Why I prefer that Hillary wins
Don't misunderstand me: I would prefer that Jill Stein wins.
In fact, I would prefer to get punched in the face several times if it would prevent Hillary winning.
But that isn't the choice before us.
I'm under no impression that Hillary will be anything other than a terrible president, but so would The Donald.
I personal don't care that Trump is a pig. It makes little impact on his ability to be competent as president.
His intentions to dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy, gut the EPA and Wall Street regulation, while continuing the GWOT and the surveillance state makes him a terrible choice for president.
On the other hand, Hillary would be only marginally better, if that.
In the recent Wikileaks revelations confirming Hillary Clinton’s duplicity, one of the clearest disclosures of her policy plans concerns her intention regarding Social Security. She stated that she would return to the position of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, charged with producing recommendations for reducing the deficit, i.e. cutting government social spending....
Hillary Clinton’s speeches to the captains of finance strongly imply that she would resume the project of privatizing Social Security. Hers will be a gradual, stealth approach. The opening salvo will be further cuts in benefits and extensions of the full-benefit retirement age. But these alone will not satisfy Wall Street. The privatization plan will be resurrected, first in the form of legislation once again to begin “partial privatization.” In the end, the objective will be to turn the program into a broker’s-fee-for-service plan entirely in the hands of Wall Street. Retired workers will no longer be unqualifiedly entitled to Social Security benefits. Their fortunes will be tied to the vagaries of the stock market and other speculative ventures favored by brokers. And retirees will pay for this “service.” There will be no refunds when the market goes belly-up.
What's more, if Hillary wins in a landslide, then we can expect the worst of both worlds.
The landslide will be a mandate for more permanent war, more favors for Wall Street, more privatization of the public sphere, more of the racist War on Drugs that feeds mass incarceration, more pipelines and fracking, more half-hearted action against climate change.
A landslide will give Ms. Clinton no motivation to repair the Affordable Care Act’s deep defects. She’ll feel no obligation to maintain her campaign-season opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she promoted vigorously as Secretary of State.
Ms. Clinton will interpret the landslide as a license to discard the modest populist concessions she made to keep Bernie Sanders’ supporters inside the Democratic Party fold.
Basically, the corrupt neoliberal, warmongering, political insider Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with our political system.
So why on Earth would I prefer that Hillary win?
Two reasons.
One reason is that she won't be winning in a landslide.
There’s been a potential breach of Hillary Clinton’s electoral firewall. And it’s come in New Hampshire, a state that we said a couple of weeks ago could be a good indicator of a Donald Trump comeback because of its large number of swing voters...
If Clinton lost New Hampshire but won her other firewall states, each candidate would finish with 269 electoral votes, taking the election to the House of Representatives.
There is no chance of the Dems winning the House, while the Senate appears headed for a 50-50 split. This makes it harder for Hillary to push through her awful agenda, than Trump would have pushing through his awful agenda (with exceptions, of course).
In a related point, there is Hillary's baggage.
If Hillary Clinton wins Tuesday, she’ll head into office under the cloud of two major FBI investigations, including one that’s reportedly “likely” to lead to an indictment....
At a minimum, it all guarantees that Congress will be probing Justice’s conduct — and demanding some sort of special prosecutor take over the case(s) should Clinton win the White House.
Now, even before Election Day, Hillary is facing two more serious probes. Americans already distrust her — and it seems those worries will only grow if she’s elected.
This is a sure recipe for political gridlock, which is the best we can hope for given these two terrible candidates.
The other reason I would prefer that Hillary wins:
The corrupt neoliberal, warmongering, political insider Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with our political system
Why is that a reason for me preferring she wins?
Because she is going to fail, and fail badly.
As the symbolic embodiment of everything that is wrong with our political system, it might finally cause Democratic voters to reject fear and embrace change.
Why is "nothing good can come of this" good? Because ridding the nation of its political corruption will require hitting bottom.
Just as an alcoholic or drug addict is incapable of making any truly positive changes until he/she hits absolute bottom, so it is with our tolerance of a corrupt political system that is poisoning the nation, one injection of corrupt cash, collusion and pay-to-play at a time.
