David Neiwert, who’s a like-minded inspiration to me, has something to say on Facebook. You may not be surprised to know that I agree with every word of it. In fact, if I had penned two books on the subject instead of blogging incessantly about it, I could have written the following myself:
Friends may have noticed that I have become very cranky of late on the subject of voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Put into simple terms: If you are a #NeverHillary voter — or a Trump voter, which in the end is the same thing — just unfriend me now. You are not a friend of mine.
I have spent the past 14 years trying to warn the public about the proto-fascist threat coming down the road at us through the auspices of the increasingly radicalized conservative movement and its official organ, the Republican Party. I’ve even published two books describing this threat — five and six years before it actually emerged.
During that time, I’ve received fair amounts of praise from my fellow progressives for the work I’ve done exposing these trends, and lots of pats on the head. But what I’ve noticed is that many progressives are only interested in using this information as a hammer for bashing conservatives with, rather than taking seriously the underlying issues it exposes, particularly the progressive abandonment of rural areas. And I know that, when I’m not around, a lot of these progressives have been happy to characterize me as an alarmist.
Well, now those trends have all come home to roost, and that “alarmism” has proven precisely accurate. The warnings have come true in no small part not just because conservatives drove their bus over the cliff, but because many progressives — especially those in institutional progressive organizations — did not take them seriously either, and took few steps to address the underlying dynamic. And this is especially true of the leftist ideologues who seem to think that all you have to do is magically elect a progressive president and everything will be better, because their failures to keep the ball rolling in between presidential elections led to the rise of the Tea Party and the enshrinement of the radicalization of the American right.
And now these same, clueless progressives are insisting that — even with the steam train of extremist right-wing populism, the historical foundation of all fascist movements, heading straight towards them in the form of the Trump candidacy — their Purity of Essence will keep them from ever voting for the last remaining politician capable of keeping him from attaining the presidency.
Look, I support the Sanders campaign’s desire to take their movement into the convention, since I support most components of their agenda (though not all). I think progressives need to push the Clinton camp leftward — not just now, but after the election too. You’ll not hear me disparage the Sanders campaign and its doggedness.
But if you can’t understand that a Donald Trump presidency would be an extinction-level event for American democracy — and especially if you are so fanatically blinkered that you think that Clinton and Trump are actually comparable or similar — then you have neither paid any attention to the matters that I’ve spent the past 14 years focused on, and/or you simply have no respect for it. You are, on a very deep level, no friend of mine.
So you can just go hit that “Unfriend” button now. Because if you don’t, I will get around to it eventually.
It’s not going too far to say that this neatly summarizes my entire political outlook and the reason I’ve been blogging for over ten years instead of doing something more lucrative that might put some money in my bank account.
“…many progressives are only interested in using this information as a hammer for bashing conservatives with, rather than taking seriously the underlying issues it exposes, particularly the progressive abandonment of rural areas.”
Yes, I see a lot of sentiment that they are all racist losers whose difficulties are dismissed because…racist. The old neoliberal “worthiness” standard.
I have posted several pieces on the subject myself.
The amount of concern trolling by progressives about Bernie is really reaching critical mass.
To the extent one really believes “leftist ideologues” are responsible for the state of American politics, discourse and particularly voting outcomes — to that extent one is utterly delusional.
Of course Trump is a disaster. Yes, is. Even if he doesn’t win, he’s wreaking enormous damage. If he wins it will be worse, much worse. OF COURSE IT WILL, DUH.
What it won’t be is: the fault of people who can’t abide Clinton.
Those people exist but they are not Clinton’s real problem.
Her real problem is convincing the much larger group of people who are not utterly repulsed by her, that they should vote for her. Failure to do that is the only thing that can stand in her way to getting elected.
That group is a much larger portion of the Sanders supporters than the NeverHillary portion.
Self-styled, self-righteous progressives who focus endlessly on a nebulous left, either damning it with faint praise or more often damning it outright, rather than on assisting a campaign that desperately needs to embrace a larger portion of its natural base instead of alienating it — those “progressives” will do far more damage to Clinton’s chances against Trump than the sliver of non-voting of #NeverHillarys.
