Luther Blissett » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:22 pm wrote:I have a feeling that the left is going to build a different coalition outside of the Green Party moving forward. The word on the street seems much more focused on community-building and maybe party-building as a side effect of that.
I would like to see the neoliberals and neoconservatives in control of the Democratic party major fail and traditional liberals and allies on the left re-take control of the Democratic party; stop aggressive war and military empire; break up the monopolies and transnationals; make the environment priority; and work to put in place all points of Roosevelt's 2nd Bill of Rights ASAP for a true egalitarian society..
Admittedly I am gloomy and cynical about the future but those are my idealistic hopes.
Luther Blissett » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:22 pm wrote:I have a feeling that the left is going to build a different coalition outside of the Green Party moving forward. The word on the street seems much more focused on community-building and maybe party-building as a side effect of that.
Luther Blissett » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:22 pm wrote:I have a feeling that the left is going to build a different coalition outside of the Green Party moving forward. The word on the street seems much more focused on community-building and maybe party-building as a side effect of that.
I would like to see the neoliberals and neoconservatives in control of the Democratic party major fail and traditional liberals and allies on the left re-take control of the Democratic party; stop aggressive war and military empire; break up the monopolies and transnationals; make the environment priority; and work to put in place all points of Roosevelt's 2nd Bill of Rights ASAP for a true egalitarian society..
Admittedly I am gloomy and cynical about the future but those are my idealistic hopes.
There's a lot of debate about seizing the Democratic Party from neoliberals, moderates and conservatives, but in both real-life debates and in discussions online, I don't know if the majority of people think it's possible in a post-Citizens United, post-McCutcheon world.
Luther Blissett » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:22 pm wrote:I have a feeling that the left is going to build a different coalition outside of the Green Party moving forward. The word on the street seems much more focused on community-building and maybe party-building as a side effect of that.
I would like to see the neoliberals and neoconservatives in control of the Democratic party major fail and traditional liberals and allies on the left re-take control of the Democratic party; stop aggressive war and military empire; break up the monopolies and transnationals; make the environment priority; and work to put in place all points of Roosevelt's 2nd Bill of Rights ASAP for a true egalitarian society..
Admittedly I am gloomy and cynical about the future but those are my idealistic hopes.
All for that. Heck in a perfect world Id like to see the disaffected rural and southern folks make bridges with others, at least when it comes to alt energy/gardens/etc
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:09 pm
by Luther Blissett
"Fuck the government, fuck voting, and fuck the people running." Standing Rock Sioux sitting this election out. Color me surprised.
Luther Blissett » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:09 pm wrote:"Fuck the government, fuck voting, and fuck the people running." Standing Rock Sioux sitting this election out. Color me surprised.
Are you really surprised? Maybe they have a point. que se vayan todos.
Like in that inspiring Chris Hedges transcript on the Jill Stein thread, quoting Herzen: 'We think we are doctors. We are the disease.' A contagion of courage.
Jack said something a few months ago, I forget where, 'it's the political mood that must arrive.' As compassionate humans, it's our job to put our bodies on the line. Here, as ghosts on the internet, it's our job to coax that political mood into being. You know, these outmoded political games, be done with them. Think faster. It isn't enough for consciousness to shift, it must evolve.
JackRiddler » 5 minutes ago wrote:If only the Mao outfit had been the worst of his contributions to the world. Because it's pretty snazzy, if you ask me.
Of course, no outfit can equal the cumulative murder done by men in expensive suits and ties.
Every man in a suit and tie is sending a message of approval for holocausts planned and carried out by men sitting at desks, right?
Anyone who'd wear a body bag cinched at the neck to be "serious in business" has got to be sociopathic. Or sycophantic towards sociopaths.
Arrest the Zombie march! Ban the Day of the Dead!
