Yup, They're Calling it a Press Conference
I heard this event mentioned on NPR tonight and wondered if taking a small number of questions was going to be billed as a presser. Yup...
When the media has reported on it, the Clinton campaign has ignored it.
But Trump started trumpeting on this and it seems maybe he's gotten under her skin just a bit:
Hillary Clinton Held Her First Press Conference of 2016 — Or Not
Hillary Clinton fielded questions Friday from two journalists serving as moderators at a joint gathering of the National Association of Black Journalists and National Association of Hispanic Journalists. The Democratic nominee then took questions from three additional journalists at the event.
So when NABJ President Sarah Glover introduced Clinton on Friday as speaking before the “largest press conference with any presidential candidate before a room filled with journalists of color,” several Clinton reporters took issue with that designation.
The debate seems to be over whether an event with five pre-selected journalists amounts to a press conference, or if a press conference requires a more freewheeling exchange between the candidate and members of the campaign press corps.
“What happened today is Hillary Clinton took questions from members of the media,” (NAHJ president Mekahlo) Medina said. “I don’t know if people want to call that a press conference or not, but that’s what happened.”
Worth clicking the link to read the embedded Tweets like this one:
I would not exactly call a couple Qs from pre-selected journalists a press conference. #NABJNAHJ16
— Lisa Lerer (@llerer) August 5, 2016
This Tweet's unrelated, but funny:
Some confusing logic: Clinton blames her trust issue on GOP, then says a big win in Nov will prompt GOP compromise https://t.co/6ytIqt6GzY
— Lisa Lerer (@llerer) August 5, 2016
Comments
Hillary will doubtless face
Hillary will doubtless face the challenge of 'leading a country where most Americans don't trust her' by using propaganda and suppression to crush the expression of this distrust and of objections to her cheated 'win' and destructive policies.
Edited to add that if political parties are private parties able to do do whatever they want and to screw over members as they please in rigging elections, then WHAT THE FUCK USE ARE THEY TO ANY CITIZENS?
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.
Indeed.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
How can I lie
if I don't say a damned thing?
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Precisely!
Precisely and exactly!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Can just see a Clinton White House Press Briefing...
You enter after two large men have searched you and removed all questions that were not pre-screened...
You are then given a teleprompter to read off, which details the questions you are to ask, and the exact phrasing in which you are allowed to ask it.
You are also to not ask any follow up questions, as the press secretary has already answered your questions to the amount that you are authorized.
Remember, you are responsible for what you put out there, and we'd hate to see you commit suicide in remorse when you realize how badly you've failed in your responsibility as a member of the media...
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
No, You're missing the Important Stuff
What color Pantsuit was worn? Did it support or detract from the Message(s)? Did it advance the critical ceiling-busting primary goals of the Admin?
Let's keep up? Shall we?
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!
There goes that pesky body count again...
It's only a coincidence though...
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
She should ask the people in the countries she helped destroy
If they believe this statement :
I'm pretty sure that they would disagree with her, but maybe she meant people like Kissinger, Kagan, Nuland and the other neoconservatives that were the ones gave her the high ratings.
Just like they did with Obama, the republicans will work with her on the things that hurt this country and the world.
The republicans will agree to work with her on continuing the wars in the Middle East, the build up to the war against Russia and China and policies that hurt the people in this country such as privatizing social security, decreasing funding for social programs and more tax cuts for the rich and the corporations.
Hillary Clinton's presidency would be a threat to humanity.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
she's getting more like george II everyday.
first, she picked her voters, & now she's choosing the "reporters" she wants to disseminate her campaign tp's.
remind me again how the d's are different from the r's...
The d's ARE the r's...look who she is now courting for funding.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I remember about twenty years ago
an interview with Frank Luntz where he lamented, whined, and sniveled about how Bill Clinton got elected using all Luntz's Orwellian newspeak tricks used to get Reagan elected.
I keep saying the new Dems are the best Republicans running.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
Lordy, how I'd love to post that comment repeatedly at TOP!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I don't post much over there.
Mostly just to MOT. I don't want the thirty days in the cooler with Hogan.
MOT and darksyde's and pakolo's science articles are all I click anymore.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
I think that comment contains too much truth for Over There
and would likely get the poster banned.
I am currently on 30 days NR, so need to mind my manners. Sigh.
