Mike Pence proclaiming Imperial Global War, Inc.™
For those who are calling for Trump’s impeachment and mean ‘removal from office’, look who’d be the 46th President of the US of A: a Christianist Evangelical for Global Supremacy…by any means necessary.
From John Wight’s ‘Mike Pence declares war on the world at West Point’, RT.com, May 29, 2019:
“The commencement address Trump’s VP, Mike Pence, gave to West Point graduates recently goes down in history for all the wrong reasons.
It was an address [< Time Magazine’s coverage w/ the ID politcs featured] littered with war talk that was so extreme it was more compatible with a speech you would expect to hear from a character in a Hollywood spoof than from a leading politician and government official.
This was no spoof, though, be assured, and as such the world needs to wake up to the fact that this administration is staffed with enough cranks and crackpots to fill an entire ward.
Here, for your consideration, is one of the more tame sections of Pence’s West Point commencement address: “It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life. You will lead soldiers in combat. It will happen. Some of you may even be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.”
The country that instantly springs to mind upon reading the above passage is Venezuela, which for the past few months has existed in the crosshairs of US aggression, subjected to savage economic sanctions which according to Washington-based think tank, Center for Economic and Policy Research, have killed more than 40,000 people since they were introduced by the Trump administration in 2017.”
Indystar.com has the transcript of the speech; I’ll add a few more:
VP last week to grads: Be prepared to be ridiculed for being Christian
“…just a few months ago, your Commander-in-Chief proposed the largest defense budget in American history: $750 billion to ensure the strongest fighting force in the history of the world becomes stronger still. We fund an end strength of more than 2 million active and reserved military personnel. We’ll modernize w armored brigade combat teams, and we’ll also provide resources for 12 battle force ships, 2 large unmanned surface ships, and 110 fighter aircraft.
And with that renewed American strength, the United States is once again embracing our role as leader of the free world. We’re standing with our allies and standing up to our enemies.
America will always seek peace, but peace comes through strength. And you are now that strength.
Some of you will join the fight against radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of you will join the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific, where North Korea continues to threaten the peace, and an increasingly militarized China challenges our presence in the region. Some of you will join the fight in Europe, where an aggressive Russia seeks to redraw international boundaries by force. And some of you may even be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.
Spoke with courageous Interim President @Jguaido of Venezuela by phone today. Told him America will continue to stand with Venezuela until freedom is restored! The people of Venezuela are suffering under dictatorship and oppression. Nicolas Maduro must go. #VenezuelaLibre
— Vice President Mike Pence (@VP) May 29, 2019
Now Nick Turse had famously dug deep into past budgets, and had discovered that the actual money the Pentagon spends is just shy of double the publicly stated budget. But back to John Wight: He’d said that no one could be faulted for thinking Pence’s speechwriter was drunk, but Pence sure wasn’t as he delivered it. Me, I’d guess the speechwriter was sort of amphetamine…or both.
“On a more serious note, empires are sustained over the long term by the force of their idea not the idea of their force. And when the idea is no longer sufficient to sustain them and all they have left is force, nothing can halt their decline. Of this, history leaves no doubt.
Consequently, it is now self-evident that the Empire of our time, emanating from Washington, is in decline. And in decline it has entered its mad dog days, lashing out at enemies it has cultivated in the course of trying to force and sustain its writ across the world, growing ever more aggressive and bellicose in a desperate effort to maintain and sustain the hegemony it has enjoyed for far too long.”
A burgeoning and out of control military budget, which this year is set to reach $750 billion, one that’s bigger than the military budgets of every other advanced country and economy combined, sends a message to the world, not of strength but weakness, not of security but insecurity, and not moral superiority but moral inferiority.
It also constitutes an attack on the American people themselves, on the basis of the sentiments enshrined in former President Dwight D Eisenhower’s ‘Chance for Peace’ speech in 1953:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
Wight ends by advising Mr. Trump, John Bolton, Mr. Pompeo and neocons everywhere to heed Eisenhower’s message for the sake of us all and yourselves, and to choose Life…instead.
