Why I am Voting for Hillary
I know there is a sparse "vote for Hillary" crowd here, but there happened to be two articles on the Salon web site that together summarized why I am voting for HRC this time and want to share them with everyone.
The first is here: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/hate-unleashed-for-decades-the-gop-kept-... . It describes how much more open racists are in their support for Trump then used to be the case for past Republicans.
I can think of three rejoinders I have seen on this site in opposition to the idea of voting for HRC because of Trump's racism.
One is that HRC and Bill have also used racism in their campaign, so there is no real difference to them in this area. Personally, while agreeing with the fact that they have both relied on racial appeals in the past, I strongly disagree with the conclusion of this argument. Dont get me wrong, Bill's racial appeals in his campaign was horrible. As a side note- his refusal to commute the death penalty of a black mentally incapacitated individual in 1992 was the most craven act of political cowardice I can remember. And both HRC and Bill used racially coded attacks against Obama in 2008. Yet, their racial and racist appeals are not comparable to Trumps. Nothing the Clintons have said or done inspired David Duke to rejoin the political arena and to support their candidacies; nothing they did inspired neo-Nazis to actively support their campaigns. The Clinton's acts were egregious and wrong, but they were not a call to arms and a rallying cry to racists everywhere. Trump's are.
Second, that HRC is evil and voting for her supports her evil. This argument is dealt with in the second Salon article: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/fear-is-a-great-motivator-how-to-reconci... . Basically, the article reiterates that because of Trump's racism and other negatives are of a whole different order then HRC's, progressives should vote for HRC, at least if they live in a closely contested state.
Finally, I know many if not most of you just believe that taking EVERYTHING in consideration, HRC is simply no better then, and some would say worse then, Trump. Obviously, I disagree. For me, Trump's racism is an evil I am going to oppose. I am an employment lawyer and anti-discrimination is the red line I have for any candidate and political race. I understand everyone has different lines that they draw before deciding what candidates to support. In fact for me before this year, my line was free trade, never dreaming that a racist such as Trump would actually get the Republican Party nomination. I will mention though that racism is not the only way that HRC is better, in my opinion, then Trump. While I am not a super environmentalist, economic justice is my main political thing (aside from racism), I do believe that even neo-liberals like Clinton and President Obama understand the dangers of global warming and are trying to do something about it. Trump will not. Also, I think even a neo liberal like Clinton will defend and if possible improve the marginally helpful Affordable Healthcare Act. Trump will eliminate it. I think if given the chance (with an agreeable Congress), Clinton would raise taxes on the wealthy (even Bill did that), while Trump will greatly reduce them. I think if given the chance, Clinton will raise the minimum wage (even Bill did that), while Trump would not. So, regarding the range of issues I most care about, HRC is either vastly or marginally better then Trump.
Honestly, I dont want to end on a "pro-HRC" note. If this was a typical election and HRC had a typical opponent like Dole, McCain or even Romney, I probably wouldnt vote for her because I fear that she will eventually sell workers out on TPP. But this is not a typical election, for reasons set forth in the two cited articles. I hope anyone who read this post has read the article, which is actually a much better use of time then reading what I wrote :).
Comments
As Goes Maine?
Did I not read her this morning on another thread that Maine will initiate ranked choice voting if it passes this fall?
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Washington
Has it too. Has for several years. Hill Shills here are having a fit because in one congressional district the race is between two republicans. No understanding that the district is extremely libertarian and the democratic candidate was a recently transplanted urbanite who advocated TPP and strong gun control. That she got any votes is actually a surprise.
The rest of us think it works well. It would be one way of diminishing the money in politics.
That would be trying to reform this system.
She rejects the function of this system
which presents non-choices as choices and tries to scare people into voting against their interests.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
All righty then, just asking. She said she "rejects"
this political system. Just wondering what that meant, thanks for clarifying. She doesn't really "reject" the system, just the parts that don't work.
rejecting the parts that don't work is fine
if you have a car and need a new fan belt you don't have to throw away the car. Or stop driving.
The concept of voting is a great one. My problem with it is that the country is so large that the votes become meaningless. We can't personally know all the candidates and they sure don't know us. Reaching enough voters to win an election requires a daunting amount of money....which normal people don't have. And there would still be too many people represented by too few.
Exactly. THIS system of representative government
doesn't work at the national level or even the state level. Tweaking it won't cut it. Major reforms? Not things like turning back citizens united or getting money out of politics. That won't do it. If we're going to stick with a representational system of government, we need a much different one than we've got now. And it should be combined with significant aspects of direct democracy, like a national referendum system.
Exactly right
Agree, but what system do you think she should be
advocating for and what do you see as the likelihood of manifesting that system? That I am voting for a candidate currently supposedly polling at 3% proves I am not so-called "pragmatist," at least not as the neoliberals use that term. However, there is a point at which reality has to be a factor if you care about outcomes.
I don't like to say anything at all negative about my candidate before election day, but, it's safe to say that the Greens have an uphill fight as it is. Stein is at 3% now. Even if you don't believe polls, she is polling the lowest of four candidates with a reasonable platform. What degree of success do you envision if she were advocating for an entirely different system?
