Forum Replies Created
-
Oh God. Can’t we get off the Hillary issue and focus on how to beat a man who IMO will be dangerous not only to us but to our children and our grand kids. I don’t know how many on this board actually have children and grand children but if you do can’t you see what kind of world this idiot can and will shape for them. If you don’t have children then I suppose it really doesn’t matter and you can continue to pontificate all you want on Hillary. But for me it’s no longer about Hillary-its about the future-and for me that’s about my grandchildren who I love very much and worry about a world they will grow up into should this dangerous demagogue become President.
W,
Come on. No one needs to have children to care about other human beings, the planet or future generations, deeply, profoundly.
Sheesh.
That said, those responsible should be held accountable, beyond DWS. She took the fall, but I suspect she was taking orders, not calling the shots.
The Democratic power structure is center-right, not “the left.” Those of us on the left oppose them and the further-right GOP. But it’s never a good argument to level sweeping condemnation on the many for the actions of the few.
From blacks with Black Lives Matter to jews with scheming against Sanders based upon religion to hispanics derided via the Taco Bowl. The racism and thus hypocrisy of the left is alive and well entrenched as the highly placed emails at the DNC proves.
Your premise is faulty. You mistake the Dems for “the left,” and apparently believe the words of a few individuals actually implicate one half of the political spectrum.
That’s using quite the broad brush.
Personally, I reject that kind of vote-shaming entirely. It’s lame. It’s false. It’s tiresome. It’s also reminiscent of the illogical framing of the 2000 election as “Nader handed the election to Bush,” which did not happen. Since our presidents win via the electoral college, and it’s cumulative, no one state can be decisive. They all count. And people don’t get to narrow down their counterfactuals like that. If you say, “Well, if only they had voted for Gore in Florida,” you also have to go back and look at all the other variables there, and in every other state.
For instance, Gore lost his own state of Tennessee. If he had won it, even with the loss in Florida, he gains the presidency.
Another counterfactual? 308,000 Dems voted for Bush in Florida. How does it make sense to blame the 24,000 Nader voters who were potential Gore voters, when 308,000 Dems voted for Bush?
___
Beyond all of that: One could just as easily say that any vote for Clinton is a vote for Trump. No one owes their vote to the Dems. Clinton isn’t entitled to them. And because she has so much baggage, she may well lose to Trump.
Stein wouldn’t, if every person who votes for Clinton voted for her instead. She’d defeat Trump. Why? Because she’d get both the Dem vote and independent lefties. Clinton will only get the Dem vote.
Best way to convince voters to vote for your candidate? Show she’s actually the best possible choice. Vote-shaming just turns people off and likely pushes them to stay home.
Climate Change exists four times each year where I live. Inequality exists too as Hildabeast getting a pass on her email crimes proves.
bnw, do you think man-made climate change is happening? And do you think we have a serious problem of economic inequality? Politics aside. Politicians aside. Do you think these things exist as serious issues in their own right?
Of course climate change is happening four times each year where I live. But ‘climate change’ is used by those to obscure the fraud of ‘global warming’ that despite all the money and data manipulation and data destruction and endless propaganda hurled upon humankind the earth is cooling not warming.
Yes the economic inequality here is so bad that people from around the world still try to make their way here any way they can legally and illegally. If I knew how to post pictures I could show some exceptional Cuban efforts.
I’ll save climate science stuff for another post, while hoping others weigh in as well.
So, just on the inequality part:
Just twenty Americans now hold as much wealth as the bottom half of the nation combined. Again, that’s 20 people having as much wealth as roughly 160 million Americans combined. The 18th century denizens of Versailles never had it so good.
The richest 1% now hold as much wealth as the bottom 99% of the country combined. The richest 0.1% holds as much as the bottom 90%.
The richest 1% now bring in roughly 23% of all income — though I’ve seen this figure as high as 25%. That’s nearly a quarter of all income for just 1% of the nation, leaving the bottom 99% to fight over roughly 75% of the rest.
In the 1950s, your average CEO made roughly twenty times as much as his rank and file workers. In the 1960s, it was roughly 25 to 1.
Today? Roughly 300 to 1. In Fortune 100 companies, it’s roughly 1000 to 1.
Leaving aside the fact of people wanting to come here from war-torn, ravaged, impoverished nations, do the above stats bother you? Do you see them as indications of something unfair, perhaps even obscenely wrong? Or, at least, as bad for the economy overall?
