A word about voting in November--okay, many words
Some of the things I have read startle me, so I thought I would lay this out.
For openers, full disclosure: I have never voted Republican. However, I am not sure I could ever vote for Hillary, either. My posts criticize Hillary much more than Trump only because I assume that I don't have to point out to liberals the deficiencies of the Republican Party or Trump. On the other hand, I've have seen Democrats blame Republicans for whatever upsets them. While I am not pro-Republican, I don't think believing or pretending that Republicans are the only ones who have "done us wrong" and therefore voting Democratic will fix everything is healthy. I know just how self-defeating that is because that's exactly what I used to believe. It's like taking the wrong medicine. Whatever ails you is unlikely to get better.
Perhaps the most glaring example of this was a poster on another board who blamed Reagan for pro-corporate changes to the Bankruptcy Act of 1934 (part of the New Deal). In reality, the changes she described were part of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978, enacted and signed when Carter was President and Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress.
I will vote Stein, but my vote will not affect the election. Of course, we elect Presidents by the electoral college, not by popular vote, which is essentially voting for President by state. My state has never been a swing state--at least not in modern times. Even though my vote will not matter, I will vote for Stein anyway. I feel that the best use I can possibly make of my Presidential vote in 2016 is to have my vote "say" that I want someone well to the left of Hillary Clinton. (A vote for Johnson will not do that.) Also, I believe that any votes for Stein beyond the tiny percentage that she received in 2012 will be recognized as being a direct result of Sanders' run. (A vote for Johnson will not.) Finally, I want to help the Green Party to get enough of the popular vote to maybe have an easier time getting ballot access, TV coverage, etc. next time around. (A vote for Johnson will not.)
In all likelihood, you can vote for Stein without worrying if she will make a good President because, sadly, she is highly unlikely to win. If she does win, I am confident that she will do far less damage than the other three. So, either way, no worries.
Writing in Sanders is, IMO, will not be useful. It will not accomplish any of the things I am hoping to accomplish. Write-in votes do not get reported anywhere or show up in any statistics, so your vote will not even "say" a thing, assuming any vote does. Moreover, in some states, writing in can invalidate your down ballot choices. If you are contemplating this, please check the law of your state before you vote.
Inasmuch as we do elect by state, take a look at the polls for your state as Election Day nears.
1. If your state is strong for Hillary, your vote for someone else will not help elect Trump, no matter what anyone says. It just won't increase the landslide number of votes by which Hillary wins your state.
2. If polls for your state are really close come late October/early November, which I think is highly unlikely, and it's also looking as though Hillary may have a hard time making 270 electoral votes, which I also think is even more unlikely, then and only then do you need to worry about how you will vote for President in 2016. President Hillary would, for me, be the worst case scenario. (This post adverts to that, but is not a full examination of the point: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/166958#comment-166958 )
If I were in a position where my vote might actually matter, I might be able to bring myself to vote for Trump. However, I am very grateful not to be in that position and doubt any of us will be. In the highly unlikely event you find yourself in that position, I humbly beg you to do a lot of research, seeking out especially views of liberals that are contrary to your own, whatever your own view might be at that time. And then, you must vote your conscience. The stakes are too high to do anything else.
Comments
Honest question: If the Green Party gets 5% of the vote,
won't they be eligible for federal matching funds? If so, that's another reason for voting Green.
I can't bring myself to vote Republican at any level on the ballot. If I can't vote for the Democrat, or other party if listed, I leave that office alone and move on.
Thanks for the diary: It seems like people of good will who want economic and social justice are left out in the cold again and have to make a choice based on other factors.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I have only voted Republican once, ever.
I have only voted Republican once, ever. It was for the Coroner of El Paso County, Colorado. In El Paso County politics, as you might know already, running as a Republican is the only way to get any public office. Anyway, I knew the doctor who was running for Coroner to be incompetent as a doctor; some of his worst botches were done to my poor father.
So I voted for him for Coroner, even though he was a Republican.
That way, all of his patients would already be dead, and so we wouldn't need to worry about him killing anybody that way.......
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Voting for where he would be the lesser evil
Beware the bullshit factories.
5% is a magic number for funds, but there is more to it.
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml
Well, the worst case scenario to me
is Trump as president. And, since I do live in a swing state, that would mean I would potentially have to vote for Hillary if I want Trump to lose and it's looking close.
