Why I am Voting for Hillary
I know there is a sparse "vote for Hillary" crowd here, but there happened to be two articles on the Salon web site that together summarized why I am voting for HRC this time and want to share them with everyone.
The first is here: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/hate-unleashed-for-decades-the-gop-kept-... . It describes how much more open racists are in their support for Trump then used to be the case for past Republicans.
I can think of three rejoinders I have seen on this site in opposition to the idea of voting for HRC because of Trump's racism.
One is that HRC and Bill have also used racism in their campaign, so there is no real difference to them in this area. Personally, while agreeing with the fact that they have both relied on racial appeals in the past, I strongly disagree with the conclusion of this argument. Dont get me wrong, Bill's racial appeals in his campaign was horrible. As a side note- his refusal to commute the death penalty of a black mentally incapacitated individual in 1992 was the most craven act of political cowardice I can remember. And both HRC and Bill used racially coded attacks against Obama in 2008. Yet, their racial and racist appeals are not comparable to Trumps. Nothing the Clintons have said or done inspired David Duke to rejoin the political arena and to support their candidacies; nothing they did inspired neo-Nazis to actively support their campaigns. The Clinton's acts were egregious and wrong, but they were not a call to arms and a rallying cry to racists everywhere. Trump's are.
Second, that HRC is evil and voting for her supports her evil. This argument is dealt with in the second Salon article: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/fear-is-a-great-motivator-how-to-reconci... . Basically, the article reiterates that because of Trump's racism and other negatives are of a whole different order then HRC's, progressives should vote for HRC, at least if they live in a closely contested state.
Finally, I know many if not most of you just believe that taking EVERYTHING in consideration, HRC is simply no better then, and some would say worse then, Trump. Obviously, I disagree. For me, Trump's racism is an evil I am going to oppose. I am an employment lawyer and anti-discrimination is the red line I have for any candidate and political race. I understand everyone has different lines that they draw before deciding what candidates to support. In fact for me before this year, my line was free trade, never dreaming that a racist such as Trump would actually get the Republican Party nomination. I will mention though that racism is not the only way that HRC is better, in my opinion, then Trump. While I am not a super environmentalist, economic justice is my main political thing (aside from racism), I do believe that even neo-liberals like Clinton and President Obama understand the dangers of global warming and are trying to do something about it. Trump will not. Also, I think even a neo liberal like Clinton will defend and if possible improve the marginally helpful Affordable Healthcare Act. Trump will eliminate it. I think if given the chance (with an agreeable Congress), Clinton would raise taxes on the wealthy (even Bill did that), while Trump will greatly reduce them. I think if given the chance, Clinton will raise the minimum wage (even Bill did that), while Trump would not. So, regarding the range of issues I most care about, HRC is either vastly or marginally better then Trump.
Honestly, I dont want to end on a "pro-HRC" note. If this was a typical election and HRC had a typical opponent like Dole, McCain or even Romney, I probably wouldnt vote for her because I fear that she will eventually sell workers out on TPP. But this is not a typical election, for reasons set forth in the two cited articles. I hope anyone who read this post has read the article, which is actually a much better use of time then reading what I wrote :).
Comments
No, sorry, been around the maypole too many times already
A vote for Jill Stein is not a wasted vote. It actually moves
the movement forward. If enough Bernie supporters vote Jill stein, the Green Party will be Federally funded. We also need to send a message to the DNC that they don't represent their views or their overlords/corportocratists views. Four years of Trump is a small price to pay for changing the future.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
If Trump or Hillary wins we all lose anyways
So I am going to use my vote to try an elect a woman who is not corrupt, who through her actions shows she cares about all of us over herself, and if she doesn't win, hopefully it will motivate the movement by showing the power our vote has.
The "wasted vote" canard is nonsense
when there's more than two candidates on the ballot. Period.
The only time a vote is "wasted" is when it's cast and doesn't get counted correctly if at all. I wish people would use their damned heads on this, instead of parroting what the TV or radio told them....
OMG
They're so willfully and incomprehensibly stupid about this. I just don't even know where to begin.
Yesterday, one of the smartest people I know -- who began as a Bernie supporter and has now drunk the "SCARY TRUMP" Kool-Aid and therefore is not only voting HRC herself, but is trying to bludgeon others into doing so -- invoked this same argument. That I, voting 3rd party in VERMONT for chrissakes, is the same as if I voted for her cat.
I could only blink.
Perfectly put
They are, I hear you. But I'm pretty much at the point where I'm pushing back on it, hard. The trope is simply ridiculous....it's not even smart enough to be propaganda. It's just stupid It is completely without merit, once there are more than two people on any given ballot. Period.
I need to get Beyond War, beyond just voting for Stein
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
And one should never vote for
And one should never vote for evil and bring it on oneself, not to mention the rest of the world, in this case - especially when one has an option of voting for the public good. Green For Life!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
And this is another one!
Another smart person recently asked me: "What's wrong with being 'less evil?' Isn't that what adults are often called upon to do?"
Who ARE these people???
I replied, "I prefer the 'greater good,' but I've always been an optimist."
OK, I'm voting for Hillary because
1. Trump's scary
2. I don't mind wars. My kids and myself won't ever have to wear the uniform
3. I'm doing alright financially
4. Trump's crazy
5. I don't mind that Hillary's in bed with Banks/Wall Street because (see 3)
6. SCOTUS. I'm SURE Hillary will appoint the most progressive judges the GOP senate will approve
7. Trump's a madman
8. My kids are all in college or are going without no student debt thanks to (see 3)
9. I'd vote for Jill but it would be a wasted vote
10. Now, if you would excuse me, American Idol starts in 5 minutes
Jill2016
Yep, you nailed it.
