Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantGreat 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.
Billy_TParticipantA follow-up: HRC and the Dems are terrible for the country. No question in my mind about that. They support the existing power structure, and the most odious economic system the world has ever known, capitalism. They are vigorous supporters of the status quo, and at best look out for the interests — again, on their best days — of the richest 10%, only.
The OBVIOUS answer to HRC and the Dems would be a candidate/party/movement that OPPOSED them in FAVOR of the 99% and the planet. In favor of the American people. In favor of the environment. Against empire, against hierarchy, against inequality and social injustice, wars, coups, “regime change,” etc.
In no known universe can anyone accurately even suggest that Trump and the Republicans meet ANY criteria for effective, beneficial opposition to that status quo, which includes the Clintons, etc. etc. In no known universe is it accurate to state that Trump will work on behalf of the American people overlooked by the duopoly. He will, in fact, take the horrific stuff that HRC and the Dems do (and want to do) and double down on it. He will, in fact, be far more aggressively against the best interests of the American people.
We are going to get one or the other, one party or the other, and that’s why we’re essentially fucked.
Billy_TParticipantMy 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.
October 31, 2016 at 12:49 pm in reply to: WV: "foulest cesspool of human misery this side of hell #56424Billy_TParticipantIt also amazes me that anyone would think the folks most likely to want to fake the data would be research scientists making middle class wages . . . rather than multi-billion dollar corporations and the super-rich in general.
Follow the money. Follow. The. Money. The folks with the most to lose or gain financially are the fossil fuel giants and their toadies, not career scientists who make a fraction of a fraction as much. Not the environmental groups who seek to protect the planet, etc. etc.
Right-wingers constantly have their paranoia meter set on high, except when it comes to billionaires and multinationals. To them, the only people we need ever worry about are public servants, scientists, environmentalists, consumer advocates, unions, etc. etc.
In short, they turn off that paranoia meter — or, at best, their skepticism — for the worst people and organizations, giving them an eternal pass. They turn it up beyond 11 for the people and organizations most likely to help make life better for others and the planet.
October 31, 2016 at 12:35 pm in reply to: WV: "foulest cesspool of human misery this side of hell #56421Billy_TParticipant“climate science”
Is that what they’re calling it now?
Let’s see, from
global warming to
man made global warming to
climate change to
climate science.Won’t they ever learn the more the unadulterated (not fraudulent) data disproves their claims renaming the nonexistent problem again and again doesn’t fool anyone. People in Appalachia and throughout this nation are smarter than given credit for by the inquisitive carpetbagger film maker or so called journalist making their every couple decades or so excursion into flyover land.
—————
I believe in man-made climate change, bnw,
(but it took me a while to elminate my own doubts)
you dont believe in it. People disagree on things. Ah well.w
vYou dont b
It’s amazing that this is even a question for some.
All the evidence points to it being a fact. And the sources for that are massively diverse, including everything from farmers, coffee growers, wine-makers, bee-keepers, Native peoples, to every scientific organization studying the issue on the planet. Climate change is happening now, and it presents the biggest threat to the planet we’ve seen in millennia. There is no “conspiracy” regarding this, other than from those who seek to crush that evidence, that science, all of those witnesses to how we’ve fucked up this planet — including Trump.
From record setting heat, cold, torrential downpours, to endless droughts — there is no debate, much less “controversy” about this among actual scientists who study this issue. It’s long been settled science. The only debate is how to respond to it. And the only real debate within that context is if the response can happen with capitalism in place or not. IMO, it can’t. We have to change our economic system if we are going to have a livable plant at all.
October 30, 2016 at 12:15 pm in reply to: Trump boots black man from rally calls him ‘thug’ Turns out he's a supporter #56362Billy_TParticipantIf Trump wins — and Comey’s unprecedented and indefensible action may just make that happen — it will be a victory for white supremacist America. It will embolden white supremacists, xenophobes, misogynists and the entire alt-right, whose ideology is basically just a more polished version of the KKK’s.
They are already emboldened, and will remain emboldened even after Trump loses. The narrative that Hillary has stolen the election is already in cement. These people are not going away quietly on November 9. They are going to continue to stoke up the furnace of their political smear machine, and they will never stop.