You live in a country in which majorities watch sexualized murders or gladiatorial combats with literal victims over take-out dinners delivered in styrofoam packages. It's not even clear what does more brain damage, the content of these entertainments or the stupid chatter of the accompanying dialogues. Yet you think Lady Gaga is a more important and pernicious influence than the "CSI" and NFL franchises. Perhaps, like Plato, you'd like to see the theater banished from the city? Fine, but show some consistency and sense of perspective, okay?
Anyone who would cause large numbers of real people to be put in body bags is your problem.
Not sure what this is about but I was referring to the suits. Including, say, NFL franchise owners. I couldn't care less about GooGoo. Anyone who'd cause real people to get stuffed in body bags should be all of our problems.
A more general charge, of which sexism is a specific manifestation, is the claim that leftist critics of Clinton are guilty of exercising “privilege.” The basic contention here is that only privileged people (by virtue of their class position, race, gender, legal status, or sexual orientation) have the luxury of criticizing or opposing Clinton, ostensibly because they are immune to the harmful effects that taking such a position will have on the most vulnerable members of society.
However, like the charge of sexism, this universal claim ignores the reality that large numbers of vulnerable people oppose Clinton, and for very concrete and substantive reasons. It also marginalizes prominent black and Latino critics of Clinton, such as bell hooks, Michelle Alexander, Marc Lamont Hill, Donna Murch, Cornel West, and César Vargas, effectively lumping them among the “privileged.”
By discounting these voices, and ignoring the vast harm that the policies and interests that Clinton represents have done to vulnerable people, aren’t these Clinton supporters revealing their own privilege? Not so coincidentally, it is often white people who have been most aggressive in accusing others of “white privilege” for failing to support Clinton.
Looking back, we might also ask, is it a “privilege” to want to hold the Clinton-Gore administration accountable for throwing millions of poor women off welfare, for throwing hundreds of thousands more black and brown people into prison, for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, for passing the Iraq Liberation Act (and thereby making regime change in Iraq official US policy and laying the groundwork for Bush’s bipartisan invasion and the deaths of hundreds of thousands more)? Is it privileged to condemn Madeleine Albright for stating that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children resulting from US and UN Sanctions was “worth it”?
A typical retort to these and other criticisms of Clinton-Gore policies is “Bill Clinton isn’t running for President,” implying that Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with her husband’s administrations. This not only flies in the face of the historical record, but also undermines a principal justification for her presidential run — the claim that she is the most experienced candidate running (ever, according to Obama), by virtue of her public service over the last forty years.
However, the first twenty of those years were as first lady to Bill Clinton, initially in Arkansas and then in Washington, DC. Moreover, the primary reason she was able to build a subsequent political career as a senator and secretary of state was precisely because of her unconventionally deep involvement in her husband’s administrations. Indeed, during his 1992 run for the presidency, Bill Clinton bragged that by electing him, Americans would be getting a “two-for-one.”
She also served as a highly outspoken advocate for his administration’s landmark policies, in some instances notoriously so, as when she defended the 1994 crime bill by insisting that it was necessary to bring young, black “superpredators . . . to heel.” Finally, as a presidential candidate herself, she has strongly defended her husband’s policies, offering them as an indication of what her future administration would portend.
For Clinton’s supporters to deny the relevance of this history while simultaneously using it to tout her extensive experience and qualifications is a transparently disingenuous attempt to have it both ways.
Furthermore, where were the critics of “privilege” politics when the Obama administration, in which Clinton served as a high-ranking cabinet officer, deepened the Bush administration’s national security/surveillance apparatus, by, among other things, prosecuting more whistleblowers than any in history, expanding the drone program, and accelerating the erosion of civil liberties? Where were they when the administration (and Clinton herself during her campaign) called on Muslim Americans to engage in self-surveillance, thereby making all Muslims culpable for the actions of a few?
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:47 pm
by PufPuf93
Hillary Clinton is not as seriously dangerous today.
Does anyone have a link to her concession speech?
Has it occurred?