I recently cross-posted Where is our Ferdinand Pecora?
The story was instructive that even as late as 1932, there was no real push for reforming Wall Street.
The status-quo had successfully defended the existing system until then.
Glass-Steagall didn't happen until the entire banking system had collapsed and had been discredited.
There is no chance of reforming our broken political system until it is similarly discredited.
TPTB will fight real reforms tooth-and-nail.
Republican voters have embraced real change.
Independent voters have embraced real change.
Non-voters have embraced real change.
Democratic voters voters have NOT embraced real change.
Sure, Bernie may have won 23 states, but most of those states were caucus states or open primaries.
Most Democratic voters are still paralyzed with fear, and they are holding us all back.
We need to be united in purpose as a people. We need to be so disgusted with the political system that the ruling elite can't drown us out. We need TPTB is actually fear us more than fearing the loss of a little of their power.
Only then will real change happen.
A majority of Democratic voters, as typified by TOP, are more interested in virtue signaling, cheering the team uniform, and trembling in fear of the Hitler-Of-The-Week.
More than anything, Democrats support check-box-identity-politics, and Hillary embodies this.
So will President Hillary discredit the current political system?
I believe she will.
First of all, Hillary is being set up to fail by the economic business cycle.
As I showed here, here, here, and here, we will be in a recession sooner rather than later, and the working class is already living on the edge.
Also, Hillary's military adventure is Syria will be a disaster (and here).
Hillary, the symbolic embodiment of everything that is wrong with our political system, is already distrusted and disliked.
When the economy sinks and her signature war ends in defeat, she will be discredited, as will the establishment that forced her on us.
Then maybe, just maybe, democratic voters will want something other than protection from false fears and false identities. Maybe they will finally demand real change.
Comments
no, not so much...
Among many things to not want, there is nuclear war. Well, and war. And more war. And death. No, I've thought and thought about this. No, never...
Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation
Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook
Trump is no pacifist either
It's not an either or choice
Portrayal of the evils of Medusa and the Hairball are accurate
The conclusion is inaccurate.
Hillary will not change. We all know #whichHillary. She is the Dog of War who will in her own clumsy way initiate WWW3 with "those damn Russians". Does anyone doubt it? The essayist pays little attention to the importance of this consequence of a Mad Bomber victory. We will have a chance to combat and perhaps undo the evils of Trump. We will not have chance to do anything, not even breathe when Hillary begins the Nuclear Winter (helluva way to stop global warming).
I'm assuming that Hillary won't start WW3
Otherwise there is no debate
Ooof
I'm trying to imagine what happens in your head if you stop assuming that. I got nothin' good out of the exercise ; -(
Her Heinous scares the hell out of me with all her Pentagon support. Seems to me like she can't wait to start bombing the hell out of the entire ME, so she can prove she's as tough as (if not tougher than) any man. Somewhere behind those dead eyes is a woman who wants to finish the job her husband was supposed to do, so she can show him How It's Done. And if that last sentence makes me misogynist, well, oh well. Far as I'm concerned, her husband sold out this entire country, between NAFTA, the Telecomm Act update and his Big Dog Foundation selling influence to any Tom, Dick or Achmed who wanted to buy a piece of the USA and fuck anyone else who happened to live in their way. If Donald Trump survives and wins the White House, I for one intend to hold him to his promise to go after them for all the shit they've done. And I'll bet he knows a whole lot more about that shit already than anyone has ever given him credit for to date.
My assumption is the opposite
The only way to distract us from her corruption and make congress heel is to turn herself into a war president. Plus there's a shit load of money and favors to be had in war.
Hillary will deliberately get us into war. Donald might accidentally get us into war. I'm voting for neither but being the peace nik that I am I'd have to go with Trump if someone was holding a gun to my head and making me choose.
Except...
Except Clinton has spent a lifetime building up Republican connections whereas Trump is a buffoon universally disliked by the old guard of his party.
Get ready for another eight years of Clinton supporters telling us the Republicans are worse. Clinton is the test case for a government that doesn't need to make promises. If she can win on nothing in 2016, she can win on nothing in 2020.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Cass, Clinton won't make it to 2020 due to natural causes
Brain freezes.