People who believe #NeverHillary are even sillier than ones who believed #NeverTrump.
Everybody’s singing with their hand on their heart
About deeds done in the darkest hours
That’s just the sort of catchy little melody
To get you singing in the showers
Oh, I know that I’m ungrateful
I’ve got it lying on a plate
And I’m not buying my share of souvenirs
You can stand to attention
You can pray to your uncle
Only get that chicken out of here
Everyone gets armbands and 3-D glasses
Some are in the back room
And they’re taking those night classes
You think they’re so dumb, you think they’re so funny
Wait until they’ve got you running to the
Night rally, night rally, night rally
BooMan, keep hammering this.
I’m not sure I have this straight. I’m supposed to vote for Hillary because she’ll reverse the Democratic Party’s abandonment of rural areas? (The West Virginians might disagree with that.) Or because she’s all that stands between us and the fascist threat? Or because you won’t be my friend if I don’t?
Second to last.
Now you’re just fear mongering!
I just thought I would save them the trouble of typing. They have an answer for everything.
We already have the complete corruption of government by business interests, domestic spying on a level undreamed of by the Stasi, persecution of whistleblowers, permanent war, indefinite detention without trial, and summary execution – all with the blessing of the Democratic Party.
Trump’s more vulgar form of fascism might be a good enough reason for you to vote for his opponent. But he represents a difference of degree, not kind.
Keep telling yourself this.
I heard the same BS argument during the Bush/Gore election.
If you really believe that Trump “represents a difference of degree, not kind,” you clearly no absolutely nothing.
Over at Salon.com, Neal Gabler – arguing for your side, actually – correctly observes, with italic emphasis:
What he’s too much of a loyal Democrat to recognize is that this cuts both ways.
When Obama unilaterally orders the assassination of those he decides are enemies to America, you shrug it off because he’s a Democrat – and therefore must have only the best of intentions. And when a 16 year old kid from Denver becomes the next to die… well, the presidency is a difficult job that requires hard choices.
The problem is that when Trump starts unilaterally ordering the assassination of those he decides are enemies to America – say, reporters from The New York Times – you will only be able to bleat about how the death powers Obama bequeathed to him aren’t being used the right way.
Execution without trial is fascism – even when the executioner is pro-choice.
Who’s that “you” in your comment?
Every single Administration has ordered and committed extrajudicial murders of people around the world.
It is regretful that you appear to be blind to this fact. Or, alternatively, that you wish to hold President Obama to a remarkably different standard in this area.
“Every single Administration…”
No. It’s Obama who has legalized, regularized and institutionalized the extrajudicial murder — of even American citizens — on nothing more than Presidential say-so.
It’s a genuinely new development.
Under a Democratic President.
It’s real.
One can compose apologia for that, but one can’t simply dismiss it.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini
Which candidate’s family has received three billion dollars from the ultra-rich over the last fifteen years. Why should anyone believe that she will in their interest over the interest of the working class?
Thanks Eric, I was wondering about that too. Didn’t the abandonment the 50 state strategy end the Democratic Party’s wooing of rural areas? Wasn’t the Democratic Party then steered by elites like Paul Begala, Rahm and DWS who ignored and mocked our rural cousins?
So now we’re being asked to back these folks to save us all from the mess they created?
I might just do that Dave but I am also going to tell you what a preachy a-hole you are for painting all progressives with such a broad brush.
‘All’ progressives.
MAHAHAHA!
Next step, coming soon….”Dave Neiwart is such a neoliberal sellout!”
.
despite the fact that the “50 State Strategy” was a myth we all told ourselves, there never was a 50 state strategy
And one day we’ll all realize that democracy was a myth.
>>I am also going to tell you what a preachy a-hole you are
seconded!
half of that quote is standard “everyone left of me is a communist moron”. It does nothing to make me want to read more of Dave’s opinions.
but I agree with the bottom line that Trump is unacceptable.
What in Neiwert’s post is preachy? What suggests that he’s attacking anyone to his left?
“clueless progressives”
“Purity of Essence”
“leftist ideologues”
http://youtu.be/CIYS9EQWkXg
.
Where will be our next war under President Clinton that you will do nothing about?
everything but a McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis reference.