(cross-posted from Café Babylon)
Comments
from the twittersphere:
If
this were a democratic president, the republican party would put a stop to it.
More proof that there is only one party........MIC.
Fully supported by the duopoly.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
that the massive publicly stated
military budget has duopoly decision, the D team famously raising the number the pentagon had asked for because: Russia, i'm not so sure you're right. come to think of it, are the hundreds of billions to israel's military in the pentagon budget? but i'm thinking back to bill clinton's bombing of both somalia (for a mineral i've forgotten by now) and kosovo (a socialist government) whose leader milosevic was posthumously exonerated from war crimes after he died in the hague prison. obomba's massive wars? but did any Rs object? not that i remember
but i'd just started reading an essay by caleb maupin on neoconservatives i might be able to shorthand later if there's time. but even he made it seem like mixing in pence's evangelicalism caused a strange brew alliance with say, reagan neoconservatism. but i'm likely bolloxing it all up, so i'll hush for now. ; )
He's a true nutcase, as are Pompeo, Bolton,
and their boss Trump. But they're not making this up on their own, it's a Washington consensus to try to rule the world. What he's saying really isn't any different than what Biden or even Warren and Sanders in a more veiled manner would say. The democrats aren't opposing the 750 billion budget, or the overall 1.4 trillion war/spy/control machine. He talks about North Korea, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, the same bipartisan targets.
In other words, I don't think it matters who is president or what party is in control, the agenda is set and there's no backing off now. The capitalist/imperialist/industrial complex pull is too strong and the ultra rich are in charge.
Although, if they really believe the shit they do, the evangelical, rapture bullshit and think they're on some kind of mission from god, then they, especially Pence and Pompeo, might be crazier than any of them.
On a side, funny how with the recent increases to the imperialism budget, now up to 750 billion, there's been zero talk about the budget deficit or national debt. They have to avoid that for now, but it's got to come up soon and will revolve around the social programs. The duopoly will not go for medicare for all especially under these circumstances. A lot has to change.
i guess i do
see pence and pompeo as believing they're on a mission for god, though the latter to a lesser degree i'd think, but then i think his sociopathy was formed at any early age...and i'd guess he was raised by a bullying father who'd belittled him, but that's what he oozes to me in his body type and defensive, then gun-slinging posture; oh well. ; ) and yes, those targeted enemy nations (plus iraq and still afghanistan from pence) are the usual ones, save for he oddly hadn't mentioned china (mebbe the speech writer'd mislaid his crib notes, but that just occurred to me.
no, i think empire is locked in for the near future, with only some minor variants around the edges. and of course more TINA grand bargains are on the way; but there's always room for War-O, and selling weapons or war abroad.
'the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.' ~ MLK, jr.
no, we export Democracy! and free citizens from Tyrannical regimes! sorry, i'm pretty depressed about it all, and it's hard to be philosophical about not being able to handle a multi-polar world. that, of course, will be amerika's ultimate downfall.
Much prefer Pence
in office before re-election time than Trump. Far easier to beat.
But soft and polite Dem leaders are still timid and seem not inclined to want to do the right thing and begin formal impeachment hearings. Unless there is a major downturn in the economy or stupid major war that goes south, at this point T looks hard to beat, whether with a progressive or centrist Dem.
you may be correct
that he'd be easier to beat, but i wouldn't bet on it. but you seem to want impeachment hearings to begin? on what grouns, might i ask? the article that says close to 'if a prez is a true nutbar' he should be removed from office?
Pence doesn't have
nearly the personal appeal, or rough charisma, of the Donald. And religious nuts only comprise a portion of DT's base.
Trump's HC&Ms would certainly include obstruction of justice, violation of federal campaign finance laws, violation of the Emoluments clause of the Con, and probably numerous violations of federal tax law if Ds could see the returns.
I think the prez being a mental case, which Trump might well be, falls under the 25th Am process.
thanks for enumerating possible
grounds for impeachment (plus article 25) but do you have idea of what it takes to 'impeach' then how many votes to 'remove from office'? first house investigates, then 2/3 of the senate? pretty hard row to hoe.
i dunno historically evangelicals have been pretty well-represented and popular, including their wars, but even though it won't likely happen, i wanted to introduce folks to mike pence whom gawd loves.