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:52 pm
by Pele'sDaughter
It's here. Better late than never, I suppose. They were probably so confident that she didn't even have one ready!
I do not have TV (nor radio) and my internet was down early today and has been somewhat erratic most of the morning.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:01 pm
by JackRiddler
.
Yeah, that's how it's done. You get more votes than your opponent, then meekly concede and tell everyone to obey him, because America is great that way.
.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:33 pm
by brekin
However, the first twenty of those years were as first lady to Bill Clinton, initially in Arkansas and then in Washington, DC. Moreover, the primary reason she was able to build a subsequent political career as a senator and secretary of state was precisely because of her unconventionally deep involvement in her husband’s administrations. Indeed, during his 1992 run for the presidency, Bill Clinton bragged that by electing him, Americans would be getting a “two-for-one.”
This seemed to hurt her. Anecdotally, it seemed those who remember Hilary from the Bill presidency the most, seemed to hate her the most. I was surprised at how many parents of people in my age bracket voted for Trump. I remember the vitriol back then and it seemed for many it had only pickled more through the years. And for those who were neutral or had a mild like or dislike back then, there was no glamour or great causes to recall. Universal Health Care was a very noble push at the time, but it also brought up her and Bill's biggest policy Waterloo. Older voters with memories crushed her. Many people "just hated" "couldn't stand" Hilary before Trump ever came on the scene. Trump debasing her seemed to stir something in them they had been waiting for.
The younger seemed to associate Hilary as the establishment lady, even Obama played on that when he ran against her, pro-Iraq war, and all. Then all the mistakes made during Obama's administration seemed to have her fingerprints on her, Wall Street shenanigans, State Dept. screw ups, etc. This was a case where being experienced, being qualified, being assertive, being knowledgeable, being connected, being able to get stuff done, having a record, weren't "qualifications" but "dirty fingers". Being a hopeless romantic, more a political poet, than politician (Bernie) or a cultural demolitions expert with no political knowledge (Trump) were better non-qualifications.
Also, all the popularity of Bill seemed to have been put in deep freeze as he was completely backstage for so much of the campaign (Funnily enough, I actually forgot they were married many times). Bill brought the warmth, charisma and aw shucks common man that balanced Hilary during his reign (even if some of it was studied, or used for disingenuous ends, people believed it). B. Clinton was kind of the first goober, who acted like a goober, to get in. Ice Man Gore made a mistake trying to distance himself from Bill and it cost him. As it did the Snow Queen. I think Hilary was afraid Bill would bring up too much scandal in the seasons of Weinergate and Cosby's fall and made the same mistake.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:08 am
by Cordelia
In case anyone’s worried about what Clinton’s staff’s been up to since she lost...........
(Or if she’s become less disingenuous, playing to her audience and acting like the average woman whose coping skills in losing a presidential election include cleaning out her closets and playing w/her dogs.)
brekin » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:33 pm wrote:This was a case where being experienced, being qualified, being assertive, being knowledgeable, being connected, being able to get stuff done, having a record, weren't "qualifications" but "dirty fingers".
These are all empty descriptors if don't bother specifying the direction. Being experienced, qualified, assertive, knowledgeable... at what? for what purpose? All of these were also about as true of one Dick Cheney. No one better connected or more able to get stuff done - what did he get done again? Which is not even to make an equation between these two doers of evil, since they do differ in ways that matter, but to point out the obvious lack of content in your adjectives. In any case, if these elections are about the "person," the character as portrayed, rather than the politics they pursue, then my impulse will always be to reject them. On second and careful consideration, with all factors weighed, that was easy in the case of a candidate for whom I have actually voted in the past (New York, 2000), and who rewarded that by voting for the inexcusable war of aggression on the nation of Iraq, among the many other ways she assisted the Bush regime, which is still the champion criminal outfit since at least Nixon. And this was before her acts as the hardline hawk within the Obama administration. I do not forget criminal energy on that level. Tough.