Tonight is This Week in the War on Women, 8 PM. I hope people who still go there will check it out. The WoW can be infuriating, but the company is good.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I began to hunt down what got you TO'd
going through hidden comments, until I noticed where in a thread ellid was screeching about Stein being an antivaxxer. So much for reality based. That's where I quit nosing and took some Pepto. Sorry.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
Oh I'll happily tell you what happened, I don't think it's a
reflection on me.
The first day I was arguing with someone, yes I believe it was over Stein, and I was presenting the facts. The arguer launched a sexist ad hominem against me. Given the sexism and that I was flinging no insults, I flagged. I was warned I couldn't do that because I was in an argument with the person. I was told to acknowledge and remove the flag, both of which I did, although I then left comments for the person about his sexism.
I think sexism (and racism) should be an exception to the "don't flag the person you're arguing with rule" (which I thought was more a suggestion than a rule and would be on a case by case basis anyway), but apparently they are not. The moderators prefer that you get all your friends to pile on than to defend yourself, apparently.
The very next day, someone posted a comment in a "Jill is not an anti-vaxxer" diary that said something like, "I do think there is still some controversy over the best timing of vaccines," which was being flagged, one flag away from being hidden, and I uprated it. I was told I uprated CT, but they have a very strange version of what CT is. They said there were plenty of comments below that comment explaining why it was untrue; but those comments hadn't been posted when I uprated, mistakes in fact are still not CT, and now that I'm NR I can't read hiddens, so I will never know. That's a problem with hiding comments - then people without privileges can't read them or the responses.
So that's why they made me NR for 30 days: Two "abuses" of the ratings system in two days, and they said four overall this year (I will have to take their word for it; I don't keep count nor take notes; I imagine the other two had something to do with Bernie). This happened on August 1, so 24 more days to go!
It was my intent to help out the Stein cause as long as I could, so I accomplished that. Unfortunately, "as long as I could" was not long!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Never mud wrestle with a pig
You can't win, and the pig enjoys it.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Oh, sometimes I enjoy it too!
I was pleasantly surprised that overall, it looked like there were about equal numbers "Jill is anti-vax" and "Jill is not anti-vax" diaries and comments Over There.
Considering the likelihood that it was a coordinated paid smear across the Internet (CT! Gasp!) after the audacity of Jill Stein to continue to challenge Her Heinous and take a little luster away from her big convention, the Jill Stein supporters did pretty well holding up under fire. I was happy to do my little part.
Mud rinses right off.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
wow
facts and truth established by mob rule, and social tools created to lend legitimacy to that mob rule.
what a craphole that place is.
If $$Hillary gets elected, it would almost be worth lurking there to watch them when they start to turn on each other over what will surely be a horrific Presidency full of betrayals.
I'm just waiting
for the perfect " I told you so " moment to go back there and shove in their faces.
I'm sure going to savor that moment. Definitely worth a ban.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Either way it'll be interesting. If $hillary loses, there will
be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Although of course there will be a lot of blaming us, I think they'll also have to look in the mirror and ask, "How could She be less popular than Trump?"
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Because she is who she is--a lying sack of shit
It won't be. It's Versailles. Bubble town.
Almost all who had anything critical to say of Obama were Sanders supporters, and have left or been banned.
The over confidence from the Trump trianwreck and defeating the left has Pied Piper'd them into a Emperor's New Clothes holodeck. And while HRC should now be a slam dunk to win, hubris will not help and is the very thing that sets her up to lose.
Honestly it's just a microcosm of the country...
There is so much of this world/country/society which works by institutionalized - think of people wrongly accused of crimes who cannot afford a defense and get convicted - that's ho-hum, every day stuff. Lots of examples in 'science' - back up until the 1970s, apparently, folks with Multiple Sclerosis were treated like their neurological issues were all in their heads. When I lived in a mold infested apartment building (it had wicked up through the wood frame of the building - nothing was visible in my unit, but was present in air sampling) and most of us were having an array of neurological issues, the doctors all said it was in our heads... the poison was potent enough that it actually killed my downstairs neighbor - took awhile to find a lab to look for what we suspected due to the list of his symptoms, but we found the mycotoxin in his tissues, and later that same mycotoxin was grown out of a sample taken from the underside of the building. Doctors say (and believe) that mold can't hurt people (they allow for exceptions for those with seriously compromised immune issues and asthma, and that's about it).