Poor rebooting.
Shut down and restart.
The most brilliant minds of Silicon Valley are on *Her* side
You thought Disney’s robotic Abraham Lincoln was great at the 1964 New York World’s Fair? ::Old Hawaiian mamasan lady dates herself once again.::
If Hillary died or became incapacitated, national security would be at stake! Would Silicon Valley love a chance to prove it can do something as secret and earth-shaking for the 21st century as the Manhattan Project was for the 20th? You bet they would!
With the Clintons in the White House, we might just see — while at first not realizing we’re doing so — history’s first Audio-Animatronic® president.
Sat, 11/05/2016 - 5:40am —
You mean that Hillary would get stuffed?
Like, with a cloth or something?
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.
Supposedly, they’re really working on it
https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/brain-initiative
https://www.singularityweblog.com/can-consciousness-be-uploaded/
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-how-can-my-consciousness-survive-indef...
If they get this consciousness up- and downloading thing working, taxpayers might even get two or more President Hillarys for the price of one.
You won the internets with this one.....
Nailed it.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
True, however...
fewer and fewer will believe them.
This pitch has worked well since 1980
It's not likely to fail now.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
It's wearing thin
as both Bernie's and Trump's support show. When pitches get this wild and the world gets this mad and cruel, people tend to stop being fans. If not the American public who love their bloody circus, the rest of the world's people are not invested in USA, USA, USA. Perhaps they will get the final say about wild out of control pitches. Hey the Cubs won anything is possible and always has been and always is. The 'pitch' of our politics is nothing but an indication of how deluded and sick this country is. Nothing is inevitable or static least of all the politics that are threatening to all people except the psycho's who think they are inevitable and want to rule the world. Think beyond the rigged American election cycles and start combating these fuckers globally. Solidarity and organizing locally and globally is more important then this farce of a 'selection'.
Can history teach us anything?
When a society's economic and political order collapses, what historically typically happens? Chris Hedges talks a lot about what he saw during his time in a number of war zones. And it seems generally that right wingers and violent nationalists take over. Link below is to a discussion between Hedges and Tariq Ali. One point noted by Ali is that the elites literally around the world have crushed the most minor of reforms where people are asking for no more than crumbs. Clinton and her refusal to support $15/hr min wage (and the fact she was clueless over the entire movement)? The list could go on. Hillary will shut down any attempts at "social democracy" as Ali calls it. Something will happen, but I am afraid it will not be reform.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/capitalism_collapse_elites_allow_po...
Now one point is that the Trump base seems to hate the traditional gop elites, and if something happens they will go if some more effective and hardcore version of Trump takes over. Look what happened with Mr. gop elite Roger Ailes when he tried to send Trump home after the first debate. Trump turned on Fox, and he won (and Kelly became hated by the right, and loved by Hillary democrats).
What typically happens
Walter Benjamin: "behind every fascism, there is a failed [socialist] revolution".
Whoever wins
will be a one term president. Why, you might ask?
--Banks are getting ready to fail again, and there will be another recession. Within the next year. This one will likely be worse than the last. No president will survive it.
If Clinton wins, democrats and "leftists" won't stand a chance. It will go back to the Republicans the following election.
If Trump wins, everybody is in the running, except Republicans. Having failed twice at becoming president, Clinton will be a nonstarter at that point--not to mention 4 years older and probably in worse health. Democrats will at least be running someone new by then.
I disagree. Congress will change, but the incumbent will
hold the Oval Office.
If Trump really is a fascist he’d *nationalize* the effin’ banks
and insolvent insurance companies. He’d bring a bill before Congress drastically reforming the Fed and putting money creation back under the Treasury. The hotel magnate would create the FDR-like impression that he was going to save the economy by putting its financial plumbing and housekeeping under his personal control.
And you know what? The country would cheer.
Unity among ordinary citizens all across the political spectrum would prevail — just as it did for one brief shining moment in time when the very first TARP bailout (Hank Paulson’s one page, no-questions, no-reporting, no-auditing bill) was proposed during the Bush-Obama interregnum, and everyone not in the Big Club yelled, “Oh, no, you don’t!”