If you don't need help and you and yours won't be killed in her wars, you can afford to vote for Hillary. Identity politics in this election are ridiculously overplayed. Neither Hillary nor Trump is a real racist, but both will use race cynically to get votes. What they both are is class conscious. If you're rich, it's okay to be black or brown. If you're poor, neither one of them gives a damn what happens to you, no matter what color you are. You're a loser beneath their notice.
Twain Disciple
A sparse "vote for Hillary" crowd here?
Really? I've never seen it. I think you're using that to justify publishing this twaddle over here.
Exactly what do you think HRC will do to "try and help" with climate change? Spray aerial tear gas over Native Americans trying to protect water for 16 million people? Please. You are deluding yourself. And yes, protecting the very source we need to live is my RED LINE. Fighting racism is important, but without clean water, everything else is off the table. Not sure why this isn't crystal clear to you and others supporting Hillary.
But hey, freedom of speech, eh? Unlike some other "Democratic" sites we know.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Ha, I Quite That Site
I got so tired of TOP bashing Bernie, I couldnt stand it. I still go by there sometimes, though their Hillary adoration is really off-putting. But I do realize that I am not progressive enough to be in the mainstream here, but Im waaaaaay to progressive to be comfortable at TOP. Still, Id rather hang with real progressives that are good hearted even if I dont always agree then a bunch of cynical fake progressives.
I don't think it's a question of being "progressive" enough
To me [and I only think for me] it's about thinking out of the corporate meme factory and deciding what is right for you. Whether you vote for Hillary or not is not my problem, I explain [in my diaries] why I won't and will not tell any one else what to do.
The reason I am here is my long term diary home [D-Kos] will ban me if I express myself there, that type of party partisanship stinks to high heaven
I Was a Kosite for 12 Years
before I quit quite publicly and then was banned.
THIS! ^^^
(cynical real progressive)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I think people have different priorities
I am a Northwest Coastal Indian. I have life long friends mostly old retired guys who are currently at Standing Rock, ND. Today one of them a 70 something Korean War vet who is the retired president of the local tribes seafood operation was arrested for standing in the road. His good friend who was not arrested said it was a lesson in the shear terror that our ancestors went through right before a massacre. They were surrounded by armored vehicles with mounted machine guns and people loading their rifles then aiming at them all around screaming for them to get out of there or they would shoot. Problem was they were completely surrounded. I have no doubt where this is going under Obama or any of the two major candidates administrations.
I admire your posting this here
I don't agree with you, and find your arguments for voting for Hillary an especially weak-tea version of Democrats' traditional "We Suck Less" mantra. But I'm going to vote my conscience, and applaud your doing the same.
Let me suggest that your vote will not help elect Hillary Clinton or prevent Donald Trump from gaining the White House. Your vote will be a drop in the ocean in that contest. The reason I'm voting for Jill Stein is because I want my little drop to say that the two parties have become unacceptable alternatives. Decades of LOTE voting has produced two bowls of steaming shit to choose from. This is the reality that speaks the loudest to me in this shameful, dispiriting election season. It is the question our votes will actually address next month.
Hillary Clinton won't do nearly enough on climate change, just as Barack Obama has not. Hillary Clinton will do nothing meaningful to address the impending collapse of the ACA, as she has already pretty much admitted. Hillary will probably be an even more aggressive warmonger than Trump would be, and there is at least a tiny chance Trump might mean what he says about the MIC harming our economy. Good luck hearing that from Hillary. The fact that Hillary Clinton is losing ground to the most outlandishly awful caricature of a Republican politician to ever head their national ticket should tell you how hopeless a candidate she is, and how deeply (and sensibly) distrusted she is by the large majority of Americans.
You are free to vote your conscience. But most of us here have had it up to our eyeballs with these arguments, which most of us have heard since our first moments of political sentience. We have consciences too, and enabling a hostile and duplicitous Democratic party is finally a bridge too far.
Please help support caucus99percent!
beautiful post, as usual, dallasdoc
I Understand What You Are Saying But For Me..
I tried to show through my OP and the links and in my later comments that this time IS different. I did not engage with a site like this during past elections, but I cant defend what arguments people like me may have made to those more progressive then them, but I will say that I did not see anything particularly "fearful" about Romney or McCain. I say that in the context that they were typical Republican nominees with all the handicaps that they have, but I was not personally particularly afraid of the prospect of their election. In fact, you also seem to recognize that Trump is different then past Republicans in an obviously worse way.
I know its easy for me to say this now and feel free to believe it or not, but I would not vote for HRC if she was running against Jeb, Bush, Marco Rubio and probably not even Ted Cruz. And while I was happy enough to vote for Obama's re-election in 2012, I would not have done so if he supported TPP or a similar type trade deal in his first term.