All he needed was a Nader/Florida spit to complete his Bingo card.
Yes, indeed, why would they? They have near managed to set up a perpetual incentive to keep those “unnecessisariats” around…as long as they can exist as a minority that is scary enough to keep their team in the WH. (Now is that Machiavellian enough for a Kissinger or what?)
Of course, the states pay for it in the neck as they are eaten one by one. SC would only frost the cake that has already been baked in the states re reproductive agency.
I’m in California. My state, like most blue states, is doing perfectly well as regards reproductive rights. The Supreme Court could end that, and endanger my daughters’ lives. That “frosting” matters.
Up to 240,000 Women Have Tried to Give Themselves Abortions in Texas
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/thousands-texas-women-are-trying-self-induce-abortions
Yes. We fight for them. We don’t just decide that it’s already a done deal and the Supreme Court making that horror necessary across the nation is “frosting”.
No. The Democratic Party/DNC does not bother to run candidates in many Texas offices. It is content to run the municipal strongholds.
And the voters would react by then voting for the Democrat running?
Are Democrats not running because they’d get less than 40% of the vote, or because the Democratic party, basically being worse than Hitler, wants Texas Democrats to perform abortions on themselves?
That can change at any point. All it takes is a Texan Democratic who cares enough to bother. Once the SC adds it’s “frosting”, however, the whole country is stuck. I’m still not seeing how “things are bad in some places” equals “so we shouldn’t fight to keep them from getting worse everywhere.”
I don’t know where you got the idea that you’re privileged enough to vote for anything.
But, since you asked, Clinton has laid out a comprehensive plan for helping West Virginians.
“Or because she’s all that stands between us and the fascist threat?”
I guess that’s not enough for you.
In a moment of clarity Mussolini once said that fascism should be called “corporatism”. A merging of corporation and state. That is, H. Clinton, in Mussolini’s own definition, is a fascist.
To further bring home the point, H. Clinton is a fascist. She collects money from the wealthiest of the wealthy because she ultimately does what the ownership class wants. Her foreign policy is PNAC. That’s why the Russian press fears a Clinton presidency and is preparing for WWIII. She is now risking world war with Russia and China in order to make the world safe for profit.
She will flirt with social issues and not say absolutely dumb crap like Trump does because she’s smarter. She still screws up. The Kissinger, Steinem, Albright endorsements shows where the Goldwater Girl’s heart still is. She can feel the pain of the poor for public consumption (not as well as past Dems), but ultimately there will still be private prisons and people going to jail for smoking weed. She will still be cozy with the Kings of Oxycontin, because that’s where the money is. Likewise, any banking reform she presides over will not in any way interfere with profit.
In short, Trump is a cartoon fascist, Hillary is the real deal. The choice is between entertainment and efficiency.
Note voting for HRC is simply not the same as voting for Trump. This argument betrays basic math.
Thought you guys were all about the Math?
I’ve been told that the Two Party System® is more immutable and unchallengeable than mere mathematics.
I just sent Dave Neiwert a friend request.
The more that nut bag Trump speaks, the more it all becomes self evident. I too have lost a few FB friends. I’d never realized how crazy they were until Trump. There is simply no way of arguing with them, on any level of logic or empathy. I dislike Hillary but thank goodness she is not screwy. I now fear what the Feds will do about her emails.
What ‘democracy’? Everyone Knows that it’s all bought and paid for, a shell, a facade. How can something non-existent have an extinction anyways?
Eyes on the prize. Those contradictions don’t heighten themselves, people.
Do you want a revolution, or want to talk about a revolution?
“Extinction level event” is about the most overwrought thing I have read. What is Trump going to do: repeal elections?
Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because Hillary is just too dangerous.
If necessary to get what he wants, yes.
You doubt this?
Wait.
AG
We are old enough to remember: That EXACT SAME THING was said of the presidency of George W. Bush.
It meant — literally — the death of American democracy.
We were told — explicitly — that we should expect Bush to suspend elections or otherwise fascistically prevent turnover of power to any Democratic President.
To note the cry-wolf nature of these alarms against Trump is neither an apology for the unconscionable damage actually done by the Bush presidency nor a failure to regard the certain damage which would be done by a Trump presidency.