Yeah. I can't do that anymore. I'm done with the Democratic Party, at least on the Presidential level, and I have to vote my conscience in 2016. That's Jill Stein this time around.
I still toss around the idea of writing in Bernie's name occasionally, but that's because Ajamu Baraka agreed with some dude who went off on an anti-Semitic rant. That doesn't sit well with me at all. In fact, it fucking bothers me a lot.
So ... ugh. I could write in Bernie's name (I checked -- it won't invalidate the ballot in Wisconsin, thankfully) but, like you said, I don't see much use in that.
If anybody wants to clear up the Ajamu Baraka thing, I'm all ears. I don't give a fuck about the "Uncle Tom" thing (hell, I kind of agree with him), but this one really bugs me. And, unless I read the transcript completely wrong, it sounds to me like Baraka was agreeing with the anti-Semitic dude.
I miss Colorado.
Shiz, can you link to the anti-Semitic rant? Thanx
Don't believe everything you think.
Found it, thanks, Shiz. I won't be voting for Stein based on
her shitty VP Pick
Don't believe everything you think.
Shit, then I'm not wrong, am I? :(
Fuck.
I can't find the transcript now either, but Baraka came right out two weeks ago and said he was against Holocaust denialism. However, he not only let that anti-Semite print his article in a book, but also appeared on the dude's radio show twice. I call bullshit. If I'm offered a spot speaking on a radio show, I am 100% certain I would look up said radio show before I agree to it. Even moreso for the book deal, Jesus Christ.
I miss Colorado.
Please find the original statement for us and link, someone.
Was it taken out of context (like the anti-vax smears against Stein)? That would be bad and he might have to evolve very quickly.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
It's below.
I forgot the link. I found it in a Reddit thread. Some dude listened to it and did the transcription himself.
I miss Colorado.
Hester, can you pls share that link?
I don't know much about Baraka. Would like to know what the issue is. Thanks.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
OK, I found it.
Yeah. So there goes that whole "I had no idea he was a Holocaust denier" thing. Fuckfuckfuck.
I miss Colorado.
Terminal Insanity
Is Mr. Vice-President-Wannabe so desperate for media coverage that he'll appear on anybody's show, any time, anywhere? Would he have appeared on a show that he knew was sponsored by Stormfront, and if not, why not apply the same standards to all media?
Incidentally, this, people, is why you DO NOT impute to a whole group of people the weird/bizarre/criminal actions of one person or a few people. You feed monsters that you really don't want to waken and grow.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I'm not following you Shiz
Ok, that was inflammatory comments about Ukraine govt leaders. But I don't get how it says he is a "Holocaust denier".
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Kevin Barrett is a known Holocaust denier.
For Baraka's part, at least he's renounced Holocaust denialism.
I miss Colorado.
This is not good, but this Kevin Barrett guy doesn't even make
sense. The Jews are going to support fascism? I highly doubt that. "My ancestors were slaughtered by these people with this ideology, so I'm going to support that." Not so much. Maybe it was so ridiculous, Baraka didn't feel a need to respond.
Anyway, Stein/Baraka are still better than Johnson/unknown, Trump/Pence, or Clinton/Kaine. And hopefully we'll get a better duo next go-round, but if they get enough votes this time around, that will make whoever runs at the top of the Greens more viable next time.
So this doesn't change my vote. I'm voting for Stein.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Not sure about that
I mean, look at what Israel does to Palestine. I would call the current Israeli government a form of fascism. Though thankfully it's not supported by all jews (hopefully not even a majority), so maybe some day soon we can have an Israeli government that doesn't find it acceptable to bomb schools and hospitals.
As to the "holocaust denial" stuff mentioned up-thread, my personal opinion is that I don't care if someone accepts or denies the holocaust. That matters less to me than what they can do to/for present and future generations. Trying to focus on someone's personal beliefs instead of their policy positions doesn't fly with me. And why should I care whether or not someone believes the evidence and facts of our recent history when our current government leaders actively deny the facts and evidence of our present day realities, like climate change, or how terrorist groups are made?
So yeah, still Stein/Baraka for me as well.
The past is prologue, Thaum
What someone has done in the past is a more or less plausible guide to what they will do in the future. If it were not so, we would not be so adamantly opposed to Hillary Clinton.