Well, that’s true. I have no doubt about that. But at the very least, Trump, if he wins, mainstreams one of the ugliest and most toxic aspects of American life, gives it “official” recognition, and brings it with him to the White House. He will have won largely by whipping up hatred against black and brown people, lying endlessly about what’s actually happening in this country, and getting away with it.
You’re right. They’re not going away, win or lose. But if Trump wins, it instantly gives white supremacy and xenophobia much more cover to again rise up from the sludge and slime, out in the open, as newly and officially “victorious.” Trump hired an actual white supremacist, Bannon, to run his campaign. He and his Breitbart, Alex Jones and WND cohort now will have a great deal more room to up their despicable game.
Latest poll from ABC has Clinton up by just one, nationally. This thing really could go either way.
October 30, 2016 at 12:00 pm in reply to: Lessons in liberation: the top 10 books of radical history #56359Billy_TParticipantI bumped into the above over at bookforum.com. Along with their own reviews and essays, they aggregate articles from around the web, by topic, etc. etc.
One of their recent headings:
Bookforum: October 27, 2016 3:00PM
(Links to each article on the site)
James Gray Pope (Rutgers): Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? Law and the Racial Divide in the American Working Class. Is socialism still a dirty word? Tyler Zimmer reviews The ABCs of Socialism by Bhaskar Sunkara. Lego Marx: What is the Left again? From Jacobin, what is the Left? Solidarity is about what you do, not who you are; liberalism’s crisis, socialism’s promise: Socialism isn’t the negation of liberalism — it’s the realization of liberal values made impossible by capitalism; and social democracy’s breaking point: We need a politics that acknowledges that the social-democratic class compromise is unsustainable. Karl Polanyi and twenty-first century socialism: Polanyi’s views were the exact opposite of his contemporary, Joseph Schumpeter, who famously defined democracy as giving people a choice over which elite group would rule over them. The snarxist temptation: Faced with socialism’s co-optation, some merely roll their eyes.
What was social democracy? Chris Cutrone on the meaning of socialism for Marxism. The introduction to Political Uses of Utopia: New Marxist, Anarchist, and Radical Perspectives, ed. S.D. Chrostowska and James Ingram.
October 30, 2016 at 11:56 am in reply to: Lessons in liberation: the top 10 books of radical history #56358Billy_TParticipantThis is a really good and accessible definition of socialism:
After all, socialism first emerged as a significant political force in the aftermath of revolutions against feudalism; early socialists thought that modern revolutions against aristocratic privilege hadn’t gone far enough. The dream of socialism wasn’t to replace one form of tyranny with another, but to abolish it altogether. Thus, instead of “big government,” Maisano correctly stresses that the heart of socialism is democratic ownership and control. The classic demand that workers own and control the wealth their labor creates remains the best summary of the basic values socialists hold dear: democratic participation in political and economic decision-making, and liberation from hierarchical social relations in which human beings are exploited or dominated by others.
October 30, 2016 at 11:53 am in reply to: Lessons in liberation: the top 10 books of radical history #56357Billy_TParticipantRelated: I found a really good review of a book (The ABCs of Socialism) on my “must buy” list.
Is Socialism Still a Dirty Word? By Tyler Zimmer
Excerpt:
OCTOBER 26, 2016
IN THE COLD WAR era and the decade or two following it, a few cheap jabs were enough to shut down any public conversation about the merits of socialist ideas. The mention of the Gulag, Pol Pot, or Stalin was sufficient to put the entire matter to rest. This is no longer the case.
If polls are to be trusted, young people today are decidedly more positive about the idea of socialism than they are about the profit-driven system they currently inhabit. A few months ago, 43 percent of Iowa Democrats said they identify as socialists. It is anything but clear what will become of the excitement generated by the (now failed) candidacy of Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, but the surprising success that his campaign enjoyed in the last year is itself significant; if nothing else, it shows that there is a large audience for the idea that we need, as Sanders put it, a “political revolution against the billionaire class.”
The reasons for this left-wing shift in political consciousness ought to be obvious. For an entire generation of people, the 2008 global economic meltdown cast profound doubt on the once hegemonic myth that the free market always knows best. The fallout from the meltdown has left millions unemployed, underemployed, heavily indebted, furloughed, and foreclosed upon — while the financiers who brought the world economy to its knees made off with bailouts and bonuses.