The Watergate
formal public investigation began, early 1973, at a time when Nixon's approval numbers were in the mid-60s and there weren't nearly enough votes in the senate to convict. First a proper, public investigation was needed, to uncover evidence and lay it before the public in a massively publicized way, then with some key revelations and testimony of insiders, the house of cards began to fall and Nixon was exposed. At that point even hardcore R loyalists in the senate began to at least get nervous about their support. Public support for Nixon eroded substantially, and the reps took notice.
Dems need to begin the formal Impeachment process to get MSM and public attention, and they need that process to better ensure that Donald will be forced to comply. Making it a formal Impeachment proceeding makes it harder for the fed courts to deny Congress their right to WH and Trump documents. Impeachment is clearly spelled out in the Con, and it's clearly understood that Congress cannot go about their business without the WH being compelled to comply.
The 2/3 vote needed might come after this several-months Impeachment process, or it might not. Either way Dems almost certainly will have produced enough evidence to show the public that Impeachment and Conviction is warranted, and this formal process will put tremendous pressure on Rs as to whether they will act to uphold the Constitution or will choose party loyalty instead. It puts them on the record. It also would likely damage Trump enough in the public mind to put his re-election in jeopardy.
Currently the Dems' half dozen investigating committees in the House are ineffective in getting needed documents and in reaching the public and the process is unlikely to produce results. It all just looks like a fishing expedition and Donald will successfully portray it as such to his supporters and he will likely get another 4 yrs of authoritarian rule. Time for the Dems to stop being so timid. Nancy Pelosi needs to step up and show bold leadership for a change. But I wouldn't bet too much on this happening.
i appreciate you
sharing your thinking in such detail, but i really don't care muh if he's removed from office, myself. a commenter at the café just reminded me that it was the D team who'd flipped out about his #TreasonSummits w/ russia and north korea, and seem more eager than he i to commence new wars of choice. yes, plenty of bluster, bellicosity, and bravado, but mr. wd had mentioned recently that we're not hearing much from bomb-them-all bolton.
and yes, nixon resigned rather than be removed for cause, but clinton was only censured.
I very much doubt
there will be much of a democracy left in this country if Donald gets another 4 yrs, but as I noted above, it's a win-win for Dems whether or not conviction occurs in the senate. Donald at that point would be damaged sufficiently so as to make his re-election problematic at best. But without that formal process being undertaken, he is likely to squeeze out another election victory, unless a major economic downturn occurs, which is possible next year.
As to Clinton, he wasn't censured, iirc. That was a middle-ground option offered by some prominent Ds at the outset of the impeachment proceedings. But congressional Rs were firm about no compromise on impeachment, and they all fell in line and went through with it. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted in the senate, by a wide margin.
i'd ask you:
is there a democracy in this country now? not to my mind, at any rate.
well yes censured as far as this wiki page:
i dunno what might prompt a revolution of higher consciousness in this nation, but my guess it might be that the nuclear clock is close to midnight, and getting closer all the time. and as well: higher consciousness would say that those are our brothers and sisters in class who are so expendable to the ruling class they mean to invade, keep bombing to smithereens, starving, suffocating, and immiserating. that's all.
mr. wd had posited 'climate chaos', as the seas continue to boil and rise, but those deaths are for other people in the main. were i howie, that's what i'd talk about: mitigation as the oceans rise. but the rest of it's pretty baked in already, but at least the green new deal does have closing bases included, as well as a democracy NOT based on property rights, etc.
but then, one of the other 7 green candidates might get the nod from the green party; who can say?
Some remnants
of democracy still left and worth fighting for.
It looks like a fishing expedition
because it is a fishing expedition, not to mention abuse of power, abuse of process, and harassment.
Have you read anything about all the people who have been interviewed, all of the documents viewed, the number of personnel that were used for the Mueller investigation? Have you seen anything about how Trump waived executive privilege in a number of instances and was responsive to Mueller's document requests?