BTW, with the internet, I see no reason we cannot have the Ancient Athenian form of democracy. Do we want it? (Not a rhetorical or sarcastic question: I have no idea what the answer should be.)
Athenian democracy didn't guarantee justice either
Didn't the Athenians vote to banish Aristides because they were tired of hearing him called "the Just"?
No system is foolproof.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Thank you. Humans are imperfect and therefore so are their
institutions. I am not seeking anything perfect, only the "least worst."
On the other hand, banishing one person unjustly is not, in itself, enough to convince me a democracy in the US would be worse than a republic of the size and corruptness of the US. And the whole story may not have come down to us in unbiased form. In any event, a proper Constitution may have prevented that injustice, if there was one. Off the top of my head, I can think of three provisions in ours that may have helped: Equal protection, due process and bill of attainder.
Athenians got to vote on whether their nation (and its males) went to war and whether their own taxes should be increased. On the surface, those seem like good things. But would they really be they really? That's the kind of thing about which I wonder in relation to whether the US should or could be a democracy rather than a republic.
This is Close to My View
Actually, I think there is a good chance that if HRC wins, that will be BAD for the Democratic Party and good for Republicans. I think there is a very good chance that there will be an economic downturn over the next 4 years. If it happens, this will be blamed on HRC and the Democrats, leading to a Cruz victory in 2020. And if HRC loses, I think there is a very good chance that Elizabeth Warren will get the nomination, which would be a very very good thing. Yet, for the reasons I have mentioned before, I feel compelled to vote for HRC.
A lesser of two evils voter thinks it's better for
Democrats to be blamed for a bad economy than for Republicans to be blamed? Are you sure? Seems inconsistent and it is not a reason your original blog entry cited.
If people blame three terms of Democrats for a bad economy, you assume they'll elect another Democrat to replace Hillary? How did that work for McCain?
On top of all that, Warren, who, on Day One her first term as President, will be 71 is going to get nomination and win the general?
Which accomplishments will Elizabeth Warren run on? Not a single substantive bill or amendment she has written has passed. Yes, that is also true of Hillary, but that is reason not to vote for Hillary, not reason to nominate Warren. Besides, Warren is not a Clinton. She will not have anywhere near the same support from the neoliberals that now run the Democratic Party as Hillary has, no matter how much stumping Warren does for Hillary.
My Comment That You are Responding to was Not Clearly Stated...
The comment to which you replied, actually, if anything, goes against my OP. Please remember that that comment was meant to be a reply to another comment. I was trying to agree with and add to a point the poster's comment made to my original comment. I mentioned that the Democratic Party might be better off if HRC loses because I have wrestled with whether that would be a valid reason not to vote for HRC this time. I certainly would not criticize anyone who voted against HRC now because he or she believes that it will lead to a more progressive Democratic candidate in 2020. That being said, these considerations ultimately did not, in my mind, lead me to decide to refrain from voting for HRC for the reasons I have already mentioned.
As for Warren's accomplishments in the Senate, is it really a surprise that a progressive such as Warren has not been the sponsor of bills or amendments that have been enacted by this or the previous Congress. As I recall, Sanders' record in this regard was pretty meager too, but that had no impact on my decision to support his election.
Hillary's and Warren's records and Warren's alleged nomination.
As for Sanders' record on getting bills and amendments that he wrote passed: (I notice you ignored Hillary's record.) First, one of the ugly things I learned during the 2016 primary was how meager the records of all Senators are. I think they average 2.5 bills a year, with some managing zero. And that 2.5 figure does not reflect whether the bill has any substance or is something like re-naming a post office, which is the ONLY kind of bill Hillary wrote and passed--and she got none too many of those passed, either. Yet, she was the one who bragged in two Presidential primaries that she knew how to get things done.
In any event, it turns out many Congresses are "do nothing" Congresses and that is something that we (as a nation) should probably address after this election.
Since Sanders was running against Hillary in the primary and his legislative record was better than hers in that substantive legislation that he had written became law , I really don't understand your comment about voting for him despite his meager legislative record. How could anyone disqualify him because of his meager record, yet vote for Hillary, whose record was zero? Also, Sanders worked through amendments more than through bills. Hillary didn't manage those either. And Sanders never proposed bad legislation. Twice, Hillary tried to get a flag burning bill passed. Luckily for the First Amendment and America, she had no more success with that than she had with any other bill she wrote.
To sum up, as between Sanders and Hillary:
1. She ran in two Presidential primaries on claiming that her ability to get things done surpassed that of her opponent, which both times was untrue (Obama got a nuke limitation bill he wrote passed in his shorter total time in the Senate). Sanders did not make that claim. Nonetheless,
2. Sanders got substantive bills and amendments passed, albeit not many; she got zero.
3. She had been a party insider for decades before becoming Senator. He was an indie, yet still worked more effectively with both Democrats and Republicans than did Hillary.
4. He proposed no bad legislation; she did.
5. She could not even get Democrats on board with Billarycare when her husband was both POTUS and head of the Democratic Party. That is how bad she is at working with people. And I am supposed to believe she will succeed with things like "debt free education" (whatever that means), when it's not even something she wanted, only something she got backed into promising because Sanders ran against her?
