurring theme.

First, you’re assuming (without evidence) they’re trying to “cause disruption and promote intolerance.” I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt that they care about pluralism and the secular nature of our legal system and its founding, and are expressing their First Amendment rights. Personally, I wouldn’t have chosen that particular case to plant a secular flag. That memorial doesn’t bother me, and I think there are much bigger fish to fry, like RFRA laws and so on. But that’s me. But do you really want America to be the kind of country that says, no, they can’t “petition the state” to air their grievances? Do you really think the government should be able to silence free speech like that?

They’re expressing their First Amendment rights too.

So you have competing visions of America, and that particular group felt strongly enough about theirs to seek redress in court. Be careful what you wish for, because if our government takes that away, it may backfire against your own preferred vision for society as well.

And I disagree with your assertion that this is widespread, or that it’s a show of “intolerance,” or that it’s wrong for people to “petition the court to air their grievances.”

In short, for me, personally, I don’t see a real problem with either the memorial or the lawsuit against it. We have conflicts in society and there need to be ways to adjudicate them.

— X — wrote:

Zooey wrote:

I think I may not understand the “anti-PC” crowd. I cannot put that sentiment into a favorable light in my head. Seriously, all I hear when people complain about “PC” is something like, “Yeah, it takes too much energy and effort to be considerate of people who don’t think the way I do, so they should just toughen up and get over it. Since their concerns are not my concerns, they aren’t worthy of my respect.” That’s what I hear.

It’s not about being considerate (to me). It’s about catering to the vocal minority at every turn. I have no problem with the Libertarian model of “live and let live”. What I do have a problem with is the “this offends me, so I’m gonna sue the living shit out of everybody until I feel vindicated” crowd. For instance.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/secular-group-sues-north-carolina-city-over-christian-war-memorial-123015/

I don’t want to live in a society where this is not only permitted, but encouraged. I get the whole separation of Church and State angle, but this is borderline ridiculous, and it’s becoming all to prevalent. So don’t get me wrong, Zooey. I have no desire to tell everyone to “get over” whatever it is they feel is holding them back. I do have a problem with people actively seeking ways to tear at the fabric of what is a pretty important part of our Country’s history. And I don’t subscribe to the inalienable right to sue whole communities for having the unmitigated gall to passively celebrate their right to religious freedom. If we get up to 3 or 4 more Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, I fear there will be very little left of the principles that formed our Constitution. And I’m not even a Christian. I just happen to believe that peaceful religion is a very important catalyst in repairing the social and racial divide in this Country. I’d hate to see that all go away in favor of a society where people are allowed (and encouraged) to be offended by everything and everybody, and then subsequently sue to get their way.

X,

First off, you posted one example. Just one. And it’s about public space, that belongs to all of us. It’s not about suing anyone for expressing their “religious freedom” on their own property, or at their chosen place of worship. Just on “city” property.

The founders and the Constitution were pretty clear about the separation of church and state. In fact, Madison and Jefferson, especially, as men of the Enlightenment, wanted to make sure America never devolved into the sectarian bloodbaths raging throughout Europe while this nation was forming, and going back centuries before that. They knew the only way to do that was to make sure governments never put their thumb on the scale in favor of any one religion, or in religious belief overall. They knew that the merger of Church and State was a death-knell for freedom and liberty. It’s always been exactly that.

So if you’re concerned about the principles set forth by the founders and the Constitution, you would be in favor of that lawsuit, not opposed to it. And, again, it’s just one case. Given the fact that America is easily the most Christianized nation on earth, with the most churches, the most space set aside for Christian worship, the most carveouts when it comes to tax exemptions and other benefits . . . . . well, in short, to think of it as being under some kind of assault is ridiculous. No nation on earth supports its dominant religion like we do, and that, by definition, goes against the Constitution — and, for what it’s worth, the wishes of “the founders.”

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Billy_T.

Zooey wrote:

— X — wrote:

I don’t care if he has a 3rd grade reading level if he hires the right collection of geniuses to attack and solve the Nation’s problems. Another 4 years of watching this Country deteriorate into a politically correct safe haven for litigious self-appointed ‘Champions of the Cause’ who are offended by virtually everything? Yeah, no thank you very much.