Corporate profitability has been restored — for now, at least — but the future prospects for the working-class majority remain grim: ever-rising income and wealth inequality, fewer and fewer decent-paying jobs, more temporary and precarious forms of employment, shrinking investment in public services, soaring costs for housing and university tuition, ecological disaster on the horizon — the list goes on and on. It’s hard to struggle through these turbulent times and not begin to question the legitimacy of a system we’ve been encouraged to revere as the best the world has ever known.
The ABCs of Socialism, then, is particularly timely — especially when we consider that the hard Right seems to grow most effectively when, in times of economic turmoil, it can position itself against a corrupt caste of establishment politicians without any serious competition from the socialist Left. With the rise of Trumpism at home and far-Right forces in Western Europe, the last thing the Left needs is a crisis of identity and legitimacy. This volume is the most recent result of a collaboration between Jacobin magazine and Verso books. Unlike the monographs that Jacobin and Verso have jointly released in the past, however, The ABCs of Socialism is a collection of 13 essays by various authors on the Left. The book self-consciously aims, as editor Bhaskar Sunkara puts it, to be “a primer for future radicals” that answers “basic definitional questions about socialism.” Accordingly, all of the essays it contains are relatively short, accessible, and to the point. Each is framed as an answer to a common objection to socialism, e.g., “Doesn’t socialism always end up in dictatorship?” or “What about racism? Don’t socialists only care about class?”
October 30, 2016 at 11:44 am in reply to: Trump boots black man from rally calls him ‘thug’ Turns out he's a supporter #56356Billy_TParticipantJust 31 cases of “voter fraud” out of a billion votes cast since 2000. And not all of these were cast for Democrats.
Trump goes on and on about “rigged elections,” but the only evidence we have of widespread vote-rigging consists of actions taken by Republican-controlled states to suppress likely Democratic Party voters.
That’s it.
And it doesn’t matter if there are millions of “dead people” still on the rolls. A person has to physically appear at a voting booth, using that name, in order for it to then be “voter fraud.” Again, we have no evidence that this is happening. Just the usual pants on fire lies from Republican politicians, operatives and far-right wackos, all in the service of providing cover for their own vote-rigging, suppression efforts.
October 30, 2016 at 10:56 am in reply to: Trump boots black man from rally calls him ‘thug’ Turns out he's a supporter #56353Billy_TParticipantIt’s also interesting that the only person charged so far with voter fraud is a Trump supporter:
Trump supporter charged with voting twice in Iowa — By Amy B Wang October 29 at 10:50 AM
A woman in Iowa was arrested this week on suspicion of voting twice in the general election, court and police records show.
Terri Lynn Rote, a 55-year-old Des Moines resident, was booked Thursday on a first-degree charge of election misconduct, according to Polk County Jail records. The charge is considered a Class D felony under Iowa state law.
Rote was released Friday after posting $5,000 bond. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Nov. 7.
The Des Moines Register reported that Rote is a registered Republican who cast two ballots in the general election: an early-voting ballot at the Polk County Election Office and another at a county satellite voting location, according to police records.
Rote hadn’t planned on voting twice but said it was “a spur-of-the-moment thing” when she walked by the satellite voting location, she told The Washington Post in a phone interview Saturday.
“I don’t know what came over me,” Rote said.
She added she has been a supporter of Donald Trump since early in his campaign, after Republican candidate Mike Huckabee dropped out of the primary race.
October 30, 2016 at 10:42 am in reply to: Trump boots black man from rally calls him ‘thug’ Turns out he's a supporter #56349Billy_TParticipantIf Trump wins — and Comey’s unprecedented and indefensible action may just make that happen — it will be a victory for white supremacist America. It will embolden white supremacists, xenophobes, misogynists and the entire alt-right, whose ideology is basically just a more polished version of the KKK’s.
It will be a victory for far-right, fringe, wacko assholes who lie incessantly, and at best, exaggerate things to the point of the surreal. Like “Illegals are pouring over the borders!!”
Like “America is a hellhole and only I can save us from ruin!!”
Like the “new black panther” faux-scandal from 2012, which consisted of two people, total, at one polling place. From there, the right built that up into a supposed wave of “voter intimidation” sweeping the nation. Two guys. In one polling place. Same thing happened with ACORN. There was never any “scandal,” but because the GOP and the right are the heirs to Hitler and the Big Lie, an important voice for the poor was wiped out — and the Congressional witch hunt against them was un-Constitutional.
