#5 has been thoroughly debunked by umpteen fact-checkers. The Birther movement didn’t start with Clinton.

Another one: The Breitbart author, following Trump’s lead, tries to make it sound like Clinton was actually talking about Native Americans when she said:

Hillary Clinton has a message for Donald Trump ahead of the general election: “I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak.”

“I’m not going to deal with their temper tantrums or their bullying or their efforts to try to provoke me,” Clinton said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper aired Friday. “He can say whatever he wants to say about me. I could really care less.” Clinton: I’m very experienced with men who go ‘off the reservation’ By Nick Gass 04/29/16 01:43 PM EDT

Come on. It’s a silly “he said, she said” back and forth, with endless strawmen and a major distraction.

Both candidates suck. Both parties suck. The question is, who will do the least damage, and that’s Clinton, in my view.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.

bnw wrote:

That is your opinion and I won’t question the merit of your opinion.

bnw,

But you have, repeatedly. Pretty much every time I’ve posted a critique of Trump, you say it’s BS or something similar.

Regardless, all I’m saying is please post credible sources. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.

Addendum.

Your second source, however, is pretty solid. Thanks for posting that article from theweek.com.

Also, this one from Michelle Alexander is very strong.

 Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America. By Michelle Alexander February 10, 2016

Neither candidate should be president, in my view. Neither party has earned the privilege of governing this country.

But I do see Trump as worse — beyond matters of race as well. On energy policy, the environment, deregulation of business, law and order issues, profiling, the surveillance state, and he has said he’s fine with using nuclear weapons, even on Europe.

We’d be better off with neither of them. But Trump is worse.

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

The state level is much closer to the people. That cannot be denied.

———–
In wv the state-gov is owned and operated by ‘Big-private-sector’. Big Coal, Big Fracking, Big Pharma (Mylan), and a few others.

So, it may be closer ‘in theory’ but in reality the rich-folks run things at all levels. Fed, State, County, City. Its always been that way in the real world.

I would love to see America be a country where small businesses had equal influence with the big-private-sector-monstrosities, bnw. It woulda been nice if it had turned out that way. Making the Big-Government smaller wont save us. Cause it will not kill Big-Private-Sector. If you only kill half the problem, the ‘other’ half will just grow even more powerful and deadly. This is my fundamental problem with rightwingers. They only see half the problem. And thus their solution will lead to even worse corporate-monsters.

w
v

Well put, WV.

Libertarian Socialists (as you know) want to reduce, if not end, all concentrations of power and wealth, public or private. Some of us also want an all-public economic system — in my case, because I think that’s the only way to ensure that kind of dispersal of all wealth and power to individuals . . . so there can be no concentration, etc. etc.

The issue isn’t just “the tyranny of the government.” It’s “tyranny,” period, and that exists in both public and private sectors. The way to end that “tyranny” is to prevent even the possibility of permanent hierarchies, concentrations of wealth and power, influence, access, privilege, etc. etc. Prevent this from Day One. Don’t even let it get to the point where it needs to be rolled back. Set up the system to make it as difficult as is humanly possible to grow power centers of any kind.

Right-wing theories of minarchy would just lead to concentrations of massive power, privilege, access, wealth, etc. etc. in the private sector. It would be more “tyrannical” in that form that it is currently, because there wouldn’t even be the slightest check on that power.

Why not seek a system that prevents any/all of it, anywhere?

Also, bnw,

If Trump manages to get Congress to pass his tariffs — he won’t — how would that help our trade imbalance? Do you think this won’t provoke retaliation? We’re not going to be able to impose tariffs without having our trading partners do the same, so how will this lower the trade imbalance?

As this:

by design worsening race relations, insane increases in the cost of healthcare, shovel ready jobs that meant shovel the public money to political cronies and failed green energy tech companies

There is no evidence that Obama has sought to worsen race relations, and absolutely zero incentive for him to do so. He has nothing to gain by doing such a thing — and there is absolutely zero proof that he’s tried to make that happen. As for increases in health care costs: The ACA is a conservative plan, invented by the Heritage Foundation, implemented in Massachusetts by Romney, in which “the markets” are used to deliver health care insurance. We leftists wanted Single Payer, not for-profit, privately held insurance plans. The ACA does the latter, not the former. Trump has no answer to those costs other than doubling down on the epic failure of leaving it up to “the markets.”