Please know one more thing: whenever an argument is made in moral terms as I had, perhaps the impression is left that the poster believes there is only one moral way to act or to think..the one being advocated by the poster. I dont think that. I dont think people who vote for Stein, Johnson, Clinton and even most Trump voters are acting for bad reasons. Good people can and do disagree,
Thanks for the response
I think the reason Trump,is a worse candidate than before is that HRC is a worse candidate than before. Republicans keep,getting worse because the dynamics of the conservative movement keep driving them in ever more extreme directions. But they are enabled to do so by a Democratic Party that has long since abandoned its New Deal roots, and has abandoned its traditional base for the allure of corrupt gain. It has taken two to dance this particular tango, and they bear equal culpability.
In my lifetime we've heard "most important election of our lifetime" and "the stakes have never been higher" since Kennedy v. Nixon. It's an old line, and it has led us to this point. Positive change is not possible in this country until the current Democratic Party collapses and either dies or returns to its one-time role as a working class party. Until we have a class based critique at the heart of our politics again, we will keep going down this road of corruption-driven decline. Voting for Hillary, no matter what the justification, is only asking for worse down the road. I don't know how bad a Trump presidency would be. I just know that any republican who followed President Hillary would almost certainly be even worse.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I believe there are some here who plan to vote for
Hillary. They diss both Trump and Hillary, but never say for whom they actually plan to vote. There's nothing wrong with voting how you believe you must. I mention that only because of your reply to the OP.
DNC voter registration fraud has me counted out already
But if I can... I'll vote for the other woman.
The one so many have stepped over just so they could continue the "lesser of" for all of us.
Same old same as it ever was.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
Trumpophobia is a disease for which
there is no prevention, no treatment, no cure. It may, or may not, resolve in four or eight years time.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Sure there is!
Turn off the TV and radio and stop reading all the American propaganda rags until after the election (which ones? it would be easier to tell you which ones weren't).
When one stops listening to the fear mongering, they soon realize....he's one person, who nobody in Congress is going to work with, because everybody thinks he's a racist dick.
And? He is! But they can choose not to do a damned thing for him.
OTOH, they'll work with Hillary on everything she agrees with them on. And that is not acceptable, because they agree on a LOT. She's a liar when she says they don't.
(Of course, we knew she was a liar already, I'm just sayin'...)
At any rate, it's all so very simple. It's amazing how keeping the garbage out of your home and out of your head allows you to clear your mind and start thinking critically again....
Trump Could Do Much Damage Without Congressional Approval
For example, deporting illegal immigrants is legal. He cant deport anything like the numbers he wants without Congress appropriating more money, but he can deport more. And more importantly, he will constantly use the "bully pulpit" of the WH to greatly further his racist worldview. Thats why the KKK and Nazis are supporting him.
The Bully Pulpit
is only as good as the forum that broadcasts it to the masses. Just ask President Obama--he hardly used his, unless it was to punch hippies.
So no. Sorry. Not scary enough. Why? It's very simple: Hillary Clinton won't do anything to stop the racist shitheels that were unleashed by the Gee Oh Pee when President Barack Obama came to stand watch over the Oval Office lo, these last 8 years. Those assholes are all here to stay and they will continue doing exactly what the fuck they've been doing since he was first elected. That is a fact, whether Trump wins or not.
So they're going to have to ramp up the scary. And I don't think that's possible at this point, because it would seem to be approaching the point of absurdity now.
Ermagerd!
You mean like what Barack Obama is already doing in record numbers?
Assuming, of course, that anything the Donald says in an election year (and most of it to pander to an audience of Republicans) is genuine and sincere, a rather dubious assumption at best.
Ted Rall nailed the question of what is really at stake with the major party candidates this year:
'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill
Like Shills did to 'send a message'?
Five Children Murdered After They Were Deported Back To Honduras
Between five and ten migrant children have been killed since February after the United States deported them back to Honduras, a morgue director told the Los Angeles Times. Lawmakers have yet to come up with best practices to deal with the waves of unaccompanied children apprehended by Border Patrol agents, but some politicians refute claims that children are fleeing violence and are opting instead to fund legislation that would fast-track their deportations.
San Pedro Sula morgue director Hector Hernandez told the Los Angeles Times that his morgue has taken in 42 dead children since February. According to an interview with relatives by the LA Times, one teenager was shot dead hours after getting deported. Last year, San Pedro Sula saw 187 killings for every 100,000 residents, a statistic that has given the city the gruesome distinction as the murder capital of the world. That distinction has also been backed up by an U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency infographic, which found that many Honduran children are on the run from extremely violent regions “where they probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the U.S. preferable to remaining at home.” Hugo Ramon Maldonado of the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights in Honduras believes that about 80 percent of Hondurans making the exodus are fleeing crime or violence.
https://thinkprogress.org/five-children-murdered-after-they-were-deporte...
***
THIS is some of Shill's handiwork. Have you seen the pictures of the dead on the beaches?
A heartbreaking picture has been released showing a drowned baby in the arms of a charity worker during a week in which 700 migrants were killed crossing the Mediterranean
The humanitarian organisation Sea-Watch was operating a rescue boat in the sea between Libya and Italy when the picture was taken.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3616468/The-sun-shone-bright-mot...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3616468/The-sun-shone-bright-mot...
***
It's so much easier to live with what we've done if we call these people 'migrants' instead of refugees
Nope never another lowlife Cliinton.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
LOTE
Maybe, just maybe, the people voting for Donald Trump are voting for what they think are the lesser of two evils.
Find it interesting when someone believes everything the MSM reports about Trump, how he changes his positions, etc, but aren't bothered by Shrillary Windsock Clinton's constant shifting, changing, denying and mis-speaking, short circuiting, denying health issues which we know aren't "pneumonia."