It’s simply to say: your words matter. When you’re full of crap, people notice. Both your friends and your enemies.
As a friend, I’d suggest:
-Focus on what Trump is actually saying he’ll do, because that’s already more than bad enough.
-Focus on getting your candidate to draw more potential supporters to her, rather than shaming and chastising them.
Dubya wasn’t the death of American democracy, merely a symptom.
The precautionary principle applies.
I agree with every word of that, except your spelling of David Neiwert’s name.
Yes, this. Exactly.
But we also have to keep cutting through the Clinton drive to satisfy big donors.
Example:
Barney Frank is now a lobbyist for the financial industry seeking to undo Dodd-Frank.
Daniel Malloy is the governor of the State of Connecticut, whose largest industry is insurance and especially health insurance.
That’s why Sanders wants to replace at least one of them as co-chair of the platform committee.
Thanks. What you said. Not all criticism of Hillary is beyond the pale, which is, uh, my criticism of some D-party voters. There’s a lot of issues that Sanders has raised that are, indeed, factual. From where I sit, Hillary makes some noises to indicate that she’s “heard” Sanders’ supporters and is “concerned.”
Then she appoints Big Giant SELL OUT Barney Frank, plus Daniel Malloy, and, what? I’m supposed to feel mollified because Trump.
WYSIWYG. Caveat Emptor.
And then the Clinton communications machine claims Sanders supporters are gay bashing by opposing Barney Frank. If it weren’t people that you suspect are being paid to say it, it would make me trust their non-election-season opinions less. But when they start all saying the same line, you wonder which folks are being paid and which are pushing the line for free.
Considering some of the “where did this come from?” nonsense that so unlike their earlier tone, it is my hope that they are being paid. Times are tough right now, and taking money for Hillary’s stupid campaign operatives and big donors is likely the best use for what Citizens United has created.
Cigna and Anthem merger and Malloy…
http://www.ibtimes.com/will-cigna-anthem-merge-how-health-insurance-companies-pump-money-politics-23
76438
Barney, Malloy and DWS need to go, all of them.
Be careful what you wish for:
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2016/05/with-progressives-like-these.html
Canova got in the race partly bc of her support for TPP and her support of Pay Day lenders. Sanders opposes her partly bc of the way she handled the primaries. That is my beef as well as the TPP thing. Barney is a lobbyist for guess who?
It is reported that no representatives of labor unions are wanted on the platform, of course…
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/06/01/american-serfdom-companies-are-offering-loans-for-living-exp
enses-to-their-destitute-employees/
Incorrect. Barney Frank in on the Board of Directors at Signature Bank. Signature Bank has complied with the rules of Dodd-Frank and they have reported they are at low risk even under strict stress test conditions.
The bank is in excellent financial shape.
Barney Frank sits on the board, he is not a lobbyist trying to undo his namesake bill.
you’re interrupting the sweet music playing in their heads…
Nothing “sweet” about the music, but at least we can hear it which is unlike those that deny the existence of neoliberalism and that it along with global warming are the mega-threats.
You can hear the music that’s not there. Interesting!
No we can see the trends that are making a very large section of Americans poorer with each passing election cycle. Trends which are accepted by candidates who toe the neo-liberal line to get donations from those the neo-liberal lobbyists and benefactors profiting from it being pushed on all Americans to their detriment.
Neo-liberalism, here’s how the IMF views on it;
“NHS and universities”
Two profit centers for the neo-liberals in the USA to fight helping the poor and middle class with governmental intervention. The neo-liberals want to make everyone get health insurance instead of having the government provide health care directly, LIKE ALL other modern industrial societies do at lower costs than we suffer under with our privatized health care system.
Education, make people deeply indebted to get a college degree, instead of making it as affordable like we did in the 50-60’s, but the neo-liberals don’t make HUGE profits off that do they. Then they cannot shell out the big bucks to their favorite politicians to keep the money train a rollin’ their way.
Neo-liberalism, the policy pushed by Clinton, and the DNC approved candidates for years, the IMF of all people are concluding this is bad for democracy, and most of it’s citizens.
Neo-liberalism, what Bernie was warning us all about, and running to change.