You are correct that there are different "flavors" of fascism - Mussolini's, for instance, was not anti-Semitic until he started sucking up to Uncle Adolf. That doesn't mean it was any better for the "little people", because it wasn't. And what he did to Ethiopia--!!!
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
That's the sad irony of "learning from the past."
While the thing we're supposed to learn is how bad things turn out when doing bad things, some just learn how to do the bad shit more effectively.
You know, looking up the definition for fascism on google results in this:
I think that definition fits the US government rather well actually. So, do you think that it's accurate to call the US government another flavor of fascism?
I know I'm putting my hand in a blender
but isn't Bibi Netanyahu, arguably, a Zionist Jewish Oligarch? I mean, it's not like there aren't people in the world who are Jewish, are Zionists, and are oligarchs.
These are real questions: is it anti-Semitism because of using the words "Zionist Jewish Oligarch?" Is it anti-Semitism because there's a lurking talking point about Jewish world domination lurking back there? Does the existence of that talking point mean that I can't point out Bibi as an oligarch? How about Blankfein? Isn't he both Jewish, and a Zionist, and an oligarch?
I don't think Jews are any likelier to be oligarchs than WASPs are. We're in a racist version of capitalism, so it's true that you'll find fewer Black oligarchs, and even, globally, fewer Latino oligarchs; there aren't very many indigenous oligarchs either. But nobody is an oligarch BECAUSE they are a Jew, anymore than anybody is an oligarch BECAUSE they are a WASP. Put it this way: some groups of people are a lot less likely to get the chance to become an oligarch, because of colonialism and slavery, but what makes an individual into an oligarch is CHOICE. They have to choose to wield their financial power against democracy and the common good, and all kinds of humanism, in pursuit of tyranny and greed, to be an oligarch.
So, of course, there are Jews in the world who have made that choice. Being individual human beings, they get a choice, just like Bill Clinton had a choice and George H. W. Bush had a choice and Sam Walton had a choice and the Koch brothers have a choice. It's the choice that makes them oligarchs, not religious or ethnic identity, not "race."
"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 the deliberate yoking to "Nazi thugs"
This is precisely the same sort of psychotic toxic sludge that was spewed at Bernie Sanders(!) on the campaign trail. And I would place a very small bet (e.g. 2 cents) that if this Barrett dork's connections were investigated with a fine-tooth comb, one would find that he's being paid off to obscure and obfuscate the CIA's connection to the Ukraine putsch.
Either that, or he really is so fucked in the head that he believes "Jewish Nazi" isn't an insane oxymoron.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
OK, I see where you're coming from now.
In my experience--not stating this as an absolute--one of the qualities of oligarchy is to destroy any and all other loyalties and principles, where a matter of money or business is concerned.
That's why I quoted Milt Friedman down below:
"there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
People who believe this--and it's scary how many of the rich and powerful seem to believe this--really don't think moral concerns can ever trump loyalty to maximized profit.
If you take Friedman's words seriously, then supporting Nazis is A-OK if the profits are right. In fact, to state it more accurately--and the full disgusting nature of this idea becomes really obvious when you state it this way!--
It's morally right for a businessman or banker to support Nazis if supporting Nazis maximizes profit.
As I think Gary Snyder once said, When they want you to die for profit they will let you know.
"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
well, hard for me to "get" all of what has been said here,
but I would add to your comment, with which I agree, that it is also ok for businessmen/oligarchs to support African dictators, who enslave their own folks, have misogynist and manipulative attitudes towards women and exploite their work.
That's why I believe that misogyny, racism and anti-semitism is not a one-way street among some groups. It's from and to any direction and most of the times based on profit motivations and greed.
In the case of the holocaust it seems to be only racist, ethnic mass murdering operation that was not based on profit motives. Please correct me, if I am wrong. That's why any hint of someone being a holocaust denier by someone else, is a death sentence to that person. I am careful to believe such accusations. They always lead to divisions and are very destructive when applied to the wrong person.
It would really amaze me if a man like Ajamui Baraka is a holocaust denier. I haven't studied yet the "lnk" that were offered as "proof", because it's no fun doing so. So, I say all of it with utmost hesitation and a pinch of disgust, that I have to do it, to make up my mind about that accusation.