Trump would fail, just as FDR’s measures eventually faltered — busy factories and full employment only being restored by world war — but in the meantime a lot of infrastructure would get built and maybe even single payer would get done. After all Hitler built the Autobahn and so on, and Dutch friends have told me that, hated as Hitler’s occupation of the country was, it was the Nazis who instituted universal healthcare in the Netherlands.
Whoever wins
will end up getting impeached or indicted soon afterward. At least they should.
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore
I've seen polls
suggesting that early voting in my state is favoring Clinton by around 50 to 30. Assuming this is anywhere near accurate, not only is Drumphy going down, there is also a fairly healthy third party showing, although it wasn't mentioned.
A little bright spot in the gonorrhea/syphilis election.
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore
Really?
The first exit poll taken in the 2016 presidential race was announced by iVote Israel, an organization that assists the quarter-million Americans living in Israel, who can vote only via absentee ballots.
Donald Trump has beat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton 49 percent to 44 percent. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson garnered 2 percent of the votes. The iVote Israel exit poll has 3 percent margin of error.
Americans in Israel, of course, generally vote Republican.
You poor, poor thing.
I would expect no less.
It's nice to have it in black and white, though.
Really nice.
[Web archive. Check.]
Instead of "The Nightly Business Report" on PBS
which talked tonight about the lack of growth in the US economy due to the upcoming election, we need The Nightly Climate Report.
Imagine if Stein gets over 5% and the Green Party gets Federal recognition? It would be a foot in door of our survival. We will not survive the world promoted by "The Nightly Business Report."
Good luck on Tuesday.
To thine own self be true.
When Hillary wins
The path forward for third parties will be closed forever. The new barriers that are quietly erected will be insurmountable sooner in the process. The Establishment and Permanent Federal Government will make certain that the terrible third-party vulnerability is welded shut, just like the un-amendable constitution is.
I presume that is what everyone wanted in not using their votes to directly defeat Hillary and the "Democratic" party, since it is the only possible outcome for the immediate future.
I am inclined to agree with them. It is for the best to eliminate tools that don't work, which only enslave Americans in hopelessly futile cycles of activism. By making third parties politically impossible, in practice, it opens the door for the development of truly effective tools for change. Someday.
Without President Hillary, this would have never been achieved.
I may reply further when more awake, but I do have an
initial reaction to "she won't win by a landslide." I don't think a narrow victory matters, as long as it's a victory.
Her husband did not even win by a slim majority. He won by only a plurality and only because Perot took votes from Bush. Yes, Perot also took some votes from Bubba, although Bubba may have brought that on himself with the Flowers mess. However--and I don't give a hoot what shill Maddow said about it--Perot was perceived as a rightist, not a leftist. (Remember, Bubba got NAFTA passed after he got in office, but Poppy had started it.)
Did a plurality victory humble Bubba? Or did Bubba act like the mouse who managed to get the biggest piece of cheese on the continent, going full bore in his first term with DLC triangulation? Billarycare (formerly HeritageFoundationCare), ending welfare as we know it (take that, New Deal types!), DADT, etc.
Bush the Lesser got re-elected with something like 50.02% of the popular vote. Did that humble him in his second term? Nope. It was not until the change election of 2006 that he acknowledged his party had taken a "thumping." He would never have done that if Republicans had been re-elected by narrow margins. With his razor-thin victory in the popular vote, though, he declared he had a mandate, or "capuhtull." With these clowns, "A miss is as good a mile" but so is a narrow win.
If she wins, she and the propaganda machine will declare victory, which will be very meaningful because she will, after all be the first woman President. With the aid of establishment media, she'll play a carefully orchestrated first term. As with Obama, we'll hear about all the marvels she will perform once she no longer has to worry about re-election. No one will primary her because the Dem Party has given up primarying incumbents. With voters, she will will have the incumbent advantage--perhaps even the formidable wartime incumbent advantage, and certainly the female voter advantage. And I shudder to think what that second term might be like.
In either case, her election, narrow or not, will reinforce the myth--a myth so strong it survived the 2010 and 2014 midterms, that traditional Democrats don't win elections, only neoliberal Democrats do.