I thought it was Republicans and Conservatives who thought that the government should be replaced by private entities. Since Reagan and before they have been selling that story. And, in fact, when things screw up (like the VA), they seize on it to underscore their point and convince millions. How can you be so angry with liberals (neo or otherwise) when they are the ones trying (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to buck that trend. One example is getting the middle man out of college loans (it was just a gift to banks). No matter how much after the housing collapse the Republicans wanted to close Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they still go on financing homes for many people. It’s a mixed bag, isn’t it?
That’s why they call H. Clinton and her posse Republican-lite.
“liberals”,and the distinction is critical to any meaningful discussion of either/both. (To my mind, at least, they are even mutually exclusive. “Neoliberal” is a very unfortunate coinage for just this reason: it allows this confusion with “liberal” by people who haven’t paid close attention or looked into the meaning of the terms in much detail. I’m inclined to think this has been part of the great success of the Gingrich/Rove/et al. propaganda campaign to turn “liberal” into a pejorative.)
RE (of course):
For example, I am unaware of any neoliberals “trying . . . to buck that trend”; quite the contrary.
DiTourno, it was a metaphor. Are you incapable of processing what a metaphor actually means?
The actual meaning is that a lot of Clinton supporters don’t really recognize, even understand the complaints about her. Your wisecrack seems to indicate that Sanders supporters actually do have you figured out.
Alternatively, Bob, perhaps you and others are able to recognize or even understand that you may be wrong about Hillary, and that many of the things you claim about her are repellent and not supported by the facts.
World War III, fascism, etcera…I just fundamentally disagree with many of these unsupported claims of yours here.
I didn’t say I was preparing for WWIII. I said the Russians were. You want links?
http://thesaker.is/22776/
http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160602/1040696575/carter-pacific-provocations.html
http://thesaker.is/the-end-of-m-a-d-the-beginning-of-madness/
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160602/1040693785/chomsky-russia-obama.html
http://thesaker.is/as-our-past-wars-are-glorified-this-memorial-day-weekend-give-some-thought-to-our
-prospects-against-the-russians-and-chinese-in-world-war-iii/
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/17/shell_make_iran_syria_worse_what_the_media_wont_tell_you_about_our_f
oreign_policy_and_how_hawkish_hillary_will_pour_the_kerosene/
http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160602/1040696575/carter-pacific-provocations.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-02/hillary-clinton-proves-democrats-no-longer-oppose-endless-w
ars
I really do hope I am wrong about Hillary. I hope the rest of the world is wrong about Hillary. But I suspect there will be more “We came, we saw, he died.” Who knows? Maybe Chelsea will get to sit on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company.
But the problem here isn’t that I don’t trust Hillary not to follow PNAC. The problem is that Russia and China don’t trust Hillary not to follow PNAC. Do you think that they don’t trust her because she’s a woman or Debbie Wasserman Schultz put her finger on the scale? I don’t think so.
How much do you think that she can “turn up the pressure on Russia” before they react?
I know I’m not getting the full story re. our foreign policies from standard American news outlets. But some of these posts are pretty propagandistic, aren’t they?
When I read claims like “Duplicity is Hillary Clinton’s standard modus operandi,” these summaries don’t appear to be coming from trustworthy narrators of world events.
Go ahead and give Putin a big thumbs up if that’s what you’re into. I don’t wish to navigate that river with you.
There is a presumption that if you say anything opposed to America’s actions against Russia that you must be a Putin devotee. Not true for me. However, it is a means to dismiss any position which suggests that there is a basis to Russia’s fear of war.
These are articles which describe the fear among Russia’s intelligentsia of war with the US, and their fear of Clinton as CIC.
Yes, you can find fault with the line “Duplicity is Hillary Clinton’s modus operandi” (but, as you know, a majority of Americans do not trust her either) but what other reason would the Russian press describe a state of fear that is unrecognized and unreported in the US?
I guess that it is possible that Russians are unduly afraid of Clinton and that her history of wars does not necessarily reflect the reality in the US’ corridors of power, or a continuation of those wars. But as we have seen, Hillary is the candidate of those in the corridors of power, not Trump or Sanders.