May be I don't understand the issues in detail, but I do believe that different groups of people have become victims of racism for different reasons. In case of the working class white Germans of the pre-Nazi era, their hate against Jews was incited by their underlying feeling of envy for the Jewish financial and academic elite at that time and by the bigotted religious beliefs of narrow-minded "Christian", who needed some evil men to blame to feel good about themselves. So, they killed them all, poor Jews and rich Jews. (Sorry for expressing that bluntly)
To have become a victim of Nazis' holocaust is not the same as having become a victim of slavery and all its consequences. Slavery had always a profiteering and imperial power motivation over the poor. Declaring them savages and the like only was the ice on the cake of manipulation of the white folks' emotions. Slaves were not outright murdered, because they were "useful" as to their potential to generate "profit" and "political power" for the white slave-holder class.
The murder of native Americans are both, profit oriented as to point the white man wanted to steal their land, and racist, because they even didn't try to enslave the American Indians. because they realized they couldn't get profit out of native American labor. So they rather killed them. (Sorry for being blunt.)
The holocaust doesn't belong in that category, imo. It was literally pure racist murder and I believe originated from the "white poor class" towards the "rich Jewish elite". I believe and have witnessed similar anti-Semitic emotions among "poor black people and manipulative power hungry black politicians".
But to make such judgements and categorization is extremely difficult, often very destructive AND for sure often very wrong.
But there is an understandable solidarity among victims and the emotional need of most people to defend and protect any victim, even if some victims become the discriminators or killers themselves in some instances later on.
Some Afro-American lady told me once she became the 'honorable Jew" in her community. I was not sure what she meant by that. It would be nice someone can explain that to me. That is an honest question. I lack the cultural and historical background to know what the meaning of it is and how that expression came into being.
Anyhow. Please don't destroy each other. Peace.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Money Motive
Among other things, there was a strong money motive behind the Holocaust. Jews were stripped of their belongings, their assets, their wealth (and their lives, of course) to the tune of 30% of German war expenses. Link
right, but that doesn't explain why they were murdered,
in the milions, does it ? So like what are then the "among other" things?
Have there been any slavery-deniers around ? Never heard about them. But there are holocaust deniers. To accuse someone of being one, is a very severe accusation. And for sure they are around. And there are enough people around who use that fact for infighting among people, who you would hope they wouldn't get drawn into fights like that.
Of course it's none of my business what other people believe.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Slavery Deniers
Yes, there are slavery deniers. Some wackos claim slavery never happened. Others are minimalists or equivalists, saying slavery wasn't so bad or that white people were slaves, too. Link
As for the "among other" things, I'm rather surprised you felt compelled to ask that. Some of the other things were racial hatred, religious hatred ("Christ killers"), Hitler's personal history, they made convenient scapegoats ("Jewish bankers sold us out after WW1 and made us pay reparations and destroyed our economy"), lack of societal support for the targeted, etc. The Nazis exterminated whoever they could get away with exterminating -- Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Russians and Poles, the disabled, Catholics, Freemasons ...
sigh ... yeah I am an idiot...
The things you claim I didn't know are rather funny. But thank you for the lecture.
Ok, I take a walk. The second one today.
No, I didn't hear about slavery deniers. Because I didn't live in this country and hadn't heard about it. So, thanks for the SPLC link.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I've lived here all my life and I never heard that term.
I have seen people belittle the severity of slavery, though. Especially lately. Thanks, Trump, Faux and the Koch minions!
You know, slaves had it so good and all. Three squares and a place to sleep, after all.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I didn't say you were an idiot.
I was responding to the question you posed in your comment: "So like what are then the "among other" things?"
no problem, I was a little enervated, that's all, forget it/nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
Cool. n/t
They deemed any "subhumans" as listed above,
i.e. Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Russians and Poles, the disabled, Catholics, Freemasons etc.... as "Untermenschen", to be racially far inferior to the German race (Uebermenschen), and unworthy of anything other purpose but being worked to death.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Hard to compare atrocities like that
Slaves were more valuable alive than dead but they were killed if they decided they wanted to own their own lives.
is how one ex-slave describes it in a 100 year old recording.
My grandparents, who were Jewish German citizens, were very lucky to get out of Germany before the door was closed in the mid-1930s. I think I would rather be a slave than to be Jewish in Germany at that time.