It isn't the Republican Party that has sent wealth racing to the top these past 30 years faster than at any time in human history. It's that Democratic Party became Republicans, so no one is pushing back at the right. The DLC and Bill Clinton victory, albeit a plurality win, were the reason Democrats stopped pushing back on things like repeal of Glass Steagall, plus the perception of Bubba's alleged great success in office.(That's the strength of propaganda. He perjured himself and got himself impeached, let Osama go, etc.)
I believe a Hillary victory--a historic win by a woman no less--will seal the deal with the Democratic Party forever. Any shake up that Sanders' run may have achieved within the Party will recede in memory.
I haven't said it as coherently as I would like, but sealing the deal for the Third Way is the reason why I would rather see Satan in the Oval Office before Hillary. Plus, I think Satan would get one term while Hillary will get two if she wants a second. And somehow, I think she will want a second.
You are a respected poster, and deservedly so. You've earned it. I assume you are voting for Stein, but your OP may sway others to vote for Hillary over Trump, and maybe even Hillary over Stein. I hope with all my heart that does not happen.
Don't give up yet, Henry.
I intend to have the final word.
Give up?
Your final resigned paragraphs.
But now that I look at your words, I must ask: Who, exactly, do you think the Third Way is? Do they have a magazine? A manifesto? A headquarters? A leader? Alliances? A coalition of Third Way candidates? Do they have something other than a flimsy backstory and a self-funded think tank? Why do they profile like a "group" only Victoria Nuland could fabricate?
The Neocons who run the permanent unelected federal government at state and defense only need her for 18 months. It seems unlikely she would last more than two years. Analytical narrative that isn't centered on President Kaine always strikes me as cropped.
This was not the response I intended.
"Resigned" is your interpretation of my words, not mine.
If I were resigned, I would have understood your comment, rather than questioning. Actually, if I were resigned, I would not have posted at all. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.
Wow. I don't understand at all your point/attitude about the term "Third Way." It's the Al From/Clinton/DLC philosophy as it has spread and developed, including to some European politicians, Blair being an example. It's what Bubba expressly campaigned on in 1992, saying things like--not just Republican, not just Democrat, "but a Third Way" (lower case or upper case). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
The think tank named Third Way is named after the Third Way political philosophy, not the other way around; and the think tank named Third Way is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the sole repository of the Third Way philosophy.
Every Democratic think tank in existence today that I know of espouses the Third Way philosophy. Specific examples include The Progressive Policy Institute (offshoot of the DLC, formed by From and Marshall, the first two employees of the DLC), Center for American Progress (Podesta's), the New Democrat Network (formed by Clintonite and former DLC employee, Simon Rosenberg), etc. (The New Labels think tank has expressly taken it to the next step.)
Whether or not they self-identify as such, most current holders of elected office who identify as Democrats are also Third Way, including in my city and state. So are the vast majority of Obama's appointees who do not identify as Republicans. Think every Democratic office holder who closed ranks around Hillary and against Sanders in 2016. Perhaps they did not all start their political careers as Third Wayers, but they "evolved" into it, especially after noting how successful Bubba was with it.
If you prefer "New Democrats," neo-liberals or "DLC types," to "Third Way," fine, but they all mean essentially the same thing---and a rose by another name smells the same. I've seen all of those terms used by professional journalists and commentators, as well as by posters, to describe philosophies that are basically alike.
What did you think "Third Way" meant?
Thanks for the clarification.
And right you are about the think tanks. The Neocons incubate the exact same way.
I just wanted to confirm that. Now I shall search to see if I can find any difference at all between Neocons and Third Wayers in terms of their impact on the world.
I apologize for "resigned," which I meant as showing acceptance that something unpleasant will happen or will not change. It was my interpretation, but I really don't know you well enough to do so. i hope to remedy that. You seem like someone very much worth knowing.
People claim there are differences.
You might start with the respective wikis, including the ones I linked in my prior reply to you, or some of these hits: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+difference+between+modern+ne...
Maybe there are/were significant differences between an old school neo-liberal and a classic neocon. However, I personally don't see a heck of a lot of difference between a contemporary neocon, on the one hand, and, on the other, a hard core Third Wayer like Hillary (aka, a 2016 neoliberal) and Will Marshall (former employee of the DLC, founder of the Progressive Policy Institute and signer of the PNAC letter).