And now Congress wants to commit further resources, in addition to all the resources that have already been devoted by Congress to investigate all that is Trump? They want more, more, more.
Think about that. Why do they want more, more, more? Because they don't have sufficient material for impeachment, and the other gobbly-gook you cited isn't even worth considering. Or they want more, more, more so they can continue harassing the pres, his family, and his associates. After all, if they impeach, then it's over-and its unlikely Trump would be removed from office.
The Congress has been hi-jacked by people engaging in abuse of process and harassment, and they even have court judges furthering the process: Manafort has been ordered to Rikers to be kept in isolation for committing a financial crime!
Where is the ACLU?
Are you comfortable with the way the dems have abused power and processes? They can, and will, turn any of this power against you at any moment.
These impeachment efforts are purely political. The Constitution set certain parameters to prevent a purely political impeachment from happening.
But please proceed. I am sure I'm not the only dem person in the US considering never voting for a dem again because of the way they are shredding important, centuries-old, hard-won legal doctrines because of their inability to deal with an election loss. One election loss. That is all it took to send dems over the edge. They aren't fit to run anything if their fee-fees are overwhelmed so easily.
dfarrah
I have to agree with Big Al.
It doesn’t matter who gets elected - they will do the bidding of the oligarchs. They are in charge. Period. The entire system must change. Period.
"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
'the whole system's
got to change' is a much longer conversation, and big al and i disagree on that subject.
; ) but as long as every quadrennial circus most Ds vote for 'the best of the lot Ds, because again: TINA! it's the most important election evah to beat (whichever monster's in the white house) and 'i'm not gonna waste my vote on a green or libertarian'....we just keep going round and round....and round, and expecting different results. which is one definition of insanity.
have you ever voted for a presidential candidate you really thought would be different? guess jimmy carter was the only one i'd believed in. other than that, green all the way. and of course they can't win; them's the rules. ; )
Until the system changes,
it IS insanity. A different result won’t happen until the whole system is upended and reborn, so that longer conversation must happen.That’s the only way we will experience change.
"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
can you give
me a hint about what you mean when you say 'the whole system is upended and reborn'? for me, capitalism is what needs to be torn down and destroyed as it's at the root of war and imperialism, but almost no one here wants to vote for an actual socialist, do they? and i don't mean the DSA capitalist reformers who nibble around the edges a bit.
but as to my other Q about voting for prez candidates you had believed in? can you remember?
What's an actual socialist in your opinion? /nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
when we were young over in Germany in the early sixties
we believed in JFK. That didn't last very long, after MLK and Robert Kennedy got assassinated too. Nowadays we just watch and listen, if at all. Most don't do even that. We are not the "believer kind of people" most of the time.
My highschool teacher for the German language and literature watching us in class always said: "yeah, yeah, I know, thinking is painful", so he understood why we tried to avoid it and were stubbornly silent not answering his questions.
https://www.euronews.com/live
rotflmao on
"yeah, yeah, I know, thinking is painful". what i've discovered since is that JFK kinda sucked on the black civil rights and it took RFK to push him into it, plus hoo-boy, was JFK a cold warrior, and i do remember my parents wondering whether his moves were about to end us up in a nuclear conflagration with cuba/soviet union that night.
JFK didn't need
"pushing" by his brother on "the black civil rights". He was well aware of the issue and unlike FDR and Ike was not going to ignore it, and was also quite aware of how blacks helped him win in '60 (largely after JFK took the initiative to get MLK released from a particularly dangerous jail cell down south). It was a matter of the right timing for his proposed CR bill that had hopes of success of passing in a Congress where Kennedy did not enjoy a progressive majority. His VP, Lyndon Johnson, wanted to greatly delay introducing the CR bill, until all other Kennedy legislation had passed Congress. That would have meant an additional year's delay, an untenable situation politically and morally.
Historians are beginning to acknowledge that JFK's tv address to the nation on CR, in June 1963, was one of the greatest speeches ever given on that subject.