But, this exchange is supposed to be about your thought that Warren would (and, implied, should) be nominated for POTUS in 2020 at age 71, when she, like Hillary, has zero accomplishments in the Senate, at least so far, and no other office holding, military or management experience. I thought that was the subject. Doesn't seem likely to me. And, if nominated, I believe Warren would lose the general, which is a major reason I did not want Hillary to be the nominee. And if elected, I believe Warren would not be a good President, but probably not worse than Hillary or Trump.
So Vote for Cthulhu #1 then?
Yeaaaah, No.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Too ethically challenged for my vote...
I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton. I can't get past the lack of integrity that her life has demonstrated. Her words mean nothing because of the shapeshifting.
Her "journalist team" spreading their propaganda won't sway me. All I have to do is look back at what she has actually done (not what she says she's done.)
If we believe Hillary and Donald are both evil, maybe the lesser of the two evils is Johnson? He seems to have a larger following that Jill, plus experience in elected office.
I'm still an undecided voter except for one thing: never Hillary!
That's why Hillary has Trump.
Because any other Republican opponent would not generate enough fear to intimidate people into voting for her.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Bingo
That's what this whole election is about. Putting her up against the only candidate that could drive enough voters toward her. And shaming enough people like us into voting for her, to increase it's apparent legitimacy.
"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'll go to my grave believing the Clintons put Trump up to
running, as a political strategy so she could look better, despite her negatives.
Disgusting, craven manipulators.
I think there's far more danger to Black people and Latinos
in this country if Hillary wins than if Trump wins.
No matter what happens, the race war--should I even call it that, it's so one-sided?--will get worse after this election. I think that's been one goal of this election cycle: they are playing out a distorted version of the race war through presidential politics. Bernie disturbed that narrative, so he had to go.
If Trump wins, the race war will get worse because some--many--of his supporters are racist, and they will be, to quote a phrase "emboldened."
If Hillary wins, the race war gets much, much worse because all of those racist Trump supporters will believe they were cheated out of the Presidency. The hell of it is, they will have logical reason to believe so, since they just watched Hillary Clinton commit election fraud to "defeat" Bernie Sanders.
What's worse than an emboldened racist? An aggrieved one. The fuel those people run on is feeling hard done by. If there's even a chance that they actually are being cheated out of their due? It will be like pouring gasoline on a flame. And you won't have a motivated, strong populace to join together in Moral Monday fashion to oppose it, nor even a generally happy and optimistic populace, like the 65% that believed in Obama. Those counterweights are gone. Bernie was providing this cycle's version of that counterbalance, and he was destroyed.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I don't think there is a race war
I don't think there is anything close to a race war.
Do You Live in America? nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
If this qualifies as a race war
then we also have a gun rights war, an abortion rights war, a pollution war, an immigration war, and just about any other social movement war.
Are Cops Killing Abortion Providers With Cover From Churches?
Are cops killing protestors with the support of corporate (not yet, but it's close).
Are cops killing immigrants? Again, not yet.
I don't think you live here, and as an outsider you can't catch the vibe in it's entirety.
There might not be a race war, but skirmishes abound leaving dead Americans and a sizable, armed portion of the population, cheering it on or lined up in formation.
Let me know when Stand Your Ground is used on an environmental activist or abortion provider.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
stand your ground
It's coming. Take it to the bank.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
It is not particularly a race war
Cops are shooting people because they are acting like an occupying military. In Portland OR their victim of choice is homeless people and young white men having mental crisis. In the Dakotas and Montana it's native Americans. It depends on the place. They act like predators trying to cut the weakest group from the herd.
Yes, it's called 'culling' the herd. Exactly what Shill's BFF
Henry K. says needs to be done.
“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”.
– Henry Kissinger
“World population needs to be decreased by 50%”.
– Henry Kissinger
“The elderly are useless eaters”.
– Henry Kissinger
“(Soldiers are) dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy”.
(as quoted in Woodward and Bernstein’s “The Final Days”, ch. 14)
– Henry Kissinger''
Old Henry's quite the humanitarian, isn't he?
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
He is a vile, despicable man n/t
humanitarian
Well, let's see..... a "vegetarian" is someone who eats nothing but vegetables. By this etymological logic, an humanitarian would be someone who eats nothing but humans. Therefore, Henry Kissinger would indeed qualify as a great humanitarian.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Henry was in his 50s then. He's in his 90s now.
Going after the elderly is going to be self-defeating at some point or another, unless you die young.
Anyway you look at it, you lose.
So, here's to you, Henry Kissinger.
Oh, don't be silly
Lucifer lived to be a lot older than 90.
In a way we do. When neoliberals decided to follow
Republicans on things like "defense" and domestic fiscal policy, the so called culture (social) wars were the way they distinguished themselves (or tried to--DADT and DOMA aside). The Hillbots didn't fight Sanders on fiscal goals, but on Bernie Bros (sexism and other bad behavior), #BernieSoBlack, predominately white attendance at his rallies, and so on. Oh, yes, and his gun votes. Meanwhile, Hillary puts Roe v. Wade on the table, opposes equal rights for gays until 2013, says and does scores of racist things. So, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the closest thing to a Republican, even among neoliberals.
there will be, and soon.
