Eternal Ramnation wrote:

Imo you have to ignore what both of them say because they are both pathological liars. One is a scary smart untouchable and the other an imbecilic buffoon. To me it’s imperative to look at actions , what they did , and match it up with the lies they’ve told us.Trump has done little to nothing and compare it to the blood of 1,200,000 Muslims on Clinton’s hands . All there is on Trump is speculation and bad acting. When you look at the last Republican prez and administration don’t project that on Trump when GW Bush GHW Bush and Jeb Bush along with a whole slew of neocons have endorsed Clinton. That said a vote for Dems or Repubs simply cannot be justified morally. Exactly what do they want ? They want you to believe your vote matters and you only have two legitimate choices. Myself , I’m done legitimizing their bs I will vote Green wherever they are running and against the incumbent where they are not.

Well, from where I sit, yes, we have to look at what Trump says, precisely because he hasn’t held office. We should use his words, his endlessly bellicose rhetoric, his actions in other spheres, his chosen party, and his core base to form judgments regarding his likely actions. All of it counts.

Also, neither Dubya nor Jeb have endorsed HRC. The father has, obliquely, yes. But, to me, this isn’t about a proactive vote for HRC, or choosing HRC above all others. I won’t be voting for her either. This is about Pilger saying Trump is a less dangerous, less destructive choice, and I don’t see that as logical in the slightest. Again, I see Trump as far more likely to kill more innocents and hurt far more people shy of killing them as well.

Plus, he thinks Climate Change is a hoax. Not that HRC and the Dems are good on the issue, but they at least see it as happening. They at least don’t aggressively try to shut down scientific inquiry on the subject, or the vast majority of scientific research.

As many others have said here already, we’re screwed, one way or another. But I personally have no doubt that Trump would do it faster and more viciously.

Pilger is right about American empire and our history of horrific actions. But where he goes wrong, IMO, is in thinking Trump won’t be at least as bad, if not worse. I think on all the issues Pilger talks about, Trump will be substantially worse. He’s actually asked, with a straight face, why can’t we use our nuclear arsenal? Why have them if we can’t use them? And he’s always talking about how Obama has gutted our military, including our nuclear arsenal, and he’s pledged to rebuild both.

So, yes, Obama has radically increased US military power — much, no doubt, covertly — including nukes, and Hillary will do more of the same. But Trump (and the GOP in general) says they’ve wiped out our military, that we’re weak and waaay behind the Russians, and that he’ll make us Number One again. He is forever going on about how weak the US is, and how we have to show toughness to the rest of the world, and that it’s because we haven’t that forces like ISIS arise.

To me, the only way to deduce that Trump and the GOP would be less war-like than HRC and the Dems is by ignoring what they actually say, what they’ve actually said and done for the last several decades. Their bellicosity is a part of their supposed appeal. Their base expects this. They cheer this on with beer-hall-putsch chants of USA!! USA!! Seriously, anyone who thinks Trump isn’t going to at least be equally warmongering has just pretty much ignored this entire campaign and the GOP’s past.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

WV,

So, what’s Kingsley like in real life? Is he as interesting in person as he is on film?

;>)

—————
Well, he didnt really talk about himself, but i thot his thots about the film were fascinating.

This is it, btw:

Thanks, WV.

I couldn’t help myself. I think ever since I saw that joke done on Cheers, it’s been stuck in my mind. Annoying, I know.

Anyway . . . very interesting video. Discussion of class, caste, empire, reception in India. And the acting craft itself — had forgotten how many greats were in that film. Makes me want to find good bios of Gandhi and rewatch the film.

Addendum:

Lest I be misunderstood: I’m in favor of the Rams firing Fisher after this season. The analogy wasn’t a comment on the “should he stay or should he go” debate. I want the latter to happen.

;>)

Critical thinking: For the most part — with exceptions — I think the left champions this and the right is highly suspicious — though the center-left is far less robust in this than those further to the left. That said, all parts of the political spectrum have their blind spots, but I think the right blocks grand-canyon views.

One blind spot I’ve see for the center left is the idea of empire. I’ve spoken with countless liberals who refuse to accept the idea that America is an empire, and most take for granted that our wars — with Iraq and Vietnam as possible exceptions — have been just. That our actions in all of those “good wars” have been justified. That we’re pretty much always “the good guys.”

Strangely enough, I’ve spoken with righties who admit to our empire, but they’re happy about it and want it to grow even more powerful. In a sense, on that subject at least, they appear less “naive” and more “realistic” about America than center-lefties. But the disturbing part of their view is they cheer this on and want America to project its power more aggressively, and they all too often seem indifferent to the lives lost and the destruction creating in the wake of that projection.