Cold warrior? You must be confusing JFK with his VP, Lyndon, the crude, ignorant cold warrior par excellence. JFK refused repeatedly to send combat units to VN, despite more than a dozen formal requests from his Joint Chiefs. He refused to send in US military to bail out the anti-Castro Cubans in the BoP. He refused to bomb and invade Cuba during the Missile Crisis -- almost alone holding out against this against a roomful of cold warrior advisers advocating for it. He aggressively pursued the Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets in 1963 despite Congress and the Pentagon and the public being against it. He sought a thaw in relations generally with the Soviets and with Cuba. He intended a joint US-USSR mission to the Moon by late '63, quietly scuttled by his successor. His "Peace Speech" at American University in June '63, which the Kremlin considered the best speech by a US prez since WW2.
Yeah, some cold warrior ...
His Vietnam escalation killed LBJ in more ways
than just politically. He died a scant 5 years later after stepping down from heart problems. Rec'd!!
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
LBJ came from a family
on his father's side where the men folk died fairly young. He was well aware of this, and so certainly wasn't planning on a long life, and wanted to reach the presidency before his genes kicked in. Dallas sure worked out for him real nice, didn't it?
thank you for the
corrections in my revisionist history thinking. on edit: check: the timing was wrong.
and revisionist history is as well; you and i must have watched different movies./s, as per the the cuban missile crisis wiki page, and who knows what the U-2 spy plane saw...:
The Kennedy administration had been publicly embarrassed by the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in May 1961, which had been launched under President John F. Kennedy by CIA-trained forces of Cuban exiles. Afterward, former President Dwight Eisenhower told Kennedy that "the failure of the Bay of Pigs will embolden the Soviets to do something that they would otherwise not do."[6]:10 The half-hearted invasion left Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev and his advisers with the impression that Kennedy was indecisive and, as one Soviet adviser wrote, "too young, intellectual, not prepared well for decision making in crisis situations... too intelligent and too weak".[6] US covert operations against Cuba continued in 1961 with the unsuccessful Operation Mongoose."
The 1962 United States elections were under way, and the White House had for months denied charges that it was ignoring dangerous Soviet missiles 90 miles (140 km) from Florida. The missile preparations were confirmed when an Air Force U-2 spy plane produced clear photographic evidence of medium-range (SS-4) and intermediate-range (R-14) ballistic missile facilities. The US established a naval blockade on October 22 to prevent further missiles from reaching Cuba; Oval Office tapes during the crisis revealed that Kennedy had also put the blockade in place as an attempt to provoke Soviet-backed forces in Berlin as well. The US announced it would not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the weapons already in Cuba be dismantled and returned to the Soviet Union."
but not a cold warrior; okay. sorry this thread became a debate on JFK, but i've always found his brother to be a much more sympathetic man.
but the very first swallowtail butterfly just cruised in as i was washing a few grimy windows. woot! last year we had 2, and maybe 3 monarchs. and yes, we've planted tons of butterfly friendly plants, it's just that when they fly first to the mountain flowers that bloom far too early now for sustenance...they die.
this isn't the thread
to go much further into all the above, but just wanted to give a strong caution about relying primarily on wikipedia for any subject which is remotely controversial, as VN and JFK are. W-pedia is hardly the bias-free.non-ideological source some think it is.
Author Sheldon Stern has done great work on the CMC with a fairly recent book or two on this subject. He's hardly a Kennedy apologist but overall gives JFK very high marks for resolving the crisis successfully w/o war -- alone in the room in seeking to avoid bombing Cuba and all that would result with the Russkies. If you want to know what was really said in the ExComm meetings during the crisis, Stern is the best source.
Bobby at that time was more hawkish in outlook; he evolved later in the 60s.
i know!
perhaps some Rooskie came and diddles w/ that wiki entry posing as Philip Cross!
but as to article 52, you'll love this: ‘House Democrats plan mental health panel to diagnose Trump in absentia’ RT.com
"While psychiatric associations strongly discourage their members from speculating on the sanity of patients they haven't personally examined, the event's leader, Yale School of Medicine's Dr. Bandy Lee, insists she's not actually diagnosing the president because anyone can tell he's crazy.