But this mycotoxin found in his lungs and elsewhere has its own chapter in a U.S. Army manual on bioweapons, and it's well-known to kill. There's been a very expensive Public Relations campaign to render mold and mycotoxins economically harmless in courtrooms, and there's been a good bit of pseudo-science generated to back that up.
I keep trying to remember that the arc of history bends toward justice. At least we recognize M.S. as real these days...
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
That's why they call it mycoTOXIN
Most doctors just say "Mold can't hurt you"
and don't pay attention to the pesky secondary metabolites.
My neighbor had seen his primary care physician just a few days before he woke up dead. She had no clue he was that bad off. He did - he knew he was a short-timer. His grave marker apparently really does say that he told people he was sick...
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Please note that these
Please note that these criticisms of Jill Stein (the shrieks about 'anti-vaxxer/anti-GMO') regard Big Pharma/Monsanto profits and the ability of legislation to force people to purchase the products of certain industries/corporations regardless of whether they want to or trust what are essentially criminal enterprises having been routinely caught in the act of behaviours faking/suppressing studies to cover over ill effects/ineffectiveness of various potential/current profit-makers, conspiring to rig prices and to defraud the public/Medicare, refusing to attend to problems with product contamination, and exerting control over regulatory agencies/scientists intended to protect the public rather than industry profits.
Having EPA science libraries and other evidence destroyed and buying up (edit: sites publishing) once-freely available medical studies having to do with fossil fuel/industrial exposures and their actual health effects to make it difficult for the impoverished general public to access such information does not do away with reality, any more than re-framing public health as industry control of the people determining what they are permitted to consume and purchase and what it's allowable to forcibly expose them to in order to 'cut costs' for Big Business and off-load health costs and suffering/premature death onto society and individuals makes this destruction of human and environmental health and life sustainable or 'acceptable' to the sane.
Edit: (in case this wasn't obvious,) a major point of the above being that the same corporations supporting Clinton believe that any freedom of choice or access to accurate information retained by The People which has the capacity to prevent the maximization of their anticipated future profits is just the worst and most evil thing in the world, so that it's easy to guess at the likely origin of these 'anti-vaxxer/anti-GMO' claims.
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.
Oh yes, it's a "perfect storm" of people for whom corporations
can do no wrong and $hillary can do no wrong. There has always been a group Over There who has been anti-anti-vax and anti-anti-GMO. Same people usually. (I consider that odd because I am pro-vax but anti-GMO, and I think the science pretty much backs up those positions - odd as in, such a stance makes me figure that the holders of such are very likely paid by the industry).
Now that they can use that stance to smear Jill Stein, they are only too happy to do so. It fits the anti-anti-vaxxers in even better with the site's stated purpose of supporting Dems.
Pro-vax is different from anti-anti-vax because my position is much like Dr. Stein's: I understand anti-vax concerns, and I don't think it's necessary nor helpful to be derisive or dismissive of anti-vaxxers. But despite what is probably less than ideal vaccine production, the fact remains that a measles outbreak or other truly miserable and potentially deadly disease without vaccination is a much higher risk than vaccine risks at this point, so unless your doctor agrees you have a specific reason for avoiding vaccines (such as allergies), it makes sense to vaccinate, it is the far lower risk. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I do try to play by Kos' rules; it's his Web site. But just because I wouldn't discuss the above over there because it's what he calls CT doesn't mean it's out of bounds just to say, "Jill is not anti-vax" or "Yes I agree that there is some question about vaccine timing". But I'm not fighting it. Not rating saves me some time.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
It is a press conference!
Banana Republic Style!
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I went to that AP story. Even the AP had to acknowledge that
her trust issues are her own fault!
But living in Delusional Land is what happens when you surround yourself with yes-people.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
It is our job as progressives to keep pushing her Left
Look, it is not a big secret that Hillary if she were running 30 years ago would be a Republican. She and her Neo Liberal cohorts are out to destroy America just in a different way than Republicans.
With that said if on election day the choice is still between Trump & Clinton (I am not so sure it will be) Clinton is the banner choice. With that said, we do not need to be cheerleaders for Hillary since we know that anything coming out of her mouth is subject to change. Progressives need to be very wary of Clinton and try and force her into as many definitive public statements about support for progressive issues and values as possible.