I can’t stand the Clintons. But to think that Il Duce and his far-right brethren may control all three branches of government come January — that makes me ill. As bad as the Clintons and the Dems are, they can’t compete with Trump and the GOP when it comes to lies, hate, bad policies and, especially, serial hysteria over nothing.
Billy_TParticipantWhat will you say when Trump wins?
————
I would just say
i was wrong.w
vIt won’t surprise me if Trump wins. The race is tightening a great deal, primarily because a lot of #nevertrump folks have decided to vote GOP anyway. He’s not winning over new voters. He’s not expanding his tent. But the gap between the two was mostly due to a lack of GOP support for Trump — and opposition to him from women and pretty much every minority in America. The latter may not be enough in such a divided nation.
If the Dems had nominated a better candidate, one without all of the Clinton baggage, I think this election would have been over months ago. There are dozens of Dems and independents who could have crushed Trump, easily one of the most ignorant, hate-filled, vindictive and unqualified people to ever run for the office.
To me, it was self-centered of HRC to run, and the Democratic Party basically cleared the field for her. It was “her turn,” supposedly. So they ignored all the signs and the vast majority of potential candidates chose to stand on the sidelines. The result is a close race that could go either way.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I know a number of people, friends and family, who usually vote Dem, but are skipping the Prez ticket and only voting for local offices. That doesn’t translate to a national referendum, I know that. But Hillary may not get the bump with indies and right leaning Dems that she needs.
You say that if anyone other than Hillary had been nominated, it would be over. What about the GOP side? If Rubio had been nominated, would the GOP have it in the bag right now?
Something to think about.
Hey, NMR,
Hope all is well.
Not saying literally “anyone” else would be crushing Trump now. But I can think of at least a dozen possible Democratic candidates who would be.
As for Rubio. I think he’s a con-artist, just like Trump, with truly despicable views on policy and his vision for America. But he’s more “appealing” to more people, and doesn’t constantly act like a jackass, which is Trump’s normal mode of being. He’s smarter than Trump, too, and can actually speak in complete sentences, and form coherent paragraphs, etc. Trump can’t. Trump speaks in word salad that makes Sarah Palin seem like Cicero in comparison.
But, yeah, if it were a race between Rubio and Clinton, I think Rubio wins. Perhaps even easily. We might now be talking about a landslide for the GOP. Not because he has better policies/vision. He doesn’t. While both parties suck, and neither should be in power, the GOP is worse in my view.
HRC’s time is past. The country doesn’t want more Clintons, Bushes, etc. etc. And given Trump’s record-breaking negatives, we know a majority of the country doesn’t want him, either. It doesn’t want either candidate.
So it all boils down to turnout. It’s all about GOTV at this point. Which base shows up, etc. Neither candidate (or party) has majority support this time, and both are heavily disliked by strong majorities, etc.
Billy_TParticipantPoints to my thing about hierarchies. Where the center-left goes wildly astray is in leaving class out of this. I think that has tragically impacted folks even further to the left as well, especially in academia. But that does seem to be changing in recent years, thank goddess.
To me, we can’t achieve actual social justice if we leave neck-breaking verticalities in place, even if we somehow even things up within class lines — horizontally, in a sense. If we “diversify” the 1%, for instance, if we diversify the working class, etc. etc. . . . we’re not doing a thing to alter the massive injustice baked into any system that retains class divisions. Having more black, brown and female CEOs doesn’t close the gap between rich and poor, between the haves and the have nots.
Yes, it is essential to end discrimination and segregation based on “race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality,” etc. None of that should exist. But if we leave class hierarchies in place, we still enable massive inequality and its ugly effects.
Topple all pyramids, and we do the proverbial killing two birds with one stone. We all but end discrimination and segregation based on social factors, because we’ve wiped out the system that pays for it and supports it. Flatten hierarchies and there is no systemic ability to pursue long-standing discriminatory practices outside of class. We’ve crushed the inequality machine.
Billy_TParticipantWV, thanks for posting the Noam Chomsky interview. He’s a national treasure.
Billy_TParticipantAnother potential key in the race:
Voter suppression. The GOP controls a majority of states. They’ve instituted all kinds of voter suppression laws, rules and strategies. Unlike the myth of “voter fraud,” we actually are impacted by voter suppression. The latter can keep literally millions away from the polls, while the former, according to every credible study, results in roughly 31 cases out of a billion votes — across the last decade or so.