As for the stimulus. It was far too small to meet the 8.9% contraction in Bush’s last quarter, and a third of it was tax cuts, thanks to Republican amendments which the Dems allowed. It was no more “crony-capitalist” than standard operating procedure for both parties, and the record of government support for Green companies is far better than without that support. As in, they did better than if we had just let “the markets” decide. Much, much better.

In general, no Trump proposal would actually address your concerns, and most of them would make the situation far worse.

It’s not just his delivery. It’s his policies too.

bnw wrote:

The state level is much closer to the people. That cannot be denied.

It depends upon what you consider “the people.” In many cases — the ones I mentioned — it’s much further away from them than the Federal government. In many cases throughout our history, in fact, the states were in direct opposition to “the people” and the Federal government stepped in to end that.

In other cases, when the states were imposing the majority’s will, but the majority wanted to crush “minority” rights (ethnic and racial minorities, women, political dissenters, etc), the Federal government opposed this, citing the Constitution as protection for those minority rights. And throughout the South, the states, if they had their way, would crush workers’ rights and radically weaken worker protections.

Overall, I see both the states and the federal government as in the tank for the rich and powerful, and it’s too rare that they work effectively to improve quality of life for all Americans. But our history shows that the states have been worse overall on that score than the Feds — and much, much worse in the South.

In short, there is no evidence that the states do a better job overall of working on behalf of the citizenry. They, like the Federal government, focus most of their time, energy and money to help the already wealthy and powerful, whom they work for.

bnw wrote:

Typical leftist. Only your opinion has merit. You’re partisan but too invested in acting superior to admit it. Fear mongering away as usual to justify in your mind your overt partisanship. What you dismiss as her “deficiencies” is in reality her being above the law. For decades at that. She called black youth “Super Predators” but through your partisan filter you ignore that while claiming Trump is a racist.

Now put your ear to the ground and you will hear your leftist white knight moderator riding to your defense.

bnw, have you ever considered the possibility that you’re entirely too invested in Trump? Think about it. He’s not family. He’s not your friend. He’s a public figure you’ll likely never, ever meet. Why do you take criticism of Trump so personally? Why do you feel the need to dismiss all of it instantly, with no more than a “BS” or some variation on that theme?

It’s as if you believe he’s a god, a perfect being, who can do no wrong and never has done anything wrong. To me, that’s a fair deduction based on your absolute refusal to accept any criticism directed his way as valid.

It’s one thing for you to say, “Well, I know he’s a flawed human and has done and said some things I don’t like, but Clinton is worse. Here’s why . . . .” That’s a stance I could understand. But on this forum, at least, you’ve never admitted that he isn’t anything but perfect, and you automatically dismiss all critique — without, of course, ever mounting an actual argument saying why you think X, Y or Z is wrong. It’s all absolutely wrong, in your eyes, immediately — it would appear.

I think you’re too close to this, bnw. And you’re so close you take it as a personal attack when people criticize Trump. It’s not. It’s a criticism of him, not you. And it never has to get personal here. There is no reason for that when adults discuss political figures.

If i were-a-talkin to some of them tea-partiers, like the ones below, my first question would be : ‘Yall talk a lot about ‘big government’ but you dont say a single solitary word about what ‘big private sector’ is doing to jobs, democracy, and the environment — why cant you see the Big-Corporations and Big Banks — ie, the “Big Private Sector” is ALSO an enemy of the ‘Constitution’ you so love?’

That there would be my first question to tea partiers. I’ve asked it many times btw, over the years. Never once got a good answer. Closest anyone ever came to answering it was “well, first we need to end big government, then we’ll deal with big corporations and banks’.

I’ve had the same experience, WV. Same questions. Same baffled reactions.

Sadly, a few decades ago, some of these same people might have been thinking that the private sector was oppressive, too big, too powerful, trying too hard to box people in, tag ’em, make them be all the same. They might have been in unions and proud of it. They might have seen the need to fight “the man” in their own way. They might have thought the capitalist world really did want mass conformity and limits on their “freedom” — which is the case.

It’s complicated, as you know, but I think a big reason for the tea party mood and “movement” is the absence of any viable left-populist response to capitalism, neoliberalism, centrism, the Chicago School, Reagan/Thatcher, etc. etc. The Dems basically abandoned the working class back in the early 1970s, abandoned unions, abandoned the white working class, especially . . .

Tragically, for all too many, the Dems are seen as “the left” — even though they’re the center right. So while the Democratic Party helped implement forty plus years of soft neoliberalism, to the GOP’s hard version, tea partiers I’ve spoken with often break out with accusations of “The Dems are Stalinists, wanting to destroy our freedoms!!”