Not seeing it may be my own shortcoming, but I don't see it.
IMO, the blurred lines are exactly why some of the prominent neocons who identify as Republican have announced they'll be with Her on election day. My guess is that she sees that as the ultimate victory of Third Way, while liberals see it as a huge minus in her column.
Thank you for the kind words and back at you.
Only a Democrat can dismantle SS, only a D can
get the bipartisan votes to do so.
Apparently, that fact eludes so many.
It may be biological. I can see no other explanation.
BINGO! Reagan raised fees and taxes; Bush famously raised
taxes;1 Bubba did away with FDR's welfare and Glass Steagall and passed The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 2(most prominent single cause of the 2008 economic crash in several nations), NAFTA (which was still pending when Poppy left office), the Telecommunications Act, DOMA, etc.
The red team fans in the stands remain silent or defend their guys over stuff for which they'd excoriate any Democrat; and blue team fans are mute or chockful of rationalizations when it comes to their guys.
But, as the blue guys act more and more like the red guys and more and more people who lived something else pass on, this may stop. A lot of the red stuff will seem simply like normal governing, "just the way it is."
1 Bush may not actually have gotten away with it, but then again, there was the Perot factor in 1992. I heard a commenter on TV "explain" once that people had simply misheard Bush, claiming that what Poppy had actually said was, "Read my lips: No nude Texans."
2 One of Bubba's tricks relating to RW bills was to lobby Democrats hard for an alleged "veto-proof majority," so he did not have to take responsibility for things like Gramm, Leach, Bliley or the CFMA of 2000. I expect The Hillary to do the same, if elected.
Another of his lies was claiming he had done something only to stave off a Constitutional amendment (e.g., DOMA). (Hillary used this same excuse for her two flag-burning bills. They failed; still no Constitutional amendment! No surprise. http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution)
And, of course the CFMA of 2000 finally got wrapped into a 2000-page bill, passage of which Republicans claimed was necessary in order to avert a shutdown of government. So, of course, poor Bubba was helpless there as well. Isn't it funny how, before the election, electing the "right" President will save the entire world, while electing the wrong one will doom it, but, once elected, the President is helpless?
Anyway, gridlock and government shut down almost seem like the best results for which the 99% can hope from these RW clowns of both the largest political parties. If they do anything at all, it will be RW; and I may prefer nothing at all to more RW stuff disguised as "pragmatic progressive."
Henry, a quote you can live by
Or nott. The buck stops with Killary--then we all stop.
Thanks, Ed, but I was planning to live by "No Nude Texans."
Sorry, duplicate comment
Why I'm for Donald
School Choice
Supreme Court
Secure Borders
Lowering of Corp Income Tax (will bring jobs back)
Term Limits
Repeal of Obamacare
Renegotiation of NAFTA
Defeat of TTP
Outlaw of Sanctuary Cities
Strengthening of Military
Moritorium on Regulations
While not my first choice ANYTHING is better than Hillary Clinton - a fence post, a pet rock, Satan (oh that's redundant)
HenryWallace complained about your first post at c99
But I think your second post wins the prize.
Seems like a very “vanilla” Trump talking points list . . .
Nothing against the occasional contrarian opinion, but they could put a little effort into it, at least.
“Look, everyone! I got through Level One of the ‘Election 2016’ video game!”
I'll put it this way:
I know many liberals who want to see Trump defeat Hillary, including me. However, I don't know any liberals who want to see Trump win for those reasons.
What on earth?
You respond to someone's second post on this board by calling me out and negatively mischaracterizing that three-word response I made to his or her first post over a month ago?
For the record, I questioned maquignon's first and puzzling post on this board, which is not the same thing as complaining about it.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/184763#comment-184763
Your hope will be realized, Hillary will be elected
She will control the DOJ,SOS,DOD,FDA etc. While establishment Republicans will scream about the rigged elections (and this one will be rigged make no mistake), they will immediately act with her to enact TTP, compromise SS, etc, and with much theatrical acrimony, confirm her pro neoliberal nominees to the Supreme Court. She will get her war(s), and her revenge on whistleblowers. She will not be impeached, and she will get a second term. The daily drama will be intense, but it will exist solely to placate the millions of Trump and Bernie supporters who are, lets face it, less than road kill to the powers that be of both parties.