There will be, and soon. As the Population Ponzi continues to collapse, and full employment continues to be an unattainable dream, and people continue to be castigated for not working under these conditions, it's going to happen. Foul words will become fouler deeds.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
In my opinion we have a race war--
and someone is attempting to expand, and hopefully generalize it. In other words, IMO, someone is striving to create a situation in which the majority of the white people want to kill the majority of the black people, and vice versa. As Robert Kennedy once said, we don't have that. Most white people DON'T want to kill Black people, and vice versa, because most people don't want to kill anybody.
what we have right now is a limited race war, in which the State basically gives a nod and a wink to white people killing Black people, very much especially if they carry a badge. But most people don't really want this to be happening, and certainly don't want to participate.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, exactly right
It's not all out, but black people have been killed by police at alarming rates, imprisoned, given hugely harsh penalties compared to whites, etc. Definitely a war, but they try not to draw attention to it.
I think it's more a Class war than a race war...
The fact that a majority of minorities also fall into the lower class is just icing on the cake for the elitist scumbags.
They are using an ancient, but effective, tactic to weaken opposition by keeping their opponents so busy fighting each other they do not have time to actually realize who they really should be fighting.
There is not a doubt in my mind that the racial tension in this country is amplified deliberately by TPTB.
If us fucking peons are too busy fighting and killing each other they can safely sit in the background pulling strings to further manipulate and divide us...
The biggest fear they likely have is that the majority of us all sides of the "racial" spectrum will wake the fuck up and realize what marks we have been, because when we do the backlash is going to be violently brutal.
When that day comes all their money and their compounds won't be enough to save them from receiving the same treatment as Mussolini.
I am at the point where I am actually looking forward to the day, and if wishing for violence and a bad death for those that have so completely destroyed so many lives makes me a bad person, so be it.
I can live with being that bad...
That is why they will ultimately fail, when people like me who are generally mellow and forgiving start hoping for their demise the end can't be far because it is only the fact that so many people find violence to be an abhorrent solution that has allowed them to reign for so long.
Even the most mild of animals will lash out and attack when it is cornered and feels it has no other choice but to do so.
We are no different.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
They will blame Black people because the media has been
saying, over and over, that Hillary is the candidate of Black people, who have been giving her very well-publicized support.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Maybe not young black people. The biggest demographic split
between Sanders and Hillary was age. IIRC, the dramatic cut off point was age 40, but I can't swear to that.. I don't know how many younger black people--and other minorities-- who were for Sanders switched to Hillary in the general, though and I don't know if the switch was greater in the younger minority population than with Sanders' supporters generally.
I agree Hillary is more dangerous on race war.
I do believe we have a race war (probably class war too). My observation is that Trump says aloud what many people subconsciously believe. Hillary may give lip service to equality, but her past history and policies tell the true story. She's a racist like Trump, she just hides it behind platitudes, and behind innuendo at thousand dollar dinners!
I'm confused
When did saying a few racist things (while not doing any racist actions) become the be-all, end-all for liberals?
When did a few ugly words become more important than the economy? The environment? The wars? Everything?
When did these words that effects little more than your feelings become more important to liberals than actual lives?
I think liberals have their priorities all screwed up.
When Al From and the Clintons convinced Democrats to
distinguish themselves from Republicans primarily on issues of race and reproductive choice, rather than those pesky economic and "no more wars of choice" and "no drug war of choice" issues of the 1960s and 1970s.
When did words become more important than actions?
Trump blusters. He shoots his mouth off, and what he says resonates with a certain portion of the American populace, some of whom are undoubtedly racist.
The current reality in the United States of America is that black people are being killed every day by militarized law enforcement. The sitting POTUS is a Democrat, a person of color himself. His attorney general, head of DOJ, is a person of color. Yet neither of them is doing a thing to stop the killing of black people.
Those are actual facts. Not just words spoken by a political candidate.
Hillary Clinton campaigns on the premise that her administration would be a continuation of Obama's administration.
How are Obama's actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof) less frightening and less objectionable than the words Trump utters? Is there any evidence at all to show that Hillary would do anything to stop the epidemic of black people being killed by law enforcement? Why is that less objectionable than Trump's bluster?
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
When, You Ask?
I suggest 1980, when Reagan lied about everything he ended up doing to this nation. His "shining city on the hill" was a fantasy that people bought, much like Trump now shills. Reagan and his administration never did anything to achieve that status no matter how many foreigners died.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Yes, that feels right
From memory, that's when our societal slide into illusion accelerated. I have to think that the mass media, in particular TV, played a large part.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
The computer arrived about then too
preceded by IBM's mainframes, regarded with awe through the windows of IBM in New York by the early 1970s. Few here seem to recall that moment. First sign at a company where I once worked -- and where cold type was still being set on stone slabs in the basement -- was how the small 'management' staff struggled to carry home heavy suitcase-like computer cases.