For our purposes, whether or not Clinton is actually trying to scare the Russians, it does not matter. If the Russians are scared that means that any overreach by the US towards Russia is riskier than at any time in recent history. Clinton has talked about “liberating” Crimea, which cannot be done without a full-scale war against Russia. Right now NATO is building up troop strength and armored divisions in the Baltics along the Russian border. The US is dismantling Mutual Assured Destruction by putting anti-missile systems in Poland and Romania. Even if this is all for show, who is the audience? Why, Russia. You may think that the US can continue to wage wars around Russia without accidentally triggering a nuclear exchange. I am not so sure, and Russians apparently doubt it.
Example #1 is Russia’s insertion into Syria. That appears to be the line drawn by Russia after decades of US imperialism in the Middle East. One thing that Clinton has stressed in debates is the creation of a “no-fly zone” over Syria. ISIS and al-Nusrah have no air force. Syria still has some functioning jets and helicopters. Russia has a strong air presence there.
Would Hillary’s no-fly zone be directed at Syria and Russia? How many Russian jets do you think will be shot down before Russia retaliates? After Turkey shot down the Russian bomber last fall the Russians moved in S-500s. In essence, Russia can create its own no-fly zone throughout Syria and southern Turkey.
You see, Russia takes H. Clinton seriously. Does Clinton, as her first act as president, back away from a no-fly zone (I believe a Syrian no-fly zone was part of the PNAC plan going back before 9/11)? Or does she go ahead?
No matter what river you wish to navigate, a nuclear exchange would probably affect that river. And our children.
NOT divisions, but a single brigade sized force on a rotational basis;
The rotation is meaning they are deployed from 9-12 months and another unit deploys to replace them, keeps a set amount of troops there, however none are permanently assigned there. More a pentagon book keeping move than a strategic move.
From a military stand point, a brigade cannot stop the Russian Western Military District forces from over-running all the Baltic states in one day if so ordered.
What the brigades presence does, is strategic.
Russian forces must fire upon US forces to seize control of any territory they operate in, meaning the a war against the US to take the Baltic states again.
I don’t think Putin wants the Baltic states whether we are there or not. Given the fact all three are members of NATO, and have agreed to allow NATO countries forces to be stationed on their territory means Putin might not like it, but it is what it is. He cannot change the situation with out a shooting war, which neither side wants.
Thanks.
They are paragons of virtue:
“In a lawsuit in a Florida state court, the investors are suing Signature, accusing it of helping the money manager pull off his Ponzi scheme by ordering him to shift money around the dozens of accounts he kept at the bank to cover long-term overdrafts.
The cozy relationship Signature had with the money manager and his now-bankrupt investment firm helped advance the scheme, according to the lawsuit.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/business/dealbook/signature-bank-sued-over-connection-to-ponzi-sch
eme.html?_r=0
Tarheel. You think that’s why he wants to replace them? Are we back to Saint Bernard, again. His motive is more likely power and not much else. He’s been pushing the envelope for what he can get away with in the convention. And it’s all symbolic, not substantive. The platform doesn’t mean much.
I’d rather he push Merkley, his only Senate supporter, into a VP slot, and leave all this other BS aside. It’s just riling folks up about “the corrupt system” instead of about putting a progressive in power. And Oregon is a state where the governor would replace a Senator with another Dem, unlike MA, OH, and some others.
Barney Frank is in the post-political part of his career. IIRC, Elizabeth Warren replaced him when he retired in 2014. In fact, I believe that his post-political plans were instrumental in recruiting her to run.
Merkeley as a co-chair of the platform committee would be a reasonable situation.
I’m not an advocate of raiding the Congress for a VP nominee. I still like the idea of Hilda Solis as a candidate.
Well, when you get right down to it all politicians at the state and national level are motivated by power and not much else. It is the power to deliver good things for people; the difference is in the people they want to deliver it to. That is a strange mix from politician to politician of 1% and 99% constituencies.
Riling folks up about the corrupt system is (1) a way to get turnout, and (2) a way to elect members of Congress and legislatures to fix the corrupt system. It is interesting that progressives have lost that traditional aspirational platform plank. Democrats are going to have to get folks riled up about voting against Trump for some reason that doesn’t paralyze them with fear.