Beware the bullshit factories.
sorry, nope. that they were stripped of their belongings
was a result of the genocidal regime. It was in no way one of the causes of the Holocaust. In preparation for the extermination of the Jews there was a systematized and systematic effort to dehumanize them. This is done in several, "steps".
First you prevent 'them' for earning a living. No more Jewish University professors, no more Jewish doctors or lawyers, penalties for any Aryan known to see a Jewish doctor/ lawyer etc. That kind of stuff.
Then you make sure they only can go in the streets at certain times of day. Make them wear arm bands. They cannot go see concerts, plays, movies. Nor visit libraries.
Then you herd them into ghettos.
Then you ship them off to the "east".
Then you strip them naked and herd them to their deaths.
Then you recycle their belongings for the 'war effort'.
For good measure you toss in homosexuals, cripples, mentally unstable people, who don't have to be Jewish... b/c their lives are not worth it to the Reich.
How do you do this:? Make them "stateless".
Phillippe Sands new book "East West Street" has this down on page 169:
Summarizing:
Make the Jewish "rats" stateless so laws don't apply to them. Severing their nationality from them accomplishes this. Then you dehumanize them by taking away all privileges, . then you murder them.
Their goods, their clothes, eyeglasses etc were all secondary to this effort.
Don't believe everything you think.
Geez,
that was a stupid comment. What is wrong with you?
Say what? What was stupid about it.
I just disagreed w you.
Don't believe everything you think.
Did you mean to respond to hester's comment?
I thought it was enlightening. If it's stupid, then the Holocaust Museum is stupid, because I read similar statements there.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Uncalled for edg.
hester, can you believe that I, sixty eight years old,
am aware and have read about all of this (I am German, in case you don't know) when I was fifteen.
Studied in school, read on my own, tons of books about it. If you think I have forgotten or misunderstood what I read and learned (and all serious authentic sources and not from some frigging third generation radio talking head spewing nonsense) back then you make a mistake. I might have forgotten details. I have been confronted with other issues, so forgive me if those went a bit into the back of my conscience. But I am tired to have to defend myself for opinions people seem to have about me.
If your comment wasn't directed at me, then I apologize for this response.
Do you really believe anybody my age as a German would deny those facts? Unless you are a crazy neo-nazi? I don't know where you read that in my comments that I would disagree with all your stated facts. I have not the good vocabulary that you have, but we have no disagreement about any of this, unless you feel it necessary to have a disagreement with me, which is up to you..My expressions might not be clear enough and aimportant vocabulary often doesn't come easily to my mind. Sometimes I talk in imagery to avoid getting on someones toes.
I had twice written up clear comments with regards to what was said about Ajamu Baraka and the way it was said, what sources were presented and by whom it was said. I erased them all. I have no inclination to go into that on this blog any further.
JtC asked us to take the finger of the sefl-destruct button. I do hereby. And you can bet I will study what Ajamu Baraka had said and written thoughout his lifetime. And come to my own conclusions.
At least that is a good outcome of this otherwise not so enchanting thread and discussion.
Peace.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Mimi, it was a reply to edg, not you. As you can see.
Don't believe everything you think.
ok, do me a favor, as I have often difficulties
in longer nested threads to identify to which comment another comment has been made. I think it helps, just adding the name of who you address in your title. Thank you.
Sorry for the mess up.
https://www.euronews.com/live
mimi...
what I do when I must know what the parent comment is: I position my mouse cursor on the very left edge of the line above the comment. Then I scroll upwards without moving the cursor until i come to the parent. it works well once you get used to it.
yeah, I tried to help myself in the same way, but find it
it somewhat difficult, if the thread is very long and lots of comments have been posted in between. I am often still not sure about it, when I do that. But thanks anyway.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Thanks, Johnny, I hadn't thought to do that!
It does work pretty well.
Although it would be quicker if we had a parent/child button; or since they're all children, perhaps a parent/return-to-last-comment-read button. Would that be a doable revision at some future point? I'm not techie enough to know if that's easy or difficult programming.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I've been trying to add that...
since I built the site, to no avail, I'd love to have it too. I even had a couple of coders more proficient than I take a crack at it, with no love. It's a nuance of the particular comment system we use. Eventually we will upgrade to Drupal 8 and hopefully then we can get a Parent button.
Interesting! Funny how some of the simplest things to imagine
turn out to be so complicated to code.