Next, a room of tables, work with pencils, paper, glue, with the paste-up edited result given to typists, was first replaced by massive workstations with tiny green-on-black screens and electronic keyboards that sent data to be captured on seven-inch disks. Next step took a couple of years as that was too slow -- but the 15" wide "disks" (they looked like silvery film mounted on an 18" diameter drum) were still not large enough to hold and respond to all the data being used. Out the window went the fact that massive complex jobs took more time and skill; the machine said everything should only take x minutes per page.
Quantification replaced thought.
It was a technology perfectly suited to money, and while it now seems as if it must have always been available, it wasn't.
The original J. P. Morgan had the unaided capacity to perform extremely complex calculations almost instantly, and accurately; it was the basis of his success.
With Taylorism computerized, only 0 and 1 now count.
I Certainly Dont Speak For Liberals, Just Myself :)
And if I thought Trump was "just words," I wouldnt care. But racism really is leading to police officers killing innocent black men and women, the KKK and the Nazis really are intent on DOING evil not just talking about it and Trump is assisting them, I believe hate crimes against Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and the BGLT community are increasing and I think Trump feeds this.
and i think HRC is on the side of the police,
and thus unlikely to do anything to rein them in.
with respect to Law and Order, she's a classic 1968 conservative "Silent Majority" type. for example, she opposes legalization of marijuana, other than for "medical" purposes. whatever the fuck she imagines that might mean.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
She said she wants to have it reclassified as a Schedule II drug
Schedule II
Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:
Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin
https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml
***
Clinton, however, seems to disagree and the campaign contended that if elected, she would reclassify the drug to a Schedule II substance, which would mean acceptance that marijuana has a medical use for treatment.
“As president, Hillary will build on the important steps announced today by rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. She will also ensure Colorado, and other states that have enacted marijuana laws, can continue to serve as laboratories of democracy,” Harris continued.
http://time.com/4449322/hillary-clinton-marijuana-schedule-dea/
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
The problem is that this:
makes no sense. Colorado's marijuana laws are incompatible with Schedule II status; the only way that she can "ensure" tha Colorado can continue to serve as a laboratory of democracy in this context is to either order the federales to ignore (in Colorado!) the classification that she herself is advocating, or indeed to revamp the federal laws so as to explicitly permit states to enact their own more liberal drug laws.
The second choice might be a reasonable one, but there is exactly no chance that HRC will advocate it, much less somehow bully a republican congress into enacting it.
Which leaves her basically saying she will continue the policy of the Obama administration, of de-prioritizing prosecutions, except when it's convenient to some other purpose.
This is hardly reassuring, but in any event, there can be no doubt that she and I are a million miles apart on this issue.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
When I first read that article about her saying all that
nonsense about rescheduling and the states, I couldn't understand what the Hell she was talking about either. And every place I've ever seen a discussion on what she meant always ended very simply. WTF??? The general consensus seems to be that regardless of what she says, she is going to mess with the states who have already allowed medical/recreational pot usage. I agree with everyone who thinks that way. I think she's already got it all planned out, that's what the Schedule II crap is about. And I (along with who knows how many others) have an idea how she's going to try to do it.
***
Patent No. 6630507, held by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, covers the use of cannabinoids for treating a wide range of diseases.
Under U.S. federal law, marijuana is defined as having no medical use. So it might come as a surprise to hear that the government owns one of the only patents on marijuana as a medicine.
The patent (US6630507) is titled “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants” and was awarded to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in October 2003.
It was filed four years earlier, in 1999, by a group of scientists from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
What is Patent No. 6630507?
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Based on what?
The latest FBI stats on hate crimes are from 2014, which showed a drop from 2013.
I Agree with This
As I wrote earlier, the economy, environment, wars, are all more important than throwing bigoted words around.
I do think that Clinton has had a bigger negative impact on peoples of other races than Trump ever has, and that although she is more circumspect about it, she's probably just as big of a racist--just by the way I've seen her talk to peoples of other races on the campaign trail.
I do disagree with you, however, when you say there is no race war. I also think there is an active effort to install a new feudalism economically with the 0.1% as the lords, a subset of people as their trusted merchant class, and then everyone else serfs.
I have always identified the purging of James Watt
as the moment when the left, such as it is, gave up on trying to win policy battles and instead undertook to win personality battles instead.
I do not think this was a good idea.
(Watt was Secretary of the Interior and a lunatic -- a xtian of the sort who believed jesus would be disappointed if when he returned we hadn't used up everything god had put here on earth for us to exploit. He was driven from office, not for being a Secretary of the Interior superstitiously devoted to completely despoiling the Interior with the greatest possible haste, but for defending the diversity of his team with the characterization, "A black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.")
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I actually worked at the USDOI under
the devil himself. He was so wrong on policy, and so vindictive and evil a human being, that he would have been the centerpiece of any left response if there hadn't been so many other competitors in the Raygun administration.
But there never really was a left response worthy of the name to anything in the Raygun administration. You make a good point about the last straw that drove Watt out. I look on the Raygun administration as when the left in the U.S. began to be completely ignored by the corporate media. In its place eventually came the Clintonian libruls. And the true left cannot get back into the conversation--until Bernie that is.