All of Trump’s screaming about a “rigged election” is basically just cover for what his own party has done to suppress the vote. It’s pure projection. If there is going to be any “rigging” this time, it’s going to come from the GOP, not the Dems. The incredibly rare cases of voter fraud are fractions of fractions of fractions. But voter suppression — almost exclusively waged against likely Dem voters — is rampant.
This is going to be a very close race, and (again) it could go either way.
Billy_TParticipantIt’s also my view that if Trump does win, it won’t “prove” what his supporters think it proves.
Trump’s (all too vaguely) stated policies, across the board, basically amount to “It will be terrific” or “It will be the best. You won’t believe how great it will be.”
He never goes into detail, because he can’t. He doesn’t know enough about how government works to do that. He doesn’t know enough about the world to accurately talk about anything. All he can do is say his opponent is the worst, evah, and he’s the best of all time. It’s like witnessing an argument between spoiled kindergarten kids.
So it will “prove” too many Americans are easily led by the nose, and would prefer to keep the level of discourse at the kindergarten stage. It will also prove, given the people Trump attacks, that far too many Americans have very ugly beliefs regarding black and brown people, and women. It will demonstrate that they’ve been lied to and misled to such a degree, they see them as their enemy, and the (despicable, relentless) scapegoating has worked.
The latter, we can hope, is a last gasp for the far right, which is the primary home of white supremacy, racism, xenophobia and misogyny. It is definitely the ONLY part of the political spectrum proud of these pathologies.
Billy_TParticipantWhat will you say when Trump wins?
————
I would just say
i was wrong.w
vIt won’t surprise me if Trump wins. The race is tightening a great deal, primarily because a lot of #nevertrump folks have decided to vote GOP anyway. He’s not winning over new voters. He’s not expanding his tent. But the gap between the two was mostly due to a lack of GOP support for Trump — and opposition to him from women and pretty much every minority in America. The latter may not be enough in such a divided nation.
If the Dems had nominated a better candidate, one without all of the Clinton baggage, I think this election would have been over months ago. There are dozens of Dems and independents who could have crushed Trump, easily one of the most ignorant, hate-filled, vindictive and unqualified people to ever run for the office.
To me, it was self-centered of HRC to run, and the Democratic Party basically cleared the field for her. It was “her turn,” supposedly. So they ignored all the signs and the vast majority of potential candidates chose to stand on the sidelines. The result is a close race that could go either way.
Billy_TParticipantTo shorten this up considerably: How is Trump going to “threaten” the Deep state, etc. etc.? Slash their taxes, massively increase the defense budget, and kill a ton of business/corporate regulations?
If he wins, they win too.
(Same goes with Clinton, of course. They win. We lose either way.)
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
I don’t know how I did that. Maybe it’s because the sun rises in the west, I, uh, mean the east, and there’s a time lag, or sumptin.
;>)
Billy_TParticipantWV,
To me, Pilger gets things half right, and makes the mistake of thinking that because some of the powers that be want Trump to lose, he’s a “threat” to them. From everything I’ve seen, if he won, he’d just continue GOP policies, turning over the actual stuff of governing to Mike Pence and his cabinet and staff. Nothing Trump has ever done or said indicates he would try to oppose the Power Elite in any way, shape or form.
It’s too often the case, especially when it comes to politics, that people think there must always be good and bad “sides.” All too often, both sides, and sometimes many more than just two, are “bad.” As in, having bad guys around doesn’t necessitate good guys arriving to oppose them. Or, when various “sides” disagree, and we know at least one is “bad,” there is no necessary logic to thinking those in opposition are “good.”
In a sense, Pilger is romanticizing Trump and building him up as some kind of counterweight to the warmongers in both parties, forgetting that Trump is incessantly, excessively bellicose and ran as a Republican. In my view, he would just start different wars, against different countries, and he has called for massive increases in defense spending, including our nuclear arsenal.
Bottom line for me: Clinton and Trump will send Americans to die in battle and kill others, all too often black and brown others. Neither the Dems nor the GOP is offering America an antiwar candidate. It’s a huge mistake to imagine Trump as the “peaceful” alternative.
Billy_TParticipantIs there a word for people who get pleasure out of misspelling wordz ?
Bastards.
Um, Zooey, that would be bastardz.