But on matters of science? I think that’s one of the biggest fault lines between left and right in America. I don’t know how it is in other countries, but it seems that the right is pretty much anti-science and the left supports evidence/fact-based research, etc. etc. Not blindly. But lefties tend to respect the process. Righties tend to think its a conspiracy by “elites” to take control over their lives — as if capitalism hasn’t already done that.

Interesting. I agree with some of what he said. Liked his take on third parties and a general rule of thumb for wars — though I’d set up a legal framework well beyond the emotional (but fitting) one he suggests. Make it nearly impossible to legally go to war unless it was in self-defense. Make it as difficult as it currently is to change the Constitution, perhaps.

Listening to it, I was also struck by his estimate of total US bases (178) around the world, which hit me as waaay low. So I googled:

The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History And it’s doing us more harm than good. By David Vine September 14, 2015

Excerpt:

While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 US bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 US “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.

Oddly enough, however, the mainstream media rarely report or comment on the issue. For years, during debates over the closure of the prison at the base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, nary a pundit or politician wondered why the United States has a base on Cuban territory in the first place or questioned whether we should have one there at all. Rarely does anyone ask if we need hundreds of bases overseas or if, at an estimated annual cost of perhaps $156 billion or more, the United States can afford them. Rarely does anyone wonder how we would feel if China, Russia, or Iran built even a single base anywhere near our borders, let alone in the United States.

He may have gotten that 178 number from Germany alone, and thought it was worldwide.

Lastly, I agree that the Dems did everything they could to clear the field for HRC and then block Sanders or anyone else during the primaries. But I don’t think the general is “fixed” for her. The duopoly doesn’t work that way. We have two parties that both seek ownership of the White House and Congress, and the GOP controls the majority of state houses. No way on earth are they going to hand the election over to the Dems on purpose, because that also endangers their power in Congress — and the states. Whoever has majority control elevates that power and all the opportunities that come with it. Both parties seek it. Both parties exist to win power. Anyone involved with either party wants their own party to win. The incentives are massive for them to (aggressively) go for it.

Jeff Fisher will put Mike Martz in charge of the Rams offense before the GOP helps the Dems win the White House. Or, better yet, a Fisher-led Rams will lead the league in fewest penalties before that happens.

Yes, HRC is very wealthy. Bill is moreso. They, like Trump, have taken advantage of the system to hoard great wealth. But the Clintons are pikers compared to the self-declared “king of debt.” Trump has made his money through a combination of inheritance and ripping off workers, business partners and taxpayers.

Total net worth of HRC is estimated at roughly 31 million. She’s released forty years of tax returns. Trump refuses to release any.

Hillary Clinton Net Worth Tom GerencerJul 26, 2016

Politifact gives it a broader range, but it’s still in that area, roughly:

Pro-Trump super PAC ad misleads on Clintons’ wealth, foundation cash link

Forbes also puts her in the 30 million range:

he Richest And Poorest Presidential Candidates: From Hillary’s Millions To Marco Rubio’s Debts

When Donald Trump decided to throw his hat in the ring as a contender for the Presidency in 2016, it put a huge spotlight on the issue of the candidates’ personal wealth. At Forbes, we’ve been tracking Trump’s net worth, and sparring with him over it, since 1982, but for the first time we decided to put together a comprehensive list of each candidate’s individual fortune. We learned many things, starting with the fact that they are almost all quite wealthy, boasting an average net worth of more than $13 million when Trump, who skews the figures with his $4.5 billion fortune, is excluded.

Leaving out Trump, the 19 candidates from both major parties that we tracked have a cumulative net worth of $254 million, with all but four of them claiming the title of multi-millionaires. Eight of the presidential hopefuls are sitting on 11-digit fortunes, with Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, and Carly Fiorina’s wealth valued at more than $30 million each, along with the Donald.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

TSRF wrote:

I consider myself an everyday american (especially when it comes to flossing, and by that I mean once every two weeks). Nothing about Trump tells me he is going to keep us out of war. In fact, I think he would be more apt to get us into wars than most who has held the office. Especially stupid wars (which I know is an oxymoron).

Why do Trump supporters think that HRC hates the average american? Was it her push for universal health care when she was First Lady? I guess it all comes down to how you define “everyday american”.

When the dust clears from this election, and we get some historical perspective, it will be very interesting to see if this was the last stand of 20th century Baby Boomer politics. By 2020, whites probably aren’t going to be in the majority and more and more of the old guard will be dead.

I’m thinking (hoping) we’ll tread water from now until 2020 and elect a true progressive then. Of course, the Trump blue print is going to be honed and there may very well be a very strong populist / fascist contender. Just hoping the demographics will have shifted enough by then to swing the vote to the progressive.