Trump is pandering to the people who will vote for him, just the way Her Heinious is. Saying what ever they think they have to say to get votes.
If I had to choose between the two, and Thank Dog I don't, I'd vote for Trump. We really have no idea what he'd try to do, who he'd appoint to his cabinet. We've seen for decades how the Clintons operate, the deadly damage they've done to this country, and so many other countries in the world.
He can deport more than Obama?
And that's your reason for voting for Hillary? Because Trump will enforce existing law, just like Obama?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
a
Mad Bomber victory would not rid the land of The Hairball's racist goons. They are out and proud now, and they are not going to shut up, not for a while: they are the last throes of the white people, and they will be squeaking and squawking, flailing their short stubby little fingers around, even as they are swept into the dustbin of history, like Heaven's Gate cultists, and Y2K obsessives. As Matt Taibbi recently wrote:
Well, their "movement" is
mostly about ending PC, calling "those people" what they used to call them - wetbacks, nigs, spics, chinks... the good ol' days when "those people" knew their place and good (white) people kept them there. Can't they just go back there? Back where everyone knew their place, knew who was top dog, and they could kick them when they're down? The Donald and Schilling think so, hope to take us back to the good ol' days.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy about then primary candidate Obama:
You're only voting for him because he's black. A couple of years ago, he'd be getting us coffee.
Yep, lots of people know the pecking order.
To Add to This Point...
I read an interesting article that made a point that under Clinton and her neo liberal policies, there will only be MORE racism in the future. Still, I maintain the points that I made in my OP, in part, because of the literature that says Trump's supporters are often primarily motivated by racial animus, not economic discontent. That being said, I agree with your post that this stuff is going to be around for quite some time. The only thing I can think to do is to fight it one election at a time.
Be very careful.
It's not just the economic discontent--it's something too many people are willfully ignoring, apparently:
Look: a very great many people believe HILLARY JUST RIGGED THE PRIMARY AND CHEATED HER WAY TO THE NOMINATION. If there's any hint that she has done such a thing in the general, the type of racist that supports Trump, which is a nationalistic patriot invested in the idea of America and their God-given rights as Americans, is going to go completely batshit. After the way she conducted herself in the primary, they may not even need a hint--they may assume a Clinton victory was a cheat. At this point, I could hardly blame them!
The neoliberal economic cruelty of a Clinton administration will merely rub salt in that wound. I'm just warning you, and any other Clinton supporter who believes that you should vote Clinton to stop Trump's racism: you cannot stop the racism that way. The person that could have done it has been hogtied and railroaded.
Eventually, it matters that a person has absolutely no credibility and no authority, but only brute, entrenched, corrupt power. Hillary has little chance of doing anything but enraging the racist right, like stirring a nest of ants, while defusing and deconstructing the coalition-style opposition that usually arises against such things. She will enrage the worst and demoralize the best.
If you care this much about racism, think carefully before you choose this road.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Seconded. (nmi)
'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill
#JillOverHill
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Problem: No mention of climate change
in your essay. That's an immense clue to the place you are writing from. Perhaps you will think differently when banks no longer expect to receive full payment on thirty-year mortgages, or when it turns out that glyphosate in fact is a carcinogen.
So as a white man I should vote for Hillary because
you and her hate white men? That's really great logic.
Just substitute "black" for "white" in you post and tell me it's not racist.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Hec rattles cages so loudly the message is lost n/t
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Yeah--No
You don't really address the real issues at all, and neither do the links you provide.
The basic reality is, continuing down the neoliberal path with Clinton (or Trump for that matter) will result in:
--Continuing rise of income and wealth inequality
--No effective slow down of global warming and the food, water, and sea level rise disasters that will result
--Continuation of war for profit
--Financial destruction of the United States
We will trundle along our merry path to starvation, loss of all our coastal cities, internal and external wars over food, water, and space to live, and possible extinction of our species. Thanks for helping my kids having to deal with that. You won't get any support from me.
And you might say "Well, one of those two is going to win! So you're just throwing away your vote!"
Well, if the Green Party can get 5% of the vote, they'll be a more realistic option in 4 years. Even failing that, I can honestly tell my kids I did what I could and am in no way responsible for the direction this world took.
I, too, want to be able to look my future grandkids in the face
and tell them I didn't drop to my knees and vote for an evil person because they were less evil.
That is if there is a future.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
You are
a truly awesome person, Damnit Janet.
Well, thank you :)
But I'm usually just a run of the mill mediocre awesome
You had an awesome post.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
I have no children. DEO GRATIAS.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Winner for best comment of the day
Sharing this on my FB feed. Scary times we live in but we must keep to our beliefs and support the Green Party. It really seems like the only sane choice.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Thanks, zoebear!
It really is the only sane choice (to my mind, at least).
Great Comment
Policy-wise, there are far fewer substantive differences between these two members of America's unofficial royalty than one might think by listening to them. As Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley (one of Bill Clinton's early mentors) so aptly stated in his book "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time":
If you like Trump, then Clinton is clearly the next best option by a country mile, and vice-versa.
inactive account
Exactly.
There's barely a dime's worth of difference between the two and, if it weren't for pressure from somewhere within what's left of the Dem party, would likely nominate similar nominees for The Court.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Need Proof?