Well, we will muddle along until Drupal catches up with us.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
JTC, would it be easier to add something like a
"In Reply to..." line of text appear at the bottom of all nested posts that displays the name of the relevant poster?
Dunno if this is a bad or even more difficult idea, just spitballing here.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
NS-forced labour was done deliberately
for the purpose of "Vernichtung durch Arbeit", or Extermination through Labour
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
[redacted - these reactions scare the shit out of me]
outta here. Can't find out who is nuts and who is not. I guess I am the only nut to try to find out, that's nuts, definitely.
Please proceed.
https://www.euronews.com/live
link for you about Barrett
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/04/continuing-idiocy-of-kevin-...
Don't believe everything you think.
I mean these questions in all honesty--
they are not intended as rhetorical questions designed to attack.
I really *don't know*.
I do have an opinion, obviously, that if I can't talk about Bibi or Lloyd as oligarchs, because of anti-Semitism, that that presents a problem for me as an activist, but the questions of where the anti-Semitism is, and what its implications are for how we talk, are real.
"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
This may be just me, but I think if you talk about Bibi or Lloyd
as oligarchs, you'd be okay. It's when you emphasize that they are Jewish or Zionist oligarchs that you might get into trouble. It is difficult to criticize the Jewish people without sounding anti-Semitic. That was one of the reasons I liked Bernie, he'd go ahead and criticize, and of course he won't face that accusation.
Anyway, criticize their behavior, not their ethnicity or religion unless it pertains; and you at least have a defense against anti-Semitism, whether people who want to find fault act as if they believe you or not.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Barrett spoke of Zionist oligarchs, not Baraka
Barrett is not running. I am not sure we should impute all his words to Baraka.
I had issues with Hillary's racism in 2008 and anti-Semitism in 2016. So, for me this is not a reason to vote for Hillary.I don't know what I will do with this info. My reasons for voting have to do with the future, not with 2016, and I don't expect the Stein-Baraka ticket to win. It's troubling, though.
Baraka should have checked Barrett. In a nation of 350 million, can't we @#!%&* do better?
This is a very good point.
Thanks, Henry.
"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
Not sure I'm getting your point. Barrett is saying that
Zionist jewish oligarchs have been behind the pro Nazi government installed in Ukraine by a regime change. Are you saying that is anti-semitic or has Barrett said things indicating he denies the Holocaust?
I'm not sure whether the anti-Semitism
is in the words "Zionist Jewish Oligarchs" or in the charge that Jews are supporting Nazis in Kiev....at this point, honestly, one of the defining qualities of oligarchy is to have no loyalty to nation, tribe, or ideology, that trumps his loyalty to profit, so if there are Jewish oligarchs at work, I bet some of those oligarchs would have no problem backing Nazis.
Remember what Uncle Milt said:
"there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
I take that to mean that backing Nazis would be A-OK as long as it could be proved that backing Nazis increases profits.
"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
From Washington's Blog
"The hyper-nationalist Ukrainian-Israeli billionaire Ihor Kolomoysky, a friend of the Obama White House and employer of Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, is a major donor to far-right Ukrainian causes. He sides with the followers of Stepan Bandera, the pro-Nazi Ukrainian leader whom Hitler ditched when Bandera made clear that he wanted Ukraine to be nazi but independent of Germany’s Nazi Party. Briefly, Bandera’s #2 in command, Yaroslav Stetsko, led nazi Ukraine, and approved the slaughter of thousands of Jews there."
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/jewish-billionaire-finances-ukrai...
"Zionist Jewish Oligarchs" WAS a Nazi argument
Made by the real, authentic, 1930s-1945 Nazis under Uncle Adolf as an excuse for delegitimating, disempowering, depriving and ultimately destroying every Jew they could possibly round up and haul off to the gas chambers.
SANE PEOPLE DO NOT USE THIS ARGUMENT.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
OK, those are the lurking talking points I mentioned
So, I've often talked about Jewish people who are oligarchs on here. I guess it's OK as long as I'm talking about them individually, but not define them as a group, because defining them as a group implies that it's their Jewishness that somehow made them oligarchs. Which I don't believe. It's choice that makes the oligarch. Individual choice.
That's fine. I don't need to define them as a group--except as part of the larger group of oligarchs, which you become by choice, not by biology or culture-of-origin.