It will be a battle to hold her on the left as that is not where she is comfortable or what she is paid to believe in. The bottom line is Hillary is a horrible candidate and will be a horrible president for the middle class. Her one saving grace is although she is a hawk who will keep us engaged in wars around the word at least she will not blow it up, there is that!
Nope, sorry
Gah, get this mess of Clintonized English outta here. Seriously. It's not my job to vote for Her because she's better than Trump, and then make that woman a Democrat by "pushing her Left". She's a dishonest right-wing Republican hack. At best.
Say whatever you will, she's never getting my vote.
#GreenPartyNOW
Hold a President's feet to the fire?
As we were able to do with Barack "Make me do it" Obama? (not)
Been there; was unable to have done that. Don't realistically expect I'll ever be able to do it.
However, if you have specific ways we can force a President to do good things he or she does not want to do or specific ways in which we can stop a President from doing bad things he or she wants to do, please share the specifics.
I know FDR also said, "Make me do it," or words to that effect, but he didn't mean it any more than Obama did. Besides, given how much FDR accomplished in his first 100 days in office, I doubt anyone had time to make him do anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27...
Oh, and it is not our job to make politicians govern well, any more than it's the job of politicians to make certain I perform well at my job. Their zeal and desire to govern well is are base line qualifications for the job.
I don't know when Democrats will grasp that neither the old memes ("hold him/her accountable," pony, unicorn, etc.) nor the old scare tactics (Supreme Court, this is election when it REALLY matters, the sky is falling, etc.) will cut it anymore. Earn my vote or not--and dishonest, untrustworthy, neocon Hillary can never earn my vote.
Candidly, Dr. Stein hasn't earned it, either. However, of all the candidates running for President this year, my views align most closely with those of the Green Party. So, she will get my vote.
#JillnotHill
LGBTQ community did it, and successfully
Remember how in the beginning of Obama's term he gave them nothing. Then they started chaining themselves to the railings of the WH and/or embarrassing him publicly? That's when he got on board.
It won't work with Clinton, they respond to public pressure with spite and vituperation.
LGBT bundlers and donors, not demonstrators.
A disproportionate number of Democratic bundlers are members of the LGBT community. He needed them to run again and they put their feet down. He also had quite a few big donors in the LGBT community.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/how-many-obama-bundlers-are-...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/politics/lgbt-obama-donors/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-embraces-gay-supporters-at...
People looking for a strong public option, an end to war, an end to force feeding hummus enemas and a whole host of other things demonstrated, petitioned, importuned and the like and got nowhere.
The donor supported was certainly important.
And Obama is/was vulnerable to pressure involving public shaming/embarrassment. It's a quirk of his personality we on the left failed to take full advantage of.
Aside: A friend of mine is one of those bundlers in San Francisco and he was full on Clinton fan right from the off. Could never figure it out. In every other respect we are in complete agreement on politics, policy.
What is this push
to lay blame on "The Left" for not pushing a politician hard enough? Can we just stop pointing fingers and doing this? It is not our fault these people are corrupt.
What blame?
There is no blaming anyone going on.
Interesting that you see some, or more accurately project it onto others.
Please don't do that.
This blame
Interesting that you don't find that statement to be an attempt to assign blame--blaming someone for failing to take advantage of a politician's "personality quirk". It's as if you find it to be an authoritative statement, though.
Please don't assume that all readers will react to it in that way.
Donors, bundlers, fundraisers, volunteers, all of it.
It was about his re-election. The HRC had been on him from day one. He did not do much until he was running for re-election.
As my prior post stated, there were other demonstrations, petitions, criticisms, whatever, that got nowhere. Certainly, there were plenty around Medicare for All, a strong public option, the war, GITMO, Chelsea Manning, etc. Moyers did shows on PBS about them. Then, of course, there was Occupy Wall Street, when his Homeland Security got 18 mayors, most or all Democratic, on the phone and people landed in the hospital.
HRC
I ran into confusion with those initials last week trying to ask a delegate from my state if she'd bought into what Human Rights campaign Fund was selling in tandem with HVF at the convention. Sounds like the pledges of support were skin deep, as it were.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Yes. I agree.
However, those did not attempt to personally embarrass Obama. The LGBTQ protests did.