Look at Obama's selection of the rightist Garland instead of someone more like his other two nominees, Sotomayor and Kagan. Choosing someone like either of them would rebalance the Court in favor of the humans of the USA. But no! He's too much of a coward to even attempt this. He has to make sure that the radical "conservative" majority retain power.
And Hillary would have done the same. Few Democrats can ever earn my vote now.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
I'm not sure about Kagan.
She and Breyer voted with the Justices nominated by Republicans on the second part of the Obamacare decision. Her record before becoming a Justice was almost totally opaque--except for her statement that the Constitution did not guaranty a right to equal marriage. (IIRC, she voted pro-equal marriage when the issue got to the court, but geez.)
I have a feeling--nothing more-- Ginsburg is a strong influence on the Justices nominated by Democratic Presidents. When she is no longer on the court, I shudder to think what will happen. On the bright side, the left of the Court did seem to hang together after Scalia passed and I think Sotomayor is solid.
That is an evil argument
made in support of tyranny.
And where the hell does Carroll Quigley get off throwing the Ivory Tower meme around? Is he not a professor at Georgetown? Isn't he a PhD? Why are his thoughts somehow less "academic" than those of his colleagues who believe American voters should have an influence over government policy, a belief without which the concept of even a republic, much less a democracy, is meaningless?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
As I Tried to Say in My OP
these are my issues too. But my first principle, one that I did not think I would really have to evoke, at the presidential level is fight prejudice first. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. We just have different first principles.
I also am immediately conscious
of the loss of our great libraries, museums, orchestras, universities, archaeological efforts, the entire cultural history of the human race -- except perhaps for some marks engraved on henge stones thousands of years ago that may be standing on high ground.
So to sum up...
I know Hillary sucks, but Trump's a bigger racist:
Actually, they are worse.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Well done Not Henry Kissinger!
O.k. When is the next meeting for the revolution?
-FuturePassed on Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:22 p.m.
Give me a fucking break
Give me a fucking break people.
This is as bad as Hillarys brain rot.
This sums it up for me.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
they assassinated his voice too /nt
All of that sums it up more than adequately
The Clinton's and their ilk --- their brand insipid, insidious racism is far more disturbing to me. Quietly cruel.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
This is a Really Good Post, Even if I Disagree
Thanks for taking the time for proving all that info. I really mean that.
But let me challenge your opinion that HRC and BIll are the bigger racists in this way.
As a general proposition, I think it is fair to consider who or what is supporting a candidate. That institutions or people support candidates for office that they think will advance their agenda and oppose candidates who will not. For example, I think the fact that the finance industry has always supported both Bill and HRC is an indicia that they govern in a way helpful to that industry. This has certainly been true to date. And I have always considered such support that HRC has always had to her detriment as I believe the finance industry is a cancer on our society. But the Clintons are not the only politicians that I analyze in this way and the finance industry is not the only entity whose support I think is significant. I think its relevant that David Duke supports Trump and in fact was encouraged to re-enter the political arena because of the support that Trump has recieved. Similarly, I think its relevant that Trump is supported by Neo-Nazi and other so called alt-right racist groups. Duke and these other people obviously think their agenda will be better advanced with Trump's election then HRC's. And as a side note, I think its relevant that John Lewis thinks Trump is more of a racist then HRC. In fact, I would guess that he does not think she is a racist at ll. I am not saying that I decide who I am voting for solely by who the candidates' supporters are. But it is a consideration, particularly in regard to the issue of most concerned about their own issue(s)
How is Hillary's blatant race baiting...
any different from David Duke's?
It's exactly the same gutter politics playbook that White Southern politicians are infamous for - Republican AND Democrat.
What makes Hillary's race baiting far more egregious than anything Duke could possibly say is that she did it while running for President. And worse, she got her surrogates in on the act - all blowing the same Dixiecrat dog whistle through the Winter and Spring of 2008.
So big deal, MSNBC decides to give useful idiot David Duke a little pub to try to scare northern suburbanites about his hypothetical fringe campaign.
How can that possibly stack up against Hillary's actual campaign where she and half the Democrats held a nine-month Strom Thurman revivalist meeting?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
She used not only used race baiting in 2008
she seriously crossed the line by saying more than once that she should stay in the primary because, after all, Robert Kennedy was shot in June in CA.
While she was running against Obama.
The fact that her campaign basically started the birther rumor is awful too, but not nearly as bad as the assassination comments.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It's all one...
She spends the entire campaign pandering to white bigots and then when that doesn't work wonders out loud about assassinating her black opponent.
Talk about inciting a lynch mob.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
She's disgusting
and it will be a cold day in HELL before I ever vote for her.
What about Hillary's racism?
Seriously? You're correct that the Clintons' racism is not comparable to Trump's. Any attempted comparison would be a false equivalency, a logical fallacy.
First, the Clintons are Democrats. Cultural issues, like race, are the major difference between the Democratic and Republican parties at this time, thanks to the Clintons and the rest of the DLC/Third Way crowd. While Trump's pandering to the worst elements of the Republican base is par for the course with Republicans (Lee Atwater, e.g,), there should be zero tolerance in 2016 for racism on the part of any Democratic candidate for President.