Trump’s campaign is playing on Republican fear that under Democrats, the government might just get enough done to earn reelection for a generation. What they fear most is the re-establishment of the New Deal loyalty and entrenchment of a standard of justice from the civil rights movements that loses them their “Hell No” faction that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have worked for 30 years to herd into the veal pen.
And it’s not just a progressive that we need in power, it’s 220 plus progressives in the house, 66 progressives in the Senate, progressive governors in the states, and progressive legislatures. That’s the only way to undo the federal damage of the past 36 years and the attempts to engrain that damage in the states through 50 identical parallel sets of legislation. That’s a huge job that cannot be undone in one election cycle. Having walked back from undoing what the Bush administration did is a huge loss.
I have mostly been away from this place for months because I am not crazy about either of our democratic candidates and I find all the fighting stressful. I have really stayed out of it because I don’t really have a dog in this fight – Obama was the guy I went to the mat for in 2008, and I feel both candidates this year pale in comparison – and I know that I will vote for the democratic candidate in the general.
TarheelDem, I have the utmost respect for you after reading your comments for years, so please forgive me if I should know this already, but I have been away. Your comment makes me wonder – do you think that the Bernie supporters who think the system is rigged will actually vote in November if Bernie is not the candidate? Will you vote for Clinton even though it seems that you don’t respect her or feel that her values/issues are in line with yours?
My feeling is that Trump will burn it all down if he’s elected; i believe that our democracy is at stake here. The math tells me that no matter how much we think Hillary will or won’t represent the ideals we believe in, no matter what, we have to support Hillary in November – because burning it all down will hurt the people who are already most vulnerable.
As I said, I have always had the utmost respect for you, so I would appreciate if you would share your thinking on this or point me in the direction of a thread that would make it clear without your having to write something again.
I feel kind of lonely arguing that the ability to compromise between the Clinton camp and the Sanders camp at the convention is key to victory in November. And in asserting that making it appear that Sanders is capitulating to the Democratic establishment will be counterproductive to turning out the Sanders voters Clinton needs to turn out. I can’t suggest a thread that hasn’t fallen into one side or the other.
Your concerns about the house burning down are real because of the assumption that Trump is so bad that Clinton can’t lose and the meme that there’s no difference between the two candidates.
My worry and why I’m still pessimistic is that despite the dramatic differences between them on national security, with either of them that house burns down. I hope my pessimistic is just the result of geezerhood and having seen too much, but it is still there.
I hope this shows up where I mean it to in the thread. What a great, civil exchange — what I wish was happening more here in the Pond.
Tarheel, so what do you think represents the right balance between Sanders not appearing to capitulate and not blowing up the whole thing? Somewhere he has to declare a victory for his supporters if he doesn’t win the nomination. What do you think that will look like? And will it be enough?
Or have the supporters drunk so much kool-aid that when he makes the turn that they’ll reject him too? Will it be enough people to matter?
I asked this kind of question once before. It was something like: If he wins the nomination and realizes that he has to “run to the center,” which is the general political consensus, how does he do that and maintain credibility with his supporters?
Those are both hypothetical questions from opposite directions. Neither Sanders’s supporters nor Clinton’s supporters are monolithic in their views. Their political instincts of how many they will add and lose will affect what they can accept and what they cannot, what they should hold out for, and what they should compromise. That is what should in fact happen before and be finalized during the convention.
Somme supporters of either will reject them if they endorse the other.
It is not a totally left-right “run to the center” sort of thing with the Sanders campaign, despite his identification as a democratic socialist.
Domestic policy in my opinion can be negotiated. Foreign policy and national security policy in my estimation is where the real irreconcilable issues are. These are hunches.
To run against Trump, Democrats are going to have to undo 15 years of continuous fear mongering and understand foreign affairs and national security as something in which our frantic fear weakens us. And Clinton has to understand that financially giving the Pentagon everything it wants does not make us safe at all. Nor does giving the intelligence community a black check make or keep us free citizens.
Minimum wage of $15, increase in Social Security, movement toward college debt forgiveness and subidies of college education are key platform planks balanced with tax simplification and progressive tax rates. And set out what incomes they apply to and the fact that what were the brackets need to be indexed to inflation.