Billy_TParticipantTrump is extremely lucky he has the GOP in control of Congress, so that no one is being investigated except for HRC and the Dems. And he’s extremely lucky that Wikileaks has decided to go after no one but HRC and the Dems as well.
Of course, the GOP as a party is incredibly lucky here, too. Imagine an even playing field, as far as Congressional investigations and Wikileak email dumps. Anyone who thinks that Clinton or the Dems are alone in engaging in questionable activities, or “pay to play,” or that Trump and the GOP could withstand this kind of relentless exposure of private communications is deluding themselves.
The same goes for every corporation in America.
At the risk of saying “they all do it,” I think it’s more than fair to say the public is being handed an woefully lopsided, one-sided and false view of Washington at this point. Even with that, the country has a worse view of Trump and the GOP than it does Clinton and the Dems. This despite the ginormous advantages of the former.
We do need to clean house and get rid of the Power Elite. But that includes Trump and the GOP, along with the Clintons and the Dems.
Billy_TParticipantYou are hilarious. Did Trump sell Putin 20% of the US uranium resource? How about pay to play as Sec. of State? Email scandal reopened. You compare Hildabeast to Trump, hilarious.
————-
Now bnw — you dont still think Trump is gonna win do ya? He’s behind in every poll
by a lot.Prezident Hillary. Its done. For better or worse, she’s your Commander in Chief.
w
vIt’s going to be close, now that Comey has come out at the last second to try to make it a horse race again. Even Republicans are calling this unprecedented, and it’s a dream come true for them. I think the powers that be are decidedly against the GOP losing control of Congress. They want the clown show to go on, so America is focused on faux-scandals about politicians instead of capitalists screwing everyone over. No one invents scandals or goes after them with such tenacity as the GOP.
. . .
Btw, Trump, as usual, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Clinton never had the ability to “sell our uranium reserves to Putin.” Not as a senator or at State. Yes, she was one among nine department heads who signed off on the deal. But she never had the power to make this happen.
Politifact: Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal
Billy_TParticipantAnd yet we can go back to Iran/Contra or Bush’s lies for the Iraq war to find Republican corruption–but that doesn’t exist in the “reality” of the right wing world.
No–in that world these are all noble heroes. Like Trump and his scam school.
Please—don’t talk about corruption in one breath and praise Trump in the other.
Both parties have it. But one of those parties wants to destroy government. That’s different than governing.
And the other issue is, of course, using far-right, paranoid, nutcase, fringe, wacko websites to “prove” stuff. And, citing an Op Ed by a far-right, well-known, paleoconservative racist and all around jackass (Buchanan) to attempt that.
Rigorous, tenacious scrutiny of the Dems, Clinton and all politicians is absolutely necessary. But the far right is the absolute last place anyone should look for any kind of credible or meaningful critique . . . and, as you mention, if someone is concerned about “corruption,” Trump is the last person on earth one would want in charge to “fix it.” He’s far more corrupt — and a bigger liar — than the Clintons, and it’s not close.
I can’t stand our choices this time, but it baffles me beyond measure when people cite Clinton’s negatives but support Trump as some kind of answer. The only way one can do that is to ignore his serial lying, cheating, stealing and sexual predations, while they play the three monkeys game.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantWe’ve already seen half of it go since 1970.
Humans really were given “paradise” and have proceeded to fuck it up almost beyond recognition.
————-
I blame Fisher.
w
vWell, I think, to be fair, the destruction of the ecosystem goes back at least to Linehan.
Billy_TParticipantSome surprising gains there in at least degrees of sanity. If I remember correctly, there was majority support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration. It seems to take a lot of years before Americans turn against wars they initially supported. Far, far too long.
Better yet, our first reaction to talk of war should be a resounding No!!! Same with expansion of empire, “law and order” mumbo jumbo, corporate power, etc.
And, yeah. Climate Change is the most obvious threat against us and the rest of the world, as is inequality.
And this:
Absent Radical System Change, World Faces Two-Thirds Wildlife Loss by 2020
We’ve already seen half of it go since 1970.
Humans really were given “paradise” and have proceeded to fuck it up almost beyond recognition.