I maintain that Obama has a personality trait that makes him more vulnerable to direct, unavoidable, public embarrassment of himself personally. Not indirectly by protesting at venues where he is not made to confront it.
We could have exploited that more, we didn't.
Our statements are not contradictory.
asdf
why didn't you sound the alarm before his last year in office ended?
Pray, enlighten us all with exactly how you would have "exploited" this "personality quirk", so we can all see what we should have been doing all this time...
I just don't see it--or him--as you do.
As my prior posts stated, I think people held demonstrations against Obama's actions that should have embarrassed him plenty, even in Hawaii; and he stonewalled them just fine. However, when it came re-election time and a tenth of his bundlers telling him what was what, he put in a call to a reporter who had not yet come out to her audience as gay, even though she was very ill at the time he called her, and asked her to travel to D.C.
I think Obama gave that interview about how his kids allegedly changed his mind because he knew he needed the bundlers and fundraisers and volunteers and voters for his re-election, period, and, in 2012, they weren't about to work for him until he gave that interview. Although this is sheer speculation on my part, it could be that HRC, which had been meeting with him throughout his first term relatively quietly, even said it would recommend that members of the GLBT community not vote for him.
I don't believe politicians respond to petitions, calls, demonstrations, emails, etc., anymore, if ever they did. I think we cling to the belief that they do because it comforts us and makes us feel as though we have at least some power. In a nation of about 350 million, even 100,000 demonstrators are a drop in the bucket. I know of not a single legislator who changed his or her vote because of demonstrations, let alone an online or real life petition, thousands of emails or any other feed back from the public, embarrassing or not.
When it comes to interfering with their desire to be elected or re-elected, however, they strive to at least compromise with those they see as obstacles to their personal ambition, much as Hillary gave the appearance of compromising with Sanders, to get the votes of his millions of supporters.
Forget protests. As long as we voters go along to get along, as long as we engage in LOTE voting, as long as we don't put both feet down about corruption, voting machines, etc., we just may deserve what we get--or don't get. I think we got a demonstration of that very recently, coincidentally, from President Obama, who pretended he had no idea what Trump means by "rigged election." Hell, even aside from the 2016 Democratic primary, Congress has held hearings about how easily voting machines are rigged and citizen groups are constantly lobbying about clean elections. Moreover, it's been Democrats, not Republicans, who yell about having head elections stolen from them--right up until it's time to either push a clean elections bill or get off the pot. At that point, they just quietly walk away from the pot.
Anyway, Obama knew exactly what Trump meant. Millions of Americans knew Obama knew what Trump meant and Obama had to know that millions of Americans knew that Obama knew. Yet, Obama was not the least bit embarrassed to pretend that he doesn't even understand a reference to a rigged election.
Norquist and the Tea Party showed us how.
Make them lose and claim victory! We don't even need to have or fund an opponent. Winning is that simple. We just refuse to do it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
a couple of things wrong with your analysis...
1) misspelling in this sentence: "...if on election day the choice is still between Trump & Clinton (I am not so sure it will be) Clinton is the banner choice."--should read, "...if on election day the choice is still between Trump & Clinton (I am not so sure it will be) Clinton is the bummer choice."
2) hillary doesn't have to be "forced" into making statements where she alleges she supports progressive issues/values--that's all she did during the primaries/caucuses, especially when the polls said bernie had a chance of winning them.
3) she's a disciple of henry fucking kissinger, so i don't know where you get the idea she won't blow the world up.
At this point, I prefer to encourage everyone to vote for Jill
Stein. If her numbers look terrible on election day, I might vote for Hill, but I doubt it. Hill is grabbing all the Repugs she can. Let Trump take the tiny minority, Hill take the centrist-right, and Jill take the middle-left. That should give Jill the majority. We could have the greater good, not the lesser evil.
That said, I am intrigued as far as what you think would work to push Hill to the left and hold her to progressive positions. We've already said, "Goodbye Dems, hello third party," and their response has been to scold us while Her Heinous continues to move to the right to grab those Repugs. What bigger statement can we make than "We will not vote for you," and once in office what else would she possibly care about?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Clintonites have decided on a game of chicken with Progressives
We have to win that game. Losing it would be worse in the long term than a Trump presidency.
There is no moral justification for voting for the slightly lesser evil.
Was it an Oakley product advertising No Fear?
That is where we must be, no LOTE votes again.
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.