I believe that if Trump were elected, but as Julian Assange so calmly stated, "he will not be allowed to win," the chaos in DC would be real, not theater. None of the goofy measures Trump has flung out at one time or another would be enacted, and neither would any more foreign trade treaties.He will face the same financial meltdown that Clinton is facing, but he would not attempt to control it by starting new and better wars.He and Pence will be spinning their wheels for 4 crazy years and he would never get a second term.
I consider Trump far less dangerous to democracy than Clinton.
Your analysis looks pretty precise to me.
I thought this was a particularly poignant way to describe the throwaway people:
You can't beat domestic issues when it comes to kabuki (aka, total global unawareness). The fact that Americans have not a single human right makes for a bottomless grab bag of domestic "issues."
However, I did want to point out that this issue:
May not be as dire as it sounds. The fact is, the TPP cannot be enacted from inside the United States. All 12 of the participating nations must sign on, and they are rapidly souring on it, including Japan and Malaysia. They have good reason not to join the US trade blockade against the Chinese. The US has little credibility left after 2016.
Follow Assange -- voter preferences don't determine the results
Assange has commented that Hillary will win the election regardless of who anyone votes for. It is delusional to think that voter preferences have anything to do with how the next president is selected -- in a system that is totally rigged. I watched them rig the election when Bill ran. Knew who had the ID's for the hundreds of dead people who would vote and watched them bring young people from the School for the Blind into the voting both -- misleading them as to which lever was which in case they preferred the other guy. If the Wikileaks messages regarding how they stole the primary haven't reached you, keep on fantasizing that every vote counts.
The $Hill was selected by the oligarchs
as long ago as 2012/2013 -- we pretty much KNOW who is going to lead the US into the Brave New World following the 2016 campaigns --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
Hillary voters have better motivations than Trump voters
Hillary and Trump may both be corrupt, narcissistic and abusive people (I think Trump is a little more disgusting), but their supporters are different from each other. Clinton supporters have much more peaceful, cooperative motivations and a lot less bigotry. Yes they do have a false sense of superiority and knowing better that, I think, irritates Trump supporters (and everybody else), but I think America is better off as a country of manipulated Clinton voters than a country of manipulated Trump voters. The Clinton matrix offers less violent illusions than the Trump matrix. It's a little bit of a burden to be outside both matrices. We got a lot of work to do to fight the brainwashing media.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Lol!
Surely you jest
Illusions not reality
The Clinton illusions are more inclusive and nurturing than the Trump illusions.
Beware the bullshit factories.
My fears and identities are not false.
"Then maybe, just maybe, democratic voters will want something other than protection from false fears and false identities"
My fears and identities are not false. I don't have the luxury of rationalizing why Trump would be better for us.
I voted for and campaigned hard for Bernie Sanders in the primaries. I will be voting for Hillary this time, not by choice, but under duress. And I want her to succeed, not fail. I am a colored woman living around armed racist Tea Party conservatives. Ammon Bundy's wife and kids live half an hour's drive away. I need Supreme Court justices who uphold the rights of people of color and women. I am surrounded by The Idaho Three percenters. My Hispanic friends live in fear of the police, of losing everything. I am not Hispanic, but could be mistaken for one.
Voting Jill Stein and getting a Teavangelical in the Supreme Court as a result does not help me. I also find it disconcerting that most of the commenters here do not find Trump's misogyny and open hostility to most of the population a deterrent from voting for him. You do not understand living in fear around people like my neighbors. Never have, never will.