Think about what you said.....
The Clintons actually killed someone for political gain, but at least David Duke doesn't like them?
The difference between Clinton and Trump is that so far Trump is all talk. The Clintons have DONE all the things they say Trump will do.
Things more important to me than racism, sexism, gender ism, abortion, and calling women, blacks and hispanics names are those things that impact ALL OF US regardless of the niche in which the politicians what to put us so they can divide and conquer:
environment
income inequality
criminal injustice
war as a business
If you want to let them scare you into voting for Trump and mixing up your priorities, it is up to you.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Yep
You've summed it up in one sentence.
This is a Very Good Point and One I Have Wrestled With Alot
I consider my vote for Bill in 1992 my single biggest political regret. I did not vote for him in 1996. And I agree that he let someone die for political gain and that HRC would probably do the same. But would Trump have acted differently? I really really dont think so. So, Im back to either opposing Trump the most significant way I can or not. I choose to oppose him.
I'm just confused why anyone cares because as far
as I know, Hillary has this sewed up due to insurmountable demographic support in her favor as well as a gazillion crossover "sane Republican" votes and the endorsements not just of the entire Democratic establishment but much of the Republican establishment as well.
Given those facts why does anyone concern themselves about who a few Bernie Deadenders or Democratic malcontents or 3rd Party supporters vote for?
I found it personally liberating to be assured by those in the know that my vote was so worthless, since it finally freed me from the onus of voting "lesser evil" and allowing the casting of a vote For someone, (Jill Stein). I insist on remaining insignificant!
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Um, the recent polls are making some people sweat.
And I'll believe that "sane Republican" thing when I see it. My experience? The Republican politicians, pundits, and donors like Hillary. The rank-and-file hates her as much as I do. Not sure they're going to trot obediently to the polls because Bush and Cheney say so.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Then at least you will have voted. That's democracy man.
That's what we're taught right? Our vote counts. Voting is your right. Just vote for whoever you want, everyone should be happy about that since half the population isn't going to vote. They are the ones who are bringing this country down, not the people who vote for our "leaders". The people that don't vote are the problem, not the people who vote for Clinton or Trump and especially not the people who vote for Stein or Johnson.
Trump's other-ism is self evident
Further, we also are seeing quite clearly what happens when the voice of racism takes the presidential podium. Out of all the harm I think it is likely that Trump causes, the thing you've focused on seems the most likely.
I can't argue with how you've weighed the political variables here. I personally agree with dkmich. The Clintons have already committed mass murder for political gain. On the "evil" scale that's got to get some pretty high marks.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
The Clintons' otherism is also self evident, though.
Andy, you must be a gymnast
Andy, you must be a gymnast because the mental gymnastics you are performing to accept the actions of Hillary and her political team is breathtaking.
We do not respect her, or you and her supporters, because, every action Hillary has performed during this campaign and even before, you and your ilk have denounced as being evil when performed by a Republican.
We believe evil, corrupt, or wrong actions are wrong no matter who performs them.
That is why we will not be voting for Hillary, and will be voting for a human being who has so far proven herself to not be corrupt, evil, or wrong.
Please go back to the GOS and stop trolling here.
I don't think diarist is a troll--
nor that they need to go back to the GOS, but I'm in agreement w/the rest of your comment.
Why the hell would anyone vote for her after she cheated?
A racist gets up and says some racist things into a mike, and everybody's like "Whoops! We'd better give up on democracy now, or the racist will get us!"
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Brutally Honest, You Remind Me of the Clinton Supporters On KOS.
They too told me that they did not respect me and encouraged me to leave KOS because of my advocacy for Bernie on that sight, lol. As for me, as I wrote in a comment above, I dont doubt the morality of those whose views are different then mine, either from the left or right.
A little something I saw yesterday for 1972
So nope, I'm starting right now and no excuses. I encourage everyone to vote Stein or Johnson (with Stein being preferable of course).
Even if someone loves Johnson, two things are clear:
1. He will not win this election; but
2. He probably will get more than 5% of the popular vote.
So, if you want your vote to accomplish the most it can, consider helping the Green Party reach at least 5% of the popular vote. Anything that helps cut into the strangehold on U.S. politics of the duopoly is a good thing.
Trump simply made it
"ok," hell, almost "cool" again to bring out one's inner Hater, dump the pc b.s. In so doing Trump exposed just how much hate is still out there.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
And that's the only useful
And that's the only useful thing the assfaced buffoon has done.
Forget about it
all this kind of essay does is piss me off and insult one's intelligence. I will not have my vote extorted out of fear of The Hairball. Why should anyone vote for lesser or more degrees of evil that are both just pure evil . Killary is a global psycho killer qu'est ce que c'est?. We came we saw we killed. I'm not a Democrat anymore haven't been since 2011. Besides which I think Trump might just be a put up job who's in cahoots with the Clinton's. Do you know that this is not a partisan site? I'm done with the politics of fear and the Democratic party has nothing else to offer.
So you post and run?