Lots of food for thought there . . .

On that “swan song” thing: I think Trump does support fascism and white supremacy — and it’s a last hurrah for the latter, due primarily to demographics, as you mention. I have no idea if he personally, in his heart of hearts, is a fascist or a diehard racist. But he obviously does tap into and exploit that traditionally right-wing current in America — to the max. It’s how he won the primaries. Whether he’s a true believer or just a despicable opportunist doesn’t really matter all that much. The end result is the same. His policies would be horrifically bad for 99% of the population (and the earth) and awesomely good for the richest 1%, including himself.

The really scary thing is this: If a person with the same ugly, destructive policies could mask his black heart, were not visibly such a cowardly, whining little baby, such an openly misogynistic, twisted, psychotic individual, he might just win. If he were clever enough to hide his fascism under a much more pleasant cloak, he might well win. We’re “lucky” in a way that Trump can’t help himself, can’t help expose himself as the clown and lout he is, daily. If he were better at hiding it, this race might be a lot different, and if the GOP had run a more clever politician, they’d likely defeat HRC.

IMO, she’s over-burdened with the legacy of Bill Clinton, and for being in government service too long. In this day and age of deep societal suspicion of the public sector — thanks primarily to forty years of right-wing attacks and sabotage — it would have been better for the Dems to have run someone outside government. And, better yet, to have governed in direct opposition to the right-wing tide instead of embracing it all too often for the last forty years at least.

As in, being Republican-Lite for the last forty years helped set the stage for Trump.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Talking about “freedom and liberty.” It’s essential to ask for whom. Always ask for whom.

In the case of same-sex marriage, the answer is easy. You are “free” not to marry someone of your own sex, if you don’t want to. But people who want to should be “free” to do so. They aren’t hurting anyone else. They aren’t robbing anyone else of their “freedom.” No one is being forced into same-sex marriages.

If you are offended by it, don’t. But you shouldn’t have the right to take away another’s freedom to marry the person they love. It’s immoral for you to take away that freedom from others, especially when it is of no concern to you whatsoever.

Jefferson has something very wise to say about this and other issues:

“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.2

Also:

Yes, our government has a long history of suppressing rights. Especially when it comes to people of color, leftist dissidents, women. But it has very little history of suppressing the right of white Christian males, especially “conservatives.” That’s never been its target audience for suppression.

We know from umpteen surveys that Trump supporters, and Republicans in general, see the system as rigged against white people and for people of color, immigrants, the poor. There is absolutely zero evidence to support this view, but that’s never stopped them from believing it, and Trump has capitalized on this ignorance and sense of eternal victimization.

Yes, our government is corrupt, often violent, leads the world in jailing its citizens, starts wars at the drop of a hat, commits coups and “regime change” all around the world, engages in “colonialism” for centuries, etc. etc. American government has a history of horrific violence, all too often against very weak countries and peoples, especially brown and black. But, contrary to the views of Trump supporters and Republicans in general, our government has never been in the habit of suppressing rights for the dominant white majority, especially white Christian males with “conservative” beliefs. We’ve never had purges or witch trials conducted against white conservatives. But we have had them conducted against white leftists and millions of people of color.

Bottom line: The answer to what ails us isn’t to double down on white privilege and power, capitalist privilege and power, male privilege and power, Christian privilege and power. The answer isn’t to double down on the ginormous power of corporate America and the rich in general. The answer is to lift up the bottom and bring down the top, flatten the pyramid and make sure EVERYONE has an equal shot at a good life. Everyone. Trump and the GOP’s answer, OTOH, is to “Make America White Again” and let the earth burn up.

Big Bruce fan. Saw him back in the 1980s, and damn he puts on a great show.

They used to call James Brown the hardest working man in showbiz. But Bruce gives him a run for his money. Gives it his all. Heart and soul, etc.

Like his early songs/albums the most, probably, mostly because they’re so alive with the angst and fire of youth. But he has made some excellent art in his later years, as he turned more inward and more “political.”

Though I’m a literature snob, I was happy to see Dylan win the Nobel. It wouldn’t surprise me if Springsteen was at least talked about down the (thunder) road for that honor as well.

One of my all-time favorites from the Boss isn’t even his song — though he made it his own. It was written by the amazing Tom Waits, and no one does it better than the Boss:

I especially love the reaction of the crowd — in Jersey. The sense of hard-won pride from a state that generally “gets no respect.” The red-headed step-child next to the Big Apple. And it helps that I was in love with a Jersey girl too back in the day. Reciprocated for a coupla years before time and distance separated us. Oh, to be forever young . . . .