They’ve been convinced of this by right-wing media’s 24/7 onslaught of lies, going back decades, finding its stride with Limbaugh and then Fox, etc. etc. They’ve been convinced that anything the Dems try to do, no matter how timid, tepid, glacial, is an assault on their “freedoms.” And, the Dems are the furthest edge of the left for them, so they tune out leftists like us who actually want a far, far smaller government than the tea partiers, ironically.

Some of us want us to get to the point of no “state” at all. No centers of power, anywhere. No concentrations of power anywhere.

Anyway, WV . . . the problem is manifold. They won’t listen to us, first of all. They don’t believe us when we say we want to end all concentration of power, everywhere, and have true democracy in place. And they actually think the Dems are “far left.”

The obstacles in the way of any kind of “common ground” seem virtually insurmountable at the moment, IMO. We may just be too big a nation to work things out.

I’m noticing more and more sites doing that. I kinda thought the for-profit Internet would have transitioned to this long ago, but it’s taken longer than expected. They got many of us hooked with “free” media content, and some went to pay walls, which often failed.

Now, I think they’re going to summaries of articles, and if you want the whole thing, you have to register at least, if not sign up for a paid subscription.

Some sites hope you don’t know about clearing your cookies and history, like the Washington Post, which blocks you and asks for your money after two articles. If you have your browser set to clear all data, just close it and open it again, but this, too, they’ll figure out.

It was inevitable. Too many ways of blocking ads, and they know this. So they have to keep afloat somehow. And, unfortunately for our side, not that many leftist publications have sugar daddies. The right seems to have all they need.

TSRF wrote:

Trying to pick a fight much?

Come on, mannnn!

Yeah, it’s a weird combination of silly taunt, “gotcha” and trolling all in one. And it makes zero sense.

(It’s just a way to change the subject from Trump’s serial lying and corrupt business practices to me :>)

It’s not as if I’m a big advocate of electric cars. I’m not. I’d rather the government invest three trillion, give or take, in a new Manhattan project for a Green Complex, now, here, today, and facilitate the transition to an all Green economy and society, with no more fossil fuels, no more extraction and rape of the planet, no more reliance on any energy source that isn’t 100% renewable or harmless for the environment.

The two best bets for that are Solar and Wind. They don’t run out. There will be no “peak” time for either — at least not while our species is alive on this planet. There is no way to corner the market on these things, as long as we keep the tech in the public sector, etc. etc.

So, cars, trains, planes, ships — everything via solar with a wind assist if needed — and the new investment would also make sure we move to all Green farming, power grids, cleanup, protection of our shorelines, rivers, lakes, oceans and air, etc. etc.

Three trillion should do it.

If we can spend that money on the obscenely immoral and unconscionable invasion of Iraq, we can spend it making sure we no longer kill the planet.

Neither party should be in power, IMO. They’ve both proven their illegitimate status, through well over a century of wars of aggression, slavery, genocide of Native peoples here and abroad, covert and overt coups, war crimes, mass incarceration, oppression of political dissent, spreading the cancer of capitalism, etc. etc.

They’re not fit to govern.

Which is why I find it absurd that anyone sees Trump as some great answer to the problem of the duopoly. He’s a Republican, is pushing Republican positions on virtually every issue, has the backing and support of the Republican base, and will be operating within the Republican frame when he does business with Congress and the Courts. He’s surrounded himself with Republicans, and has given us a list of Republicans he says he’ll nominate for the Supremes. Yes, there are some Republicans who have voiced their anger toward him, but they actually agree with him on the vast majority of policy issues. They just don’t like his tone, his style.

His tone, his noxious, openly fascistic words, bother them. They’d prefer our leaders be gentlemen and keep that kind of thing hidden and save it for the all-white country club. As in, they don’t oppose him because of his despicable views; they oppose him for being a barbarian and actually saying in public what most Republicans reserve for private encounters.

Trump isn’t the answer. He’s more of the same old same old duopoly, restyled, more unhinged and angrier, more open about its white supremacism and love of oligarchy.

I’m pumped that the Rams won. So, there is that.

That said, if you can admit you’re wrong about the Nazis, I’ll admit that it would have been better if the editing function hadn’t run out before I could change “of” to “if”. I can admit that it would have been better to separate “Trump has done” from “has said” to make it easier for the supremely defensive to see the obvious.