Not ok.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Oh dear. Maybe poster is a troll, then.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I always wonder what this kind of poster seeks to accomplish.
Do they imagine we've never heard or read any of this before? Or do they imagine that they have some sort of magical powers of persuasion?
...the campaign gets free feedback?...
What better focus group than an essay to egg everyone on, and respond with their heartfelt reasons against Hillary. The [trolls] gather that info, feed it back to the campaign. And it cost them very little compared to having to run a real focus group session.
Money doesn't seem to be a big issue for the Clinton campaign.
Besides, political message board posters, especially those to the left of Democrats, are a highly atypical demographic. If they are going by us, they ain't too smart.
But in this case, we're in agreement with
a large majority. We think Hillary is a corrupt, lying tool of rich people with a bad attitude, and so does roughly 55-60% of the population. We just have different specific things she does that piss us off the most. We agree on her character, and it's now an entrenched belief. That's their problem, to the extent they have one.
I think maybe they're trying to make lemonade out of her lemon campaign by using it to disgust America so much they stay away from the polls in even greater numbers.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, I agree.
Hillary is strongly disliked from both progressives and the right wing. It is in her best interest to keep those two groups fighting each other, because if they ever united against her, she'd be history.
Is the NeverHillary sentiment so strong that it would make voters ignore party lines?
What I personally struggle with is this: I can not in good conscience do anything in my power to put a known corrupt politician into office. I value integrity in office higher than a specific platform. So what do I do? Wait until a few days before the election, and vote for whoever is closest to shutting out the Clinton machine, irrespective of that person's party?
It is not a matter of "holding my nose" to vote for Hillary. It would be against my moral code of honor. It would be like I was condoning what I know to be wrong.
Does your post mean you think the actual purpose of the diarist
was to use this board--or at least so many of us who are replying-- as a free focus group for the Hillary Clinton campaign? If so, you know better than that, given your experience in politics.
No, I don't think there's any need for that.
If it was trolling, I don't pretend to know the purpose, apart from the one all trolls have in common: to waste time.
But I don't even know if it was trolling; diarist could be perfectly sincere.
No, I was simply underlining the fact that our beliefs are not minority beliefs at this point. Too often, people get stuck in a minority headset, as if it's still the 80s or the 90s. Neoliberalism could fool people a lot better back then. The damage is too much, and too evident now, so the propaganda isn't working as well. That's my read, anyway.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Not really.
While polling tells us that many Americans believe that Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy, many of those who so characterize her still plan to vote for her. So, we are not in their category. Since most of us do not plan to vote for her anyway, or for Trump, or even for Johnson, we are in a small minority of potential voters. We are even in a small minority of Stein supporters because most of them are not posting on this board (or any political message board).
We'll see. Or, maybe we won't, because the numbers may not
be reported accurately. I think it's a 50/50 proposition as to whether the truth of how many turn out to vote is ever known, and far worse odds than that as to whether the truth of how many voted for Hillary is ever known.
I'm guessing a very low turnout, but I've been wrong before, and even if I'm right, we may not be allowed to know it. But here's the thing I do know: you can't predict turnout based on people saying they will vote for somebody. Or saying they support somebody. The reason the powers that be are constantly het up about "enthusiasm" is that that is what most accurately predicts people actually getting off their asses and getting to the polls. Enthusiasm this cycle is very low, except among those that support Donald Trump.
That said, you are shifting the goalposts, in my view, in order to maintain the notion that we are a minority. In other words, rather than looking at who agrees with us, you are looking at who will choose to vote for a third-party candidate, preferably Stein. Given the machinery that affects a person's vote, most particularly the machinery of information obstruction and propaganda, I find this a misleading and inaccurate measure. How many Americans know who Jill Stein is, that they might choose to vote for her?
We are a majority in opinion and belief; if we are a minority at all, it's in knowing more of the facts than our fellow citizens do, which leads us to be able to make better tactical choices. We may also be a minority in terms of our inward resolve not to be bullied, but how would we measure that? How do we know what's in the hearts of our fellow citizens, and whether, on Election Day, they will simply decide to do something else with their time? How do we even know how many people are being cowed by the Trump Boogeyman? I haven't found a reliable way to measure this, because I know that what people say about what they are going to do, weeks before the election, does not necessarily predict what they will do on the day--and I say that not as an activist, but as someone who has worked on lots of campaigns, and successfully run one--even under conditions of high enthusiasm, GOTV is an essential part of any campaign. If Hillary wants the proles trooping dutifully to the polls for her in large, or even reasonable numbers, she's going to have to do a GOTV effort like nobody has ever seen, given how low the enthusiasm is now. It was news the other day when she was finally able to fill a Bingo Hall-sized room with about 1,000 or so people. *She* looks like the third-party candidate!