"The president's condition has been visibly deteriorating to the point where there's a lot of talk right now about his mental state beyond mental health professionals," Lee told the Washington Examiner. "It no longer takes a mental health professional to recognize the seriousness of the current presidency."
Lee hopes to set up a "medical panel" that would evaluate not only Trump's mental capacity but that of the numerous Democratic presidential candidates."
Heh, "article 52" --
sounds like you're dipping into UN Charter materials. I think you mean the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. But I will take all that as an innocent misstep, and not a sign of something more serious ...
As to talk of Trump's mental state and the 25th, Donald always has struck me as a crude, ignorant, entitled and well-inherited bully boy and con man, but not necessarily mental. And actually getting to the point where the 25th is invoked is an even longer shot than getting an impeachment conviction in the senate.
However I look forward to the town hall entertainment organized by that Yarmuth guy. Might be good for a few laughs and I could use a few these days.
I believe I read where
JFK was one of the few politicians who questioned the whole Viet Nam adventure. Supposedly, he received two different reports on Viet Nam and wondered which one was correct.
dfarrah
Yes, I forget how many times
but in the range of a dozen times that JFK during his short 2 yrs 10 mos said No to the Joint Chiefs formal recommendations that US combat units be sent over. JFK was skeptical about the US getting into Vn as far back as 1951 when as a senator he made an important fact finding trip there and met with a highly informed and honest State official who privately told him the French would lose and so would we if we were ever so stupid ... Author Jim DiEugenio at kennedysandking.com has covered this angle extensively over the years.
And see John Newman's book JFK and Vietnam (new edition released recently), originally published then curiously withdraw from the shelves by the publisher, which apparently felt the heat from powerful governmental entities. JN was the first scholar, in the early 90s period, to pore through newly released Kennedy WH docs which clearly showed he intended to pull out completely by the end of '65 -- but only after his re-election. He did announce, via McNamara iirc, that the first 1k troops to be withdrawn would occur in Dec '63. When LBJ took over all this was reversed.
A hint?
How does one hint about recreating a whole new government? No hinting - create a whole new government. Yes, capitalism must not be part of the system.
As Mimi asks - what is your definition of socialism?
As for POTUS favs? I was a believer in the system until the electorate selected an actor for POTUS - Reagan. I became a new believer when Obummer looked like he might be on the side of the people. After Bernie was cheated, the nail went into the "system must change" coffin.
I'm not as eloquent or as savvy as you and many here, but I'm certain that we need a new system that is not written by rich white men for rich white men.
"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
i sure don't have
my own definition of socialism, and for the SEP party (wsws) this might be too tame a socialism, but again: the polices and issues howie hawkins espouses, esp. the Key Economic Sectors to Socialize.
now this is a very strong statement of your 'system change':
are you meaning there should be a constitutional convention to rewrite it? or am i misreading you? there used to be a fella at the firedoglake readers diaries who'd call for
that, and the rejoinders were pretty funny, like 'but the libertarians would get their noses under the tent, too!' i'd take a ron (not rand) paul libertarian over a hella lotta politicians any day.
and thanks for your potus reflections, but i see now that 'because bernie', a new contstitution might not be what you're imagining. i wish there weren't even four year terms for prez, six for senators, it all means more entrenched corruption that way. in switzerland, elected cabinet heads take turns bein' prez for one year.
i wish i were eloquent, raggedy ann, but passion's all i got. ; )
'there should be a constitutional convention to rewrite it?'
I remember vaguely that a constitutional convention to rewrite parts of the consitution is the most feared thing by many of the political strategists. But I don't remember exactly which part (sorry) just that it amazed me that it was considered THAT dangerous.( I think it was the part that deals with the electoral college).
https://www.euronews.com/live
Vote for an actual socialist?