As in, Trump’s illegal business dealings would have resulted in jail sentences long ago, if he weren’t a rich shhht. No one has said or implied that he should go to jail for what he’s said.

So, again, will you admit that Nazis and fascists were right wing? We can move on from there.

Bnw,

I’ll break with my promise just this time and respond to your unprovoked personal slam:

Spoken like a true leftist. They want freedom of speech but not for anyone else. Stalin and Mao and Hitler would be so proud.

His actions. As I said, his actions. THOSE should have put him in jail. He can say whatever the hell he wants, outside of inciting violence, which he so often does. I’m all for “freedom of speech,” as are all the leftists here. But he should have been jailed for his business dealings long ago. Read the Newsweek article for a good start, and the one on his charity scams too.

Also, Hitler’s on your side of the political aisle, not ours. He was a righty. Leftists, in fact, made up the vast, vast majority of the forces fighting him. All the resistance movements, in fact, were DOMINATED by leftists. Socialists, communists, libertarian socialists, left-anarchists, especially.

Now, back to ignoring you.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by Billy_T.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

<And, of course, their go to scold/scapegoat move is “Nader gave us Bush!!” Um, no he didn’t. It’s physically and logically impossible for a third party candidate in one state to do that, not to mention the fact that 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. And I tell them this. And I also tell them you’re not going to get people to switch if you blame them for all the evils of the world, etc. Expecting them to ignore that tongue lashing you just gave them isn’t very realistic.
They don’t listen.

—————
Thats a lot of Dems voting for Bush. I didn’t realize that many Dems had gone Rep.

Anyway, I am smiling thinking of you posting on Democrat sites. I could never do it. My head would explode. Or worse, it wouldn’t explode and I’d have to suffer longer.

w
v

This postmortem from 2000 is good for several reasons, not just the 308,000 stat. But here it is:

I’m grateful to Tim Wise, a Nashville writer and activist who dug into the Florida tallies and exit polls to find some stunning results that refute the “Ralph did it” assault. Wise’s full report will appear in a forthcoming issue of Z magazine, but the essence of it is that Gore was the problem, not Nader. Start with two constituent groups that Democratic nominees usually win in the Sunshine State:

1) Seniors. By a 51-47 percent margin, Gore lost the over-65 vote in Florida. Bush got 67,000 more senior votes than Gore did, even after all the Democratic scare talk about vanishing Social Security benefits. Had Gore simply broken even with this constituency, he would have won.

2) White Women. This group typically votes Democratic in Florida, or splits evenly. Gore lost them to Bush by 53-44 percent. Had he gotten 50 percent of these votes, he’d have added 65,000 votes to his total — plenty enough to have put the state in his column election night.

Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

<Hell, 20% of his supporters in South Carolina said Lincoln never should have freed the slaves, and a much higher percentage said the South should have won — which is defacto support for slavery…

————-
Well, i hadn’t seen that survey (and of course Trumpists will deny its validity), but it doesn’t surprise me.

Having said that, I bet you could find 20 percent of Clinton voters believe in some pretty batshit-crazy stuff. Religion, etc.

We are trapped on Earth, comrad. Itz a madhouse.

PS – I’m also always ‘wondering’ about ‘strategy’. Like, for example, I personally would like to burn an amerikan flag (and almost every other national flag) every day. But i dont because its bad strategy. Just alienates the masses. I also wonder about calling out Trumpists as ‘ignorant racists’ etc, etc, and so forth. I dont know that that is good strategy. So, i tend to resist it, or go in another direction. Even though, yes, its true, that a big loud faction of Trumpists are the worst kind of david-duke racists.

w
v

I think you’re right about the strategy part. Something to keep fresh in one’s mind.

And, yes, a lot of Dems believe in whacked out stuff too. And, now that you mention strategy, they have a real issue with that as well.

(For instance): On another forum, I’ve seen Clinton supporters just go off on people who are thinking about voting for Stein, and they usually add virtual hatred of millennials to their rants. I’ve tried to tell them, if you really want people to vote for your candidate of choice, it’s never a good idea to berate them, slap them about the head verbally, scold them and humiliate them, etc. And, of course, their go to scold/scapegoat move is “Nader gave us Bush!!” Um, no he didn’t. It’s physically and logically impossible for a third party candidate in one state to do that, not to mention the fact that 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. And I tell them this. And I also tell them you’re not going to get people to switch if you blame them for all the evils of the world, etc. Expecting them to ignore that tongue lashing you just gave them isn’t very realistic.

They don’t listen.