I want him to win for no other reason than to keep ‘her’ from appointing those kinds of judges to the Supreme Court.

I think I may not understand the “anti-PC” crowd. I cannot put that sentiment into a favorable light in my head. Seriously, all I hear when people complain about “PC” is something like, “Yeah, it takes too much energy and effort to be considerate of people who don’t think the way I do, so they should just toughen up and get over it. Since their concerns are not my concerns, they aren’t worthy of my respect.” That’s what I hear.

Agreed. To me, the most baffling aspect of this view is that PC has supposedly caused America itself to decline. That because some people basically say “let’s be civil and decent to one another,” our military is crippled and our standing in the world has crashed. All too many in the anti-PC camp, including Trump, say it actually endangers us. The hyperbole meter goes off the rails in every possible way when the subject comes up.

First, by turning individual, scattered calls for basic human decency into some kind of widespread and all-powerful force.

Second, by deducing that America itself is under existential threat for supposed existence of this “movement.”

There is no there there.

Great twist on the Fox/Trump method of inventing “scandals” out of thin air and “people are saying . . .” Though, in this case, Trump does provide a lot of fodder for the charge of illiteracy.

I have no doubt that he can read. But I do think it’s the case that he’s incredibly ignorant, not very bright at all, has tremendous difficult stringing his thoughts together in any coherent manner, and basically talks like he’s in kindergarten. If he becomes president, he will easily be one of the least knowledgeable and least “curious about the world,” evah. And he will have won largely by appealing to the incurious and the easily duped.

Also: I watched a bit of that deposition when it came out, and it struck me how tired, old and defeated he seemed. The Trump we see on TV, at his beer-hall putsch rallies, bombastic, bragging, mocking, etc. etc. was nowhere in sight. Which leads me to another “people are saying” conjecture:

He takes some serious drugs to get “up” for his public speaking tours and survive his apparent lack of any sleep. All of that sniffling at the debates points to that. His erratic, repetitive, disjointed speech points to that. As does his projection that Clinton should be drug-tested before the debates. I had a feeling as soon as I read him say that that it was classic projection and an attempt to prevent the accusation being used against him.

My guess is his “normal” self, without the drugs, without the boosters, is much like he was in that deposition. At 70, rarely sleeping, overweight, admitting to a diet of a lot of junk food, I doubt he can function without a lot of “help.”

Anyway, as always, Samantha Bee is a very funny talk show host.

My frustration with this election, and our political system in general, is that neither party — or candidate — offers any effective response to the Power Elite, the Deep State, the Establishment. Neither party or candidate provides anything in the way of an “opposition” to empire, war without end, massive inequality, environmental destruction, etc. etc.

(They don’t want to, obviously.)

Trump, from everything we’ve seen, merely suggests that he would be much better at running the show for the Power Elite than the current lineup. He would, so he says, cut better deals and “make America great again” — a fascist slogan if there ever was one. In no way, shape or form has he ever offered up even the slightest program or policy that would help the American people in any way. Nothing he talks about does anything to make life better for the 99%. It’s all geared to radically improve the lot of the already filthy rich and corporate America.

Clinton and the Dems, boiled down, speak for the super-rich too, and may, on good days, include the richest 10%. Trump and the GOP, OTOH, stop at the richest 1%. And so the entire election has been one big lie, from both candidates and both parties, with neither offering up any solutions for what ails us. Instead, Trump and the GOP manufacture phony scandals about emails, and lie to us that any of it matters.

They can’t talk about the horrible things the Clintons do that really do matter, because they, themselves are even more aggressively destructive along those lines. As in, they demonize HRC and the Dems for supposedly “gutting our military”; for being too “politically correct” and not bombing the shit out of black and brown people in the Middle East; for not destroying enough immigrant families here; and for going too slowly when it comes to privatization and deregulation. None of their critiques of the Clintons or the Dems are based on reality, evidence or facts, and they can’t attack them for legitimate reasons, because they’re actually complicit in that, and worse.

Anyone who believes Trump is the answer to the Clintons, the Establishment, the Power Elite, the Deep State, is deluding themselves, bigly. He’ll just be more aggressively anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-science and against social justice than the current powers that be in both parties.