Yes, they have
and we're already winning. We just need to stop letting ourselves be beat down by her shamers and blamers.
We have to win...
..but we don't unless she gets swapped out.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
What would hold her to progressive positions?
MONEY.
So since the majority of progressive positions seek to minimize privatization- therefore profit- progressive policies are anathema to her grain. We would have to build monied organizations that could lobby and influence her (w/ our money and power), and that would only perpetuate the core problem.
You cannot dismantle the master's house w/ the Master's tools.
Audre Lorde
Clinton the banner choice?
Even if I agreed with your assessment that Hillary Clinton will limit her destruction to brown and yellow skinned people, I would be considerably less sanguine than you are. I don't agree with you.
Hillary Clinton has already declared war on Syria and delivered an ultimatum to Iran; announced her standard for compliance is "distrust and verify;" and loudly proclaimed her intention to use force if Iran fails to measure up. (As far as I can tell Netanyahu has the final call on whether they've measured up.) So much for the people "not like us."
Clinton has also announced plans for a "no fly zone" in Syrian airspace that would order, with no justification in international law, the Russians to stop flying over a country with which they have been allied going back into the period where they were the Soviet Union. Her surrogates indicate she plans to increase lethal aid to the Ukrainian government. Maybe escalation will be limited to a civil war in which thousands of ethnic Ukrainians and thousands of ethnically Russian Ukrainians die. But can you count on it? Are you willing to bet the survival of the planet on it?
The US, significantly as a result of Hillary Clinton's activities as Secretary of State, is pushing Putin in a way that the United States has never pushed a Russian president. The origins of the tension are clear enough. Gorbachev made a huge concession to George H.
W. Bush. The Soviets withdrew forces from former Warsaw Pact members. In return the US pledged the eastern boundary of NATO would move from the inter German border to the eastern border of a united Germany and no further.
The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary were admitted to NATO in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were added in 2004. The total was rounded out with Albania and Croatia in 2009. The extent to which Georgia has moved down the path to NATO membership is a subject for debate.
Russia is signalling "no further" in every manner possible short of war. They are engaging in dangerous military maneuvers near US forces, particularly those in and near the Baltic Republics. By their nature these maneuvers increase the risk of accident. The US fits these confrontations into its theme of the horrible dictator Putin.
Donald Trump wears his mental problems on his sleeve, Hillary Clinton's are a bit more subtle. You have to discern them in such things as her reaction to the capture of a head of state who was subsequently beaten, sodomized with a bayonet, and murdered. "We came. We saw. He died." When Hillary Clinton becomes president lots of people are going to die. More of them may be Caucasian than you think.
This is a blog and should be made into one!
You have covered all the relevant ground, succinctly and clearly and especially the new "Gulf of Tonkin" behaviour to make Putin into the US's nemesis.
You are a dreamer.
Her heinous will not be pushed anywhere. All she cares about is wielding power, destroying what is left of the middle class, and destroying our children and grandchildren's future. She will never earn my vote. I'd rather see Herr Drumpf trounce her.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Pushing Medusa to the Left will be as useful as pushing
the incoming tide away from shore. One thing I know for sure, 100% in fact: you cannot believe a single word that emits from her mouth--well, the barking, maybe--but I'll have to ask my dog.
Could Hillary Lose?
Emphasis added. The Donald has successfully destroyed the Republican Party. Now it's the Dems turn.
More at this link: Could Hillary Lose?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Will Hillary lose?
There, fixed that for ya
The answer, of course, is
To fucking Donald Trump. Unless the DNC is better at vote-count rigging than the GOP is.
My only comfort this morning is in the knowledge that if they're both trying to rig the counts at the same time, they'll never get the Math right. But who's gonna know?
I found this interesting as well.
Warning: FOX News.
Hillary Clinton, Queen of Deception
Oh no.
Since everything at Faux is a lie, now I have to believe Hill is honest.
Thanks.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Worth clicking Eagles' link
Here's some of what is found, but there's more:
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Driving across Kansas yesterday
I ran across http://duolian.smugmug.com/photos/15040203-M.jpg
Keep in mind this was made when Hill was flotus (keeps changing to cloths).
A few others can be found at http://webpages.charter.net/dnance/concpark/mullinville.htm
Just for a Sat morning snicker.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
I hope it's like a tick bite
If ya can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.