October 26, 2016 at 9:50 pm in reply to: Politicians aside: Democrats and Republicans are far apart in worldviews. #56149Billy_TParticipantYeah, Jill Stein is right on the issues, relative to the others`. No question. In a sane world (IMO) she and the Greens would be the “mainstream” left of center party; the Dems would be the center-right party; and the GOP would be the Alt-Right’s party. And we’d have leftist parties to the left of the Greens, hopefully pulling them further to the left.
Going further still . . . we’d have zero political parties; democracy would be participatory, truly universal, not outsourced to any organizations of any kind — they always tend to seek power, its enhancement, expansion, continuation, etc. etc. . . . and that will always run counter to the needs of “the people.”
No elections. Just citizens taking their turn, doing their “peace corp” like duty. Lotteries, not elections. Do your turn then go home. No permanent seats of power. No permanent power centers. Everything in rotation, temporary, soon to be replaced with fresh energy and spirit. No legal forms of concentrated power of any kind, anywhere. It would be against the new constitution.
Guaranteed work, at guaranteed living wages, with prices and wages preset to sync up to make sure EVERYONE was comfortable, had all the education, training, health care, arts and crafts, athletics and culture they could possible want. Healthy food, safe water, safe streets and environment. No one having a better shot at any of this than anyone else. Open to all. All inclusive. Free to all. There for everyone, without exception.
That’s my dream. That’s the sane world I think we need to find someday. True human emancipation, across the board, with no one left behind.
October 25, 2016 at 5:33 pm in reply to: Politicians aside: Democrats and Republicans are far apart in worldviews. #56088Billy_TParticipantAnother aside:
In my view, the GOP tends to listen to its base to a far greater degree than the Dems listen to their own. The GOP tends to push aggressively for things their base wants, while the Democratic Party seeks “compromise” at every turn, often going against the wishes of their own constituencies. They seem not to be all that worried about a backlash from that base. The GOP, OTOH, appears to care. This, in general, means the GOP is more in sync with the thinking of their base — and/or the base is more in sync with them. The Dems have been caught mocking theirs, even before the Sanders/Clinton food fights.
From my own POV, this is tragic. As the base with the better worldview is likely to be the base ignored, and the one with the far uglier way of seeing things is the one pampered and pandered to more often.
That said, I’m comfortable in my own political skin — diametrically opposed to the GOP’s worldview, and mostly opposed to the Dems’. But in the case of the latter, when we do Venn up, it’s almost always a matter of “the Dems never go nearly, anywhere close to far enough.” It’s pretty much always a case where their assessment of things like social and economic inequality doesn’t sync up with their own (inadequate, insufficient) ideas of remedy. Incrementalism is enough for them, but not for me. Their idea of “inclusion” isn’t nearly enough for me. I can’t see it as fair, for instance, to leave anyone behind, etc. etc. In fact, I see it as absolutely immoral.
October 25, 2016 at 5:20 pm in reply to: Politicians aside: Democrats and Republicans are far apart in worldviews. #56087Billy_TParticipantAs always, I wish they’d do surveys that include those of us who don’t ID as in either party, or as “liberal” or “conservative.” These sociological surveys need to broaden their demographics, in short. That said, the differences are pretty stunning, IMO.
From the survey cited in the Salon article:
Leadership: Authoritarianism, Political Correctness, and Gender
Americans are closely divided over the question of authoritarian leadership. Forty-six percent of Americans agree with the statement, “Because things have gotten so far off track in this country, we need a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right,” compared to 52% who disagree. A majority (55%) of Republicans agree we need such a leader, while a majority (57%) of Democrats disagree.
Nearly six in ten (57%) Americans say it is important to speak frankly about sensitive issues and problems facing the country even if certain people are offended. About four in ten (39%) say it is important to avoid using language that is hurtful and offensive to some people when discussing sensitive issues. Nearly seven in ten (68%) Republicans say it is important to speak openly about problems facing the country even if some people are offended, while only about four in ten (41%) Democrats agree.
Most (58%) Americans believe the country would be better off if there were more women serving in public office. More than three-quarters (77%) of Democrats say the U.S. would benefit from more women serving in political leadership roles. Fewer than four in ten (37%) Republicans—including only 42% of Republican women—believe the country would be better off with more women holding public office. More than six in ten (62%) Republicans disagree.
There is broader consensus among the public about the achievement double standard women face in employment. Two-thirds (67%) of all Americans, including 80% of women and 54% of men, agree women often have to be more qualified than men to be considered for the same job. Roughly one in three (32%) disagree.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