As long as we're not going into the "Barack Obama is Black, so you can't criticize him or you're racist!" territory, I'm fine.
I guess where I'm at is that I have to be able to tell the truth. I can't soft-pedal something that a person does because they belong to a historically oppressed minority. So if there's some shithead backing the guys in Kiev who actually is Jewish and a Zionist, I can't not talk about him just because it brings up a murderous history filled with people who used the talking point "Zionist Jewish Oligarchs."
"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
Yes, exactly. I was under the impression
that the phrase "Zionist Jewish Oligarch" was an anti-Jewish dog whistle, originally perpetuated by the Nazis themselves.
This entire thread is the internet equivalent of "ya know what happens when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me".
I miss Colorado.
I'd say both.
I really should not assume that folks here
read the shit I read. This could have all been avoided if I'd simply put the links in my original comment. I'm sorry now that I didn't.
This whole thing went down a few weeks ago. It came out that Baraka had been on this guy's radio show a few times and his article appeared in an anthology collection put together by the same guy (Kevin Barrett). My problem with Mr. Barrett (from the above link):
I miss Colorado.
My first reaction was to say "String him up." But that's evil.
It is. It's my job to be better than the Holocaust Denier.
And Ed Murrow was right about this--you don't have to suppress an idea to fight it.
"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
"9/11 truther — which, you know, is also a little wacky."
Well, I guess I'm a 9/11 Truther, does that make me a little wacky too? Article is also dissing Ken O'Keefe, one of the fantastic truth tellers there is today. I'm not seeing where Barrett is denying the Holocaust when he says that, he's saying the data could be interpreted in different ways and that it's one of other "unfortunate episodes". He may have said other things about it I don't know about, I'll grant that.
Unfortunately, the holocaust IS something we can't talk about.
Agree w/you on 9/11
Don't know Ken O'Keefe,
Barrett is denying the Holocaust, in my view--not so much denying it happened, but in the sense of "casting doubt." Like consulting firms do on the issue of climate change, which is good to know about:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-invention-of-lying-about-climate-change-72...
I smell the weasel on the Barrett's words; I wish that position weren't being lumped together with being a 9/11 "truther"--Jesus what a despicable epithet that is! Turning "truth" into an insult.
"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
Here's a sample of O'Keefe. He's as hard hitting as there is.
[video:https://youtu.be/gKPQcOvmn-I]
Honestly, Al, it is extremely difficult to find
an article that is kind to both Stein and Baraka. The article says a bunch of stuff I disagree with, and the crap about Stein being an anti-vaxxer and blah blah blah, yeah I know, 9/11 truther.
Lots of people here are 9/11 truthers, but I think they're wacky in a good way.
You honestly think "Zionist propaganda about Auschwitz" isn't a bit much?! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.
I miss Colorado.
There is a very delicate line to make things not sound anti-semi
tic, unfortunately variable. I think the creation of Israel post-WWII was not well-handled by the Allies. And nothing done about the Palestinians was a major oversight. But that is history, the beginning. Then. [I tread slowly, husband was a half-Jew, his grandfather left Austro-Hungary as a young adolescent, on his own. Family there was AFAIK, wiped out. So my kids have a relationship, limited, to Judaism].
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Define truther as you would describe yourself?
What is it about 9/11 that you think we do not yet know (I presume that's the general definition - you want to know the truth about 9/11 and think we haven't been given the whole story)?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I don't believe many parts of the official story, especially
the broad conclusion that it was 19 Arabs alone who did it. I feel most of the truth is out there in various forms and I've read or watched most of it.
I believe members of our own government were involved and that ultimately 9/11 was a false flag.
I'm not the one calling myself a Truther per se, I just said apparently I'm a Truther according to the intent of those who use the label pejoratively. Personally I think those that use the term pejoratively are either part of the coverup or are ignorant fools. I feel the same way about those who use the term conspiracy theorist pejoratively.
Okay, on that basis I'd say
you're a little wacky, but to each their own wackiness. Most people aren't as obsessed about politics as we are, so we're all a little wacky.
I've thought CTs were too complicated to be real before and have been proven wrong (Iran-Contra), so what do I know?