In a world where so much is stacked against us, it blows my mind that people on this site want to deny, ignore, and throw away arguably the one asset we have--which looks to me like a freaking miracle; I never thought in my life I'd live in a United States where 47% of the population said they'd be willing to vote for a socialist president, while only 50% would not--within the margin of error! It seems that the Left is clinging to its status as Job's messenger with passionate resolve, unwilling to depart from the frame that they've been occupying since the 50s and 60s: We are the educated few who understand what the world is really like, and we must carry the message to our uninformed brethren--and its 80s and 90s addendum--those uninformed brethren are actually lazy and selfish and addicted to bigotry, nearly a hopeless case, yet we, as the moral and educated ones, must continue in our role as Job's messenger, delivering an autopsy of the bad news of the day because it's truer than capitalist propaganda.
I would argue that we are currently closer to evangelical preachers in our outlook than revolutionaries, or even reformers. We have our own version of the great unwashed, and our own version of the chosen people.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
False. I shifted nothing.
Both my posts were fact-based and the second was consistent with the first. Shifting goalposts to be one of the forms of dishonest, bad faith posting, which is nowhere even close to the kind of posting that I do.
If you want to try to refute anything specific that any of my posts actually state, I would welcome your giving it your best shot, but please stop blanket mischaracterizations of my posts.
Inasmuch as my eye fell on your accusation first, I did read nothing else in your reply to me and therefore will not be responding to anything else.
A couple of points:
there was no blanket mischaracterization of multiple posts; I was responding to one statement in one post:
While polling tells us that many Americans believe that Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy, many of those who so characterize her still plan to vote for her. So, we are not in their category.
When I said we were in a majority, I was speaking of opinion and belief, as measured by polls. You changed the metric by which we measure who is "with us" and who's not. You redrew the boundaries of the category, and redefined it.
For decades the Left has been dismayed by the polls which let us know how removed from our values the public is, how "far right" they are, if you will. I was making the case that those times are over. The shift in opinion has happened; it simply has no vehicle, and is encountering suppression and obstruction everywhere. If it had a vehicle, there would not be the phenomenon you describe of the reluctant Hillary voter. That's why there's an all-out push right now against the idea of third parties--I never thought I'd live to see the First Family delivering diatribes against third-party candidates and thus giving them visibility. The establishment dare not allow Americans to get to know those parties, or to think them viable.
In retrospect, I'm sorry I used the phrase "shifting the goalposts." I measured a phenomenon using certain data; you threw out the metric I was using, and then said my measurement was false. I didn't attribute any dishonesty to you for doing that; I simply object to it. If you think majority opinion, as measured by polls, is a useless measure, then it would make sense to break down why; it would also make sense to establish why your metric--voting--is the right one to measure American political opinion by. Under the current conditions of political disenchantment and disgust, a press that's rotten to the core and apparently dedicated to suppressing all options other than the two major parties, and outright voter purges and fraud, I don't think how people vote is the right measure for American political opinion, or who's "with us" and who's not. There's currently widespread doubt that voting does any good at all; there's a less widespread, but still frequently found belief that the elections are rigged by the powerful--how can you measure the American people by how they vote when a great many of them don't even believe in voting?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Geebus. I never said you mischaracterized all my posts in one
reply. You made a blanket mischaracterization of this post and have done the same on other occasions, one blanket mischaracterization of one post of mine at a time in one reply of yours at a time. Again, please stop doing that.
That is the only part of your post that I've read or will read.
I don't think you've really gotten to the point yet
let me cut through all the back and forth and see if it gets to the heart of what CStS is saying:
Exactly. The idea that all these disillusioned people are going to vote for Clinton anyway is no longer supportable by mere opinion. The problem is, we have no vehicle to accurately count how many. Polling is--and continues to be, and always will be--useless to count such voters.
And that is exactly why
It would probably help the entire discussion if you were to at least acknowledge these things, whether you agree or not. My apologies if you have already and I missed it...
aye
magic maybe, but not very persuasive..
I must have missed out on the magic. And the sincerity.
Just for chits and giggles, google Andy Katz Hillary.
so i followed your advice, and what i learned is that AK is
quite clearly FAR more familiar with and knowledgeable about HRC than i could ever hope to be, given how much time he spends zipping around the country taking photos of her.
so i guess he must know what he's talking about, right?
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
That's ONE interpretation. It's not my interpretation, but it's
definitely one interpretation. For one thing, Bubba and Chelsea are certainly familiar with Hillary, but I don't accept what they say about her because of that. For another thing, I don't know even know if they mean what they say. And, at least as to Bubba, I have a fair amount of anecdotal evidence for his lying when he has a motive so to do. For another, they are biased.
I don't know if the diarist is, IRL, the Andy Katz you and I came up with after googling. After all, IRL, I'm not FDR's Vice President. However, I chose the name because I identified with Wallace's liberalism at the time that he was FDR's VP and admired Wallace. (I've already posted how I wished I had researched his later years better before I chose my Daily KOS name, but it is what it is. But, I digress...)
Point is, the diarist, IRL, may be either that Andy Katz or someone who admires him. And the Andy Katz we both googled is not pro Hillary merely as a lesser of two evils. He's just flat out pro Hillary (or so he would have us believe, anyway). And the Andy Katz you and I both googled is not only pro Hillary; he's also anti-Sanders. And my guess is that the diarist is either that Andy Katz or someone who admires that Andy Katz. Either way.....
Pages