That must be hard to have to deal with that
multiple times, every day.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I, too, prefer that Jill Stein wins --
... and if not Jill, then Trump. Very simple -- The $Hill has a history - an ugly one; WE KNOW what is going to happen when/if she is elected, and it ain't gonna be pretty. OTOH, The Donald is a COMPLETE UNKNOWN -- nobody, especially including the repug "leadershit", knows what he might do. A bit of room for some "Hope&Change" there --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
Uh, what about
1. "Iran is not complying with the treaty and if I need to use a nuclear weapon… it's not off the table" followed by:
2. (and after that) "a military response to Russian and Chinese hacking" Followed by:
3. "If Trump gives the order to launch the generals might not obey, but when I give the order…"
Mommy, I don't want to die.
On to Biden since 1973
Always eagerly read your
Always eagerly read your essays/comments for obvious reasons, but would like to add a few points from the peanut gallery, if I may.
Laws, rules and even reality do not apply to the Clinton's...
Hillary's seemingly been pretty much exerting control, (one might assume at least in part through the borrowed power of her donors and the notorious vindictiveness of her nature,) throughout the State and Justice Department without even being in public office; can it be assumed that she actually feels that she requires a landslide or even an actual uncheated Presidential win to take over whatever she feels belongs to preciousssss her?
In the past, as 1st Lady and as Secretary of State, this included public property even to White House and State Department furniture she'd stolen (and been forced to return) when leaving each establishment? Dunno if there was anything worth stealing for furniture in the Senate, though...
If anyone wants to wade through the Committee report on what might be done about curbing future theft by the Clintons or any other light-fingered politicians, here's an URL which might be handy for future reference, as I'm tired to the point of almost seeing double and only wish I could sleep lying down, lol.
Looks like this committee was started for the Clintons... I took an illustrative chunk of text from the point where I stopped skimming over it.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-107hrpt768/pdf/CRPT-107hrpt768.pdf
If Hillary'll steal elections and other people's resources, countries, democracies, lives and health for money, will she have any compunctions regarding her stated intention of making insecure/effectively stealing people's paid-into and guaranteed at least reliable (if insufficient) old age pensions for a share of additional Wall St. money, regardless of electoral circumstances?
Will Hill and Bill allow any impediments to their imagined-as-limitless - and typically unopposed - exertion of power unless imposed by the very richest and most powerful they might hope to gain more from?
Will Republicans oppose these very richest and most powerful donors's (for whose favour they competed against Hillary and lost) wishes?
Can anyone 'legally' do so under the offshored law of the TPP which Hillary promoted as Secretary of State and which Obama is trying to shove through as soon as the coronation is completed, when the public interest has no standing in this involved-corporate/billionaire-access-only global corporate court, granted totalitarian power with a traitor's signature from each betrayed country, with a rotating panel of their own corporate lawyers playing judge in determining payment of corporate/billionaire lawsuits against various publics in various countries around the globe who may have failed - by trying to protect themselves/their pets/children/country/ecology/food/water supply against to-be-unlimited corporate/billionaire pollution, poisoning, privation and other predation - to achieve in each case the future self-determined maximization of the profits of involved corporations and billionaires?
The public of each country then exists only to provide that self-determined amount of maximized industry profit to thousands of potential claimants, even if only though massive law-suits which they cannot appeal, while suffering though the unlimited abuses of each and every one, with no recourse.
How are even the best-intentioned politicians to make a difference to the condition or length of the survival of the people and environment when global law dictates that only the profit of the few matters?
Jill is the only Presidential candidate now running who will object to domestic law being illegally and unconstitutionally offshored to profit hostile self-interests - and Hillary actively worked toward achieving this goal, now evidently regarded as Obama's legacy to the corporations and billionaires, the latter of whose ranks he seemingly wishes to join as a venture capitalist in Silicone Valley after leaving office.
One reason (of many) I have little-to-no faith in the counter-coup claimed to be in progress is that it's claimed to be a citizen coup with no mention of the corporate coup/Trojan Horse 'trade deal' mechanism and the impression given is that the removal of some number of corrupt politicians/would-be politicians (the Clintons are not in public office at this point and haven't been for some time) fixes the worst of it.
A real counter-coup would have this as the greatest hazard, not just the local conspirators involved.
And if the next President and the people accept this hostile corporate take-over and the pretense of authority actually belonging to nobody to do it, yet outrageously claimed by traitorous public servants, what pacific, legal repair can be instituted by anyone against corporate 'law'?
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.
Pages