Clinton’s position on banks seems to echo Obama’s position that banks need to be regulated by what they do instead of what they call themselves. Fair enough, but FDIC-insured consumer operations need to be completely separate (without holding company or interlocking board connections) from uninsured investment banks. And something needs to be done about credit card rates and payday lending sharking. A common ground might be the use of a federal postal bank to deal with banking deserts.
I don’t know if that is where Sanders and his folks or Clinton and her folks are coming from, but it is the sort of nitty-gritty detailed negotiations that must go on so there is clarity about what a Democratic President and Congress will do from day one and some pretty strict unity in the Congress about getting that done if they have the majority.
The benefits must go clearly to the 99% of Americans who have been left out of federal largesse that has gone to banks, defense contractors, the oil industry, and the firms that have dodged antitrust legislation with mergers and acquisitions into new trusts and monopolies.
To the extent that Sanders must stiff his supporters, Clinton must stiff her large donors.
What the Democrats must do is create a center far to the left and far to the 99% from where Trump is positioning himself. It must have a narrative of how Democrats can deliver the platform in reality that makes sense to ordinary Americans not swayed by the Great GOP Wurlitzer (i.e. Obama voters plus as many Sanders voters as can be brought over plus disenchanted Republicans and right-center independents willing to move leftward for one election to give a different way of thinking a try.
Can the Democratic Party think outside of the status quo enough to pull of this broad and practical a platform? As much as I hope so, I fear that the status quo has too strong a grasp to pull it off.
In addition there must be some blending of personnel in the campaign and a structural dependency of both campaigns on the good faith of the other to pull it off. The only thing that could motivate that is if they are stone-cold serious about the real threat that Trump is to the United States of America and not indulging in political hyperbole. And have a common sense of the weak points at which Trump can be beaten.
My sense is those points have to do with his real dealmaking abilities, his real sources of wealth (besides his Dad’s million-dollar challenge), and his consistency in what he claims and offers the American people as President.
If Trump is indeed as unpopular as the optimists maintain, putting together 270 electoral votes should not be difficult. The numbers issue with Sanders (or Clinton) voters are crucial in delivering a Congress that is not gridlocked. That is what the negotiations should be focused on.
The difficult question this year is “Where is the post-Trump center going to be? If it is culturally, politically, and economically further to the right and to the 1%, governing is going to be even more difficult than the past 15 years.
Internal reforms that could help Sanders maintain credibility are (1) elimination of the superdelegate “smoke-filled room” split of delegates, (2) a commitment to rebuilding state parties, (3) more room for labor at the table, (4) building and rebuilding effective party structures to the precinct level, (5) opening up the party to honest debate with left factions in the context of a big tent, (6) abandoning the practice of leaving certain classes of voters with nowhere to go, (7) commitment to erasing obstacles to registration and voting by everyone. Reforming office-holder communication practices so that citizens are in fact welcome communicators with office-holders rather than government service consumers whose call center is “constituent services”. (8) Weaning the Democratic Party at least of large donations while still running effective campaigns. Freeing office-holders from losing large chunks of time in fund-raising. This whole area is going to require some effective new ideas as well. Status quo campaigning and overpriced consultants can no longer bring victory.
This is far from the routinized campaigning that most Democratic election folks want.
Yet again, a thoughtful and respectful reply. Thank you. I mainly agree with your points.
I think it will be easier for Clinton to stiff her donors than for Sanders to stiff his supporters. Maybe a better way to say that is that Clinton’s donors most likely expect to get stiffed and Sanders supporters do not.
As for some of the other points, I think even Clinton supporters who are elected officials (and some of us out here working in county parties) feel that more work is to be done to improve most people’s lives. I sometimes have a hard time understanding why there is so much resistance to helping people. A cliche: A rising tide lifts all boats. But there is a sense in the country that some people are actively pushing others down (as opposed to simply ignoring them), so much pushing down that there is a desire to push back hard.
A question will be what government can do when one party says that the government should “get out of the way” and “the market will make the correction”. And the other party (ours) sees a much larger role for government in protecting people.
It’s a new world with weak confidence in traditional institutions, including unions, which in