I don't think it took government involvement as such to create 9/11. I think just reneging on the progress made in ME peace by Clinton/Gore was adequate. I think they probably knew full well violent attacks by people in despair whose hopes they had just dashed was a likely consequence and didn't care; war always makes "leaders" look "Presidential". I think the 19 were the tip of the iceberg, obviously there was a lot of coordination and our government has killed off a lot of the top leaders of al Qaeda from that time.
But false flag? I wouldn't go that far. But see paragraph 2.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
No conspiracy succeeds without enablers, witting or
unwitting. And BushCo having their heads Crazy-Glued all the way up their asses is the very definition of "unwitting". (Literally. "Un-wit" = no wits = witless.)
Lest anybody bring up "Operation Northwoods" again, I read the fine print and they were planning to mess around with Gitmo - NOT the US mainland and most certainly not a major US city.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
It's absurd.
"The Jews are behind the modern-day Nazis!"
And it does pretty much imply that Jews are OK with Nazis, which would pretty much deny the Holocaust. I think there are other things Barrett has written or stated, though, that are more direct.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Share, please? I'd like to see that rant for myself.
How does a civil rights activist approve of anti-Semitism?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Shows bad judgement on Stein's part
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Here's
a link to what came down...
Right, and I was apt to believe him
until I read the transcript of one of the radio shows. If Kevin Barrett had said to me what he said to Ajamu Baraka, I literally would have taken off my mic, called the guy an anti-Semitic douchebag, and left the studio.
So ... I don't know. All the rest of the stuff everyone's been saying about Stein and Baraka, that's all pretty much bullshit. But this one -- I can't let go of this one.
I miss Colorado.
Jeez, at this point it looks as though the only ticket
where both candidates are even semi-sane is Johnson-Weld. Every other ticket has at least one loony-tunes, and Trump-Pence has two.
So much for political grandstanding in filling out the ticket - seems Ms. Stein could have done better with a telephone directory and a pin.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
As long as you like the Council on Foreign Relations,
one of the more evil organizations on the planet. Weld is a member.
No-win scenario
Dems: Psycho warmonger and corrupt corpocrat
Reps: Psycho blowhard and corrupt Christofascist
Greens: Smart lady and bigoted asshole
Libs: Jerk One and Jerk Two.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I am still not sure that Baraka is not just naive.
The association seems to fit smear category, guilt by association. Isn't there some "rumor" that Blacks distrust Jews because Blacks were just like whites who developed anti-Semitic beliefs? The old Landlord and money-lender memes?
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
If it were the first instance of shooting his mouth off,
you might have a point. Unfortunately it isn't. There was also his vehement objection to a pro-Charlie Hebdo rally in Paris - using language I had heard entirely too much of from the likes of Dee Oliver Velez on That Other Site. Blah blah blah "white power" blah blah blah "only white people matter" blah blah blah "white superiority" blah blah blah.
Now we're hearing the same blah blah blah because "Jews are white". Even if that were universally true (it isn't), it does not excuse dismissing their history because of their skin color.
I have a dog in this fight - my sister married a rabbi's son, and they have a daughter. So it's MY family that's involved here too.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Damn things would be a lot brighter now if Bernie won
F**k you to everyone who worked against that outcome.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Great, and Johnson wants to worsen income inequality, so
he's not anyone we want elected. I still think Stein is the best of the four.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I just read the above link: Stein is Jewish.
So I'm even less worried now.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
My guess is she didn't realize how extreme
some of Mr. Baraka's views were. And now she's stuck with him, because changing VP candidates in the middle of a campaign, for any reason other than replacing someone who died, will sink whatever small chance you have.
McGovern found this out the hard way. Maybe he didn't have a chance from the get-go, but picking Eagleton, defending Eagleton, and then booting Eagleton, just made him look like a spineless wimp.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I think you're right.
I also think it's smart for her to get a black civil rights activist on board. So she discovers this after the fact, and now what? I imagine he has explained himself to her satisfaction. Maybe she should share.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Shiz? Please check this out before you vote for Hill.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHgkD6Gle_g]
Unless there's literally not a single Republican you can trust--a relative, a friend--this is a far better option than voting for Hillary, IMO. Please have a look.
"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
Oh, I'm not voting for Hillary.
I will either vote for Stein or write in Bernie's name. Or maybe leave it blank, dunno yet.
But I'll still watch the video.
I miss Colorado.
Oh, thank God. :-)
Phew.
"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
Pages