Second, the Clintons have been in politics almost their entire lives, he from some point in high school and she from the age of thirteen. And, in this election season, she has very much counted on people of color to vote for her. So, of course, the Clintons are going to keep their racism more underground than Donald would. Oh, and btw, their racism was not confined to campaigns, especially Hillary. And it was not only racism. Hillary has exhibited every form of bigotry of which she hypocritically accused Trump and his supporters. I've been posting a series about it. The first four parts don't even touch on the 2008 primary, which I will begin in part five. http://caucus99percent.com/content/hillary-thy-name-part-four
Rhetorical questions submitted for your contemplation: How many prisons has Trump filled with people of color? For how many deaths of brown and beige people in the Middle East or South America has he been responsible or complicit?
In any event, I refuse to vote for either bigot. #JillNotHill
First, being an employment lawyer is irrelevant. Appeal to authority is another logical fallacy. No one needs a law degree to identify and oppose racism and other forms of bigotry. Among many other things, some of the most sexist men I've ever met have been employment lawyers. Second, your only red line seems to be "Democratic nominee," not racism, not trade, not the environment. If that were not so, you would have voted for Sanders in the primary and be voting for Stein in the general.
As far as Bill, for over a year, we've been told it's über sexist to equate or conflate Hillary with Bill. I take the name-calling surrogates and Hillarybots at their word. As for Hillary, she has been in politics, by her account, since the age of thirteen, including being a U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State. What has she accomplished in relation to the environment? I don't mean lip service. I mean what has she accomplished in relation to global warming in the last 50 or so years?
Evidence that Trump will eliminate the "marginally helpful" (eyeroll) parts of the ACA, please. And, again, Trump cannot legislate. So, please also provide evidence that Democratic Senators will be unable to stop him if he does try to eliminate the obligation of insurer to allow parents to cover kids under 26 and to cover pre-existing conditions.
Again, let's not be sexist by conflating Bill and Hillary. Besides, Bill raised taxes on no one. Congress did. Bill simply did not veto.
As far as Trump greatly reducing taxes: I don't know about (a) "greatly," or (b) only "the wealthy," but, yes, Trump has made a general statement about reducing taxes to create jobs. However, again, Presidents don't have that power. If elected, Trump can only request that Congress reduce taxes. If Democratic Senators don't filibuster anything Trump does that they don't like, that's on them. I have no patience with the pretense that only Republicans can be powerful when in the minority. BTW, if Democrats cannot win back the Senate, that will be on Hillary, on all the Democratic politicians who endorsed her in the primary and on the crooked DNC. Her inability to motivate voters has long been known and was painfully obvious during the primary. Don't rig the primary so that the disliked, non-motivating candidate wins, then tell me I have to vote for her in the general because she is the Democratic nomnee. Her supporters made that particular bed. Let them vote for her.
Again, Bill did not raise the minimum wage. He simply did not veto Congress's increase. Evidence that Hillary would raise it, please? Hillary sat on the board of WalMart, one of the worst employers in the nation at that time. According to her fellow directors, the only issue she advocated for was equal hiring of women. Not wages, not union rights, not equal hiring of minorities, nothing, zip, zilch nada, othingnay. Only the one issue that touched her and her daughter (as well as other women, of course).
As a Senator for eight years--legislators being the ones who actually do things like raise taxes and increase the minimum wage--Hillary initiated nothing to raise taxes on the wealthy or to increase the minimum wage. In fact, despite all her bragging about getting things done, she initiated not one single thing of substance that became law, not one substantive bill or amendment. The only that can be said is that she did not go against her caucus. Also, she opposed the $15 minimum wage for which Sanders advocated until after New York adopted it, no thanks to her. So, I have no basis to assume that she will fight for the minimum wage or that she could accomplish anything if she did try to fight for it.
You seem to imagine that saying what you think or believe alone should influence our votes. I'm sorry, but my vote gets cast based on what I think and believe, not what some stranger who comes to a message board to advocate for Hillary thinks. This is especially true as to someone who offers no facts or analysis as a basis for what he or she imagines Hillary will do.
Obviously not an "honest" statement, unless someone literally had a gun to your head while you were posting.
Every election for as long as I can remember has been THE election no one should vote third party. Even if nothing else, the Supreme Court was supposedly the reason. Enough already. The quadrennial appeals to vote out of fear of the other Presidential nominee have long since been played out. Terrorist politicking is not going to cut it anymore. Not with me, anyway.
What those who seek the "lesser evil" vote for Hillary never seem to contemplate: I see both Hillary and Trump as psychopaths, both unfit in so many ways to be POTUS, albeit different ways. However, I see Hillary as the greater evil. As bad as the things Trumps says have been, it's only words so far. Hillary has a long, long track record of both saying and doing bad things. One of the very bad things she did was help found the DLC and travel with Al From to spread its gospel around Europe. This caused Democrats to out Republican Republicans, instead of pushing back at Republicans. And that took the entire country further right. At the very least, Trump did not destroy the fundamental nature of the Democratic Party. Failing to Hillary accountable for that would cause far more damage than President Trump ever could
Finally, I do have to wonder about the timing of your post, just as the Hillary camp and shills like the MSNBC talking heads seem to be freaking out about voting for the candidates of newer parties, like Stein and Johnson.
Let's stop talking about Trump & HRC and get Jill Stein elected
That's our mission. If we fail she may still get federal funds and will move our cause forward. Take a look at #Opdeny270 and read what their plan is. It's a good one. Join the conversation over on Twitter to get #Opdeny270 trending.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
See, and I think no one should tell adults what to post
and what not to post, as long as they post within the rules of the board. That's what makes a horse race, or so they say.