I have heard that polling of the younger generation reveals that a lot of them are thinking about socialism as an alternative to what we have now. It is, of course, very clear that we will never see the Democratic Party nominate someone like that. It is probably too much to expect the D's even to allow the nomination of a mild social democrat like Bernie Sanders. It will require a massive movement for social change that is outside the two party system to implement socialism in this country.
no, the D team won't
abide an actual socialist, nor will USians vote for say, howie hawkins, if he wins the green nomination at their convention in the future, until there is a massive revolution of higher consciousness planet-wide, and it spreads thru the noosphere via working classes like whale song does in the sea.
anyway, short rant off; time for me to shut down and add this closing song. g'night all; thanks for reading an commenting
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWQeyy8hfqg]
Howie is a Russia Gater sorry to say
Just how many times does Stein have to explain why she was at that dinner and why Vlad was sitting at her table? You'd think that Howie would at least have talked to her about that.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
cripes, what rubbish!
and jeezum crow, howie: RT is one outlet that features anti-imperialist journalists. gack. there was some way i was able to speak to him via email, and did challenge a few of his policies, but if i can remember how, i'll say i'd just seen that interview and how toxic his thinking is on it.
on the other hand, it's always slayed me that stein raised shit-tons of money for vote recounts in three (not for clinton) states citing 'russian interference in our elections', against the express wishes of both the GP steering committee and her own running mate the estimable ajamu baraka.
thanks for the heads-up, but even that won't stop me from sending him a tenner. the man just needs some 'educatin'!
i did find a way
to comment on the rubbish of that interview is and was, along with caitlin's 'howie hawkins is a russia-gater, the video title and the youtube. i also asked him to please read the comments below the video and and adjust his thinking if he were able to, and that i'd told you it didn't necessarily preclude my sending him another tenner as...he might be educable on that score and how many great anti-imperialist journalists and op-eds get gigs on RT.
so again, thanks for the heads-up. it also gave me a change to (ahem) challenge him on his green new deal, if this interview w/ chris hedges that never came in on his teams' past 8 or 9 emails featuring...blank messages still said the same.
but wait for it: the interview's on RT !, which i hadn't even scrolled upthread to notice. i won't watch (can't abide watching hedges and 2 long), but i sure do wish this weren't central to his campaign.
You can't watch Hedges? Why not?
I appreciate his clarity in his words. I mean Russiagate this or Russiagate that, for me Russians are no saints, they are also no devils, they are all the same as the USians. The fact that someone broadcasts over RT, doesn't mean they are uncritically towards Russians and Putin lovers or whatever.
When I get tired of Russiagate discussions, I remember the rare comments my father made about the Russians. He said, if they are not drunk, they are 'souls of men' (something very humane and positive), and as he had experienced both, the Americans
and the Russians in wwII (the former bombing his arm in pieces and almost killed him, the latter almost starved him to death in POW camps), I now just wonder how he would have characterized Americans when they are not drunk.
The German magazine 'Der Spiegel' had some time ago (no clue how many years or months) pub published similar diaries of Germans, in which they wrote out their memories of their lives during and at the end of wwII and I remember thinking it would help to translate them for Americans to read. But that too oozed away into nothingness.
Just saying, Hedges thinks clearly and that helps, imo.
https://www.euronews.com/live
oh, dear, mimi,
i've done it again by dissing 'old sourpuss' hedges. let me consider for a sec if i'll enumerate a couple of those reasons...or not. no, i'm not dissing RT nor russians, in fact mr. wd had said (and i'd agreed) that he's vote for sergei lavrov if he could. i might prefer the average russian over the average amerikan, but i know i like the average person of color in the US more than the average white one; more in common, plus we adopted racially ethnic chirren. white babbies kinda flip me out, lol. just kinda kidding, tho.
the author cited in the OP was john wight, RT, and i use their stuff a hella lot of times, but i do like to verify some of claims of different of their journalists. as i'd told howie in the comment section, it's one place at which anti-Imperialsits can get a gig for their exposés and op-eds, including 'russian apologist' stephen cohen from the nation. plus, RT is great on the never-ending-war on julian assange.
well, fiddlesticks, break's over for me, but i'll still consider saying what some of my gripes with hedge are...later. and please understand that i'm fine with your admiration of his clear thinking.
sorry, I have difficulties to understand you,
especially your first paragraph.
kinda weird ... suffice to say that I didn't adopt 'a racially ethnic child', I produced one. What's a racially ethnic child? I know of mixed-raced children. When are they ethnic? Did you adopt native American children? May be they could be called racially ethnic. Are Afro-Americans ethnic? I don't think so. They are the children of African slaves. Being an African is not an ethnicity. I get a little frustrated to figure out who is what racially or ethnically.