With all the posts on this thread, you decided to post that to me? Not even to the person who started this thread? I'm flattered, but I can walk and chew gum simultaneously.
#OpDeny270
Been reading & re-tweeting their stuff. Overall good plan.
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
I disagree that writing in anyone is a good use of a vote.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/word-about-voting-november-okay-many-...
However, the merits of the plan were, of course, totally beside the point of my reply to the_ poorly_educated. Anyone who thinks it's a good plan should be able to make his or her case without spamming the board with orders to other posters, both of which (the spamming and the orders) are objectionable.
Raise the minimum wage?
Like she fought for in Haiti? Oh, wait a minute, never mind.
Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.
If there were just ONE fact about her I could get out there
this would be it. But the mainstream media won't touch it. Hillary Clinton's contempt for the peasants (aka non-millionaires) is boundless. The Clintons have destroyed the meaning of the word "Democrat."
Twain Disciple
I <3 U, HenryWallace (n/t)
"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." Stephen Hawking
NEW: http://www.twitter.com/trueblueinwdc
Thank you! I less than three you, too, true blue.
(Humor attempt alert).
A Response
Several things to respond to:
-I did not mention that I am an employment lawyer to say I was an "authority figure." In fact, I made no legal arguments at all, which is the only thing a lawyer can possibly be an authority in..as a lawyer I mean. I only mentioned this to demonstrate that the issue of racism is important to me.
-As for considering what Bill did as being an indicator of what HRC did, I cant control that HRC supporters have made the argument that making that assumption is sexist. Many, if not most, HRC supporters think any attack on her at all is sexist. I believe that what Bill has done is a good indicator for what she will do because she has done nothing but applaud what he has done, going so far as to say that he will be her #1 economic advisor. By the way, over all this is a BAD thing not a good thing.
-As for what Trump can do to prevent changes in the ACA that Democratic Senators wont prevent, assuming there is a Republican majority, they can and will make any changes related to cost via the reconciliation process, which only requires a majority. So, for example, they will change the law in a way that will lessen or even eliminate the assistance given to help people pay for their premiums.
-You several times make what I guess you think is a clever point that "Presidents dont..e.g. raise the minimum wage" though I note that you also ask me for proof that HRC will raise it. To help you out, please assume that every place I say Bill did or HRC will do something, I meant Bill advocated and sought the passage of and HRC will advocate and seek the passage of ...the various things I mentioned above.
-In regard to taxes, actually Trump is advocating and will seek to gain passage of a maximum tax rate of 33%, which is actually higher then an earlier proposal that he made of 28%. And, again, if they do this through the reconciliation process, as GW Bush did for his tax cuts, then they only need a majority of Senators.
-I think HRC will attempt to raise the minimum wage because this does not conflict with her neo-liberal world view. however, you do make a good point that this issue is not exactly near and dear to her heart as evidenced by her complete failure to do anything about this during her 8 year Senate career.
No, you didn't
You mentioned you were a lawyer to establish authority.
Big difference in those two sentences there, ya think?
First, saying this...
only confirms that I was correct about the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. It also tells me that you don't understand that is so, nor did you understand (choose not to understand?) the point of other comments in my post to the effect that being an employment lawyer--if you are one--does not demonstrate anything about the importance of discrimination to you.
Again, I have met many a bigoted employment lawyer. So, at to how important discrimination is to you, your being an employment lawyer could mean anything or nothing at all. Your failure to make legal arguments also has nothing to do with appeal to authority. However, your willingness to vote for someone who calls Jews "kikes" and describes her constituency as "hard working white people" when running against a black man and the many other things she's said and done, does speak volumes (to me, anyway) about about the relative importance of discrimination to you. So does your attempt to rationalize away the many examples racism and sexism that both Clintons have exhibited over the years in word and deed as not being as bad as those of Trump's words.
Repeating things I addressed in my prior post is to accomplish anything productive. Bottom line, what evidence exists about what Hillary will do--if Congress lets her--shows she is not a fan of increasing the minimum wage and you left those points unaddressed while snarking at me for pointing out that Presidents don't legislate---which is a very valid point to bear in mind if asked to vote for her because of what she allegedly will do or not do.The reality is that both she and Trump can do about many matters only what Congress allows them to do. Or so Obama fans have been stressing to liberals for almost eight years now.
Okay, but I doubt he advocating tax cuts only for the wealthy, as your blog entry claims. Also, Obama, who ran on repealing the Bush tax cuts and increasing taxes on the wealthy left over 80% of the Bush tax cuts in place, did not increase anything else, but did cut SNAP several times and also fuel subsidies to the poor. So, I don't rely on populist campaign rhetoric from neoliberals, especially when I see a long, long career in public life--not only 8 years in the Senate-- with no such action from Hillary.
As for conflating Bill with Hillary, my first reply to you addressed that too. Hillary's fans want us to credit Hillary with every allegedly good thing Bill did, but if we mention a bad thing he did, we're evil. Double standards are dishonest. So either we don't go there at all or we hang the many, many bad things he did around her neck, too. Trust me, she doesn't come out a winner on that one. Moreover, isolating one thing Bubba advocated (like tax cuts---while also advocating ending "welfare as we know it") from the 1990s and assuming that she is going to do something similar decades later in entirely different circumstances with a very different Congress and climate? As a lawyer, you must know how bogus that is.
It was not only inaction. As my post said, she actively opposed the increase to $15 until after New York State, whose votes were critical to her in primary, enacted it. Before that, even in the thick of her desire to compete with Sanders, she got only as high as $12, spread out over several years (by which time it would probably put workers back to zero increase in buying power anyway. So, I guess it does conflict with her world view, whatever that may be moment to moment with #WhichHillary? And, again, she showed zero interest in advocating for increased wages at Walmart (or even as First Lady of Arkansas or as the First Lady of the US).
BTW, I've dealt with a lot of lawyers and you don't post like any of those I've dealt with. I'm not saying you are not a lawyer, I am saying that you may not be a lawyer; and, if you are a lawyer, you are not typical of the lawyers with whom I've dealt. (I explain, not to talk down, but because posters can take umbrage at things they imagine I've said that I have not said.)
I can tell you this minority
I can tell you this minority people have not forgot the Clintons taking out racist militia groups and sovereign groups in the 1990s, today Trump is supporting and feeding these same types of orgs, some of the same people actually like David Duke.
Anyone with a experienced history of racism understands the difference between the Clintons and the Trumps.
She was on the other side of the race war
eight years ago. Because she was running against a Black man.
Now she's running against white men, so she says she's on your side.
She doesn't care. None of them cares.
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160314/donald-hillary-800.jpg
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No, there is a huge
No, there is a huge difference between the racial division within the Dem. Party and the difference between racial divisions of the two major parties.
There is no war, but there are some very ugly groups of violent people organized on the basis of hatred of people of particular races, religions and sexuality who are very dangerous to minorities and anyone they perceive as a threat to their activities.
I can tell you this. The Clintons and the Donald are racists.
(I have no clue about Mrs. Trump.)
They don't have to be the same kind of racist. It's enough for me that they are racist. Many minority--and nonminority-- people have not forgotten any of racist things the Clintons said and did over the years, and not only to US minorities. And more recently, I haven't forgotten that Sanders managed to come up with a justice plan that Black Lives Matter approved back in August 2015, but Hillary never did. Or that she and O'Malley didn't know better than to say "All Lives Matter" when she heard black lives matter, but Sanders did. Or the kind of campaign she ran against the first black man to have a realistic shot at a major party nomination.
So, let's play that minorities are a monolith, or even that all black Americans are a monolith. The biggest division between Sanders and Hillary was not race, as so many Hillary supporters tried to pretend. Rather it was age.
BTW, I agree with Trump on one thing: Minorities are nothing but votes to her. If she thinks they'll help her, she's their abuela. If she thinks they're voting for someone else, they're under the bus and her constituency is "hard-working white people." Screw that.
I am certain who is on who's
I am certain who is on who's side when it come to racist organizations. there is a large difference of danger between an Archie Bunker and a Dylan Roof.
Hilary was courting the Archie Bunker votes, Trump is courting both Archie Bunker votes and Dylan Roof votes. That is a major and significant difference.
Super predators and prisons were not just courting Bunker votes.
Neither was her failure to produce a program that BLM could approve.
Neither are her Middle East policies, which, IMO, she would never attempt on European nations.
I am not going to change your mind or you mine. However, a little racism, a little willingness to exploit and hurt black people, a little ruthless ambition is like being a little pregnant.
Voting for The Lesser of Evils is no longer supportable
as long as there are other candidates on the ballot.
Agree. The OP claims he has to fight racism by voting for
the one who is less (overtly) racist. That is nonsense. If fighting racism is your really goal, don't vote for any racist.
I can't vote for abusers and their abusive supporters
I'm voting for the healer. According to the latest polls here in California, Clinton's abusers are leading Trump's abusers by 26 points, so I don't have to worry about helping put Trump's abusers in power when I vote for the healer.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Rest assured...
Trump, the neo-fascist ogre, represents the new template for future Republican presidential nominees. So the arguments you offer in favor of helping to further strengthen the toxic neoliberal stranglehold on public policy will surely be offered in 2020, 2024 and beyond. So at what point does one begin to think about stepping off the merry-go-round to nowhere?
And are you honestly so naive as to believe Hillary Clinton will really take meaningful action to combat global warming, giving Obama's pathetic record on the issue? The only real difference between D's and R's is that the R's deny the reality of global warming, while the D's deny - via their actions, if not their words - the necessity of actually doing anything about it. Mother Earth is royally screwed regardless of which of those sociopathic monsters manages to get elected.
Those who choose to embrace "Lesser Evil" today will be forced to accept Greater Evil tomorrow - the overwhelming majority of C99 participants see this as the practical consequence of decades of tactical voting decisions that enabled and empowered such corrupt and venal scoundrels as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and aren't about to continue treading down that well worn and self-defeating path.
FWIW, current results of the presidential poll I posted yesterday are:
Option ..... Votes ..... %
Clinton ....... 2 ....... 3
Johnson ...... 0 ....... 0
Stein ......... 70 ...... 91
Trump ......... 2 ....... 3
Other .......... 0 ....... 0
Not Voting ... 3 ....... 4
Not really a problem for Hillary, of course, since the people who tend to congregate here are the exact same sort that her good buddy Rahm Emanuel dismissively referred to as "fucking retards." And I'm pretty sure she has long ago written off the fucking retard vote.
inactive account
Just wondering, if Jill Stein rejects this political system,
why isn't she advocating for a new one?
Just noticed your sig line and didn't know she had said that.
Actually Jill HAS been advocating for
ranked choice voting.
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
Pages