What are you racially and/or ethnically? Does this question bothers you? I think it might, therefore I would never ask you that question. I don't want to know who you are closer to and, please, you don't have to think that I want to know and don't need to answer.
Even if you are kidding, is that really amusing? I could go into that but before that happens, the devil can throw me into hell and I bite my tongue.
The rest is beyond my paygrade. I am very sorry to say that I often don't understand what you want to say or understand what it means.
Peace always. It is just a must.
Sweet dreams. I hope there are no white babies in your dreams, as they might turn your bed into a wobbly one, flipping you so badly you may fall out.
Oh lord, help me, I don't know what I am doing.
https://www.euronews.com/live
i'm white
mixed national flavors as is mr. wd. we adopted a ute mountain ute native american daughter and a black/azteca son. we just got used to non-white babbies is all, and spent all their school years with people of color at social gatherings.
but nah, i'm not going to explain my aversion to chris hedges; what would be the point in harshing yours or others' mellows?
Mike Pence was a brilliant choice for VP, if you're crazy
Donald Trump. Pastor Pence is the best insurance against impeachment Trump could have obtained. Not that Pelosi would ever allow impeachment, but still....
where trump's
a bellicose blowhard nationalist, pence is a true believer as far as 'our enemies are evil in the sight of gawd' sort of evangelicals meet neocons. far scarier to me.
Dense Pence
is a scary dude. If Trump = Hitler, then Pence = antichrist.
I saw a tweet right after the 2016 election that went something like, "The angels misheard, it's not trumpets that will signal the end, it's Trump/Pence."
by way of tweaking
the bible's book of revelations? but given he's been called 'the trumpeter' it's even funnier. oh...maybe i'm the one who's called him that; ever mind.
I am sorry that something in your wording irritated me
@6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 (rhis is for Wendy Davis, messed up to correctly place this comment to hers)
it had nothing to do with Chris Hedges. I am sure there are many people who have their critical opinion about him, I was just curious what they might have been. So far when I listen to his interviews etc I can follow quite often in agreement. I was just curious. It was not that what " harshed my mellows" (which is an expression that is hard for me to understand as a non native English person).
It was the baby thingy that got me. I am sure I completely misunderstood and it is my bad. Somehow at least with babies I can forget about ethnicities and races etc.
ok, hope we can stay friends, at least I apologize for my wording and lack of English comprehension. And of course my baby was super cute, because it was mine.
https://www.euronews.com/live
did my explantion
of our childrens' heritages (in one case mixed) qualify as racially ethnic? iirc, that term has been used as 'race' is a modern and scientifically incorrect concept. the term may even be on US census reports.
'harshing your mellow' might translate as 'annoying you', i think.
i think you believe some of us take offense at your questions/incomprehensions more that we do. and hell, if we'd birthed a babby, it would have been white, too. ; )
thx, so let us go on birthing babbies. Peace. /nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
ack!
one of our grand-chrirren is almost old enough to make babbies; no more babbies for me! ; )
now pence spent a lot of
twitter space with photos of trump at buckingham palace, but in a duel over 'charisma, i'd offer that at least pence wouldn't be as likely to fart in public as DT, nor could his halitosis be strong enuff to bend Elizabeth to her knees. (boy, howdy, is charles looking for an Exit...is the olfactory factor?)
but on the other hand, POTUS was on with pers morgan's morning show in britain saying that he's prepared to handle the responsibility of launching nukes, proving that 'the
buckbomb stops with him'. RT.com even provides a photo of one of his accompanying aids with a satchel carrying the 'nuclear football' or launch codes. good thing the launch codes ain't on a smart phone, or some aid might accidental pocket butt-dial a launch, isn't it?good nukes. bad nukes. our nukes. their nukes. how many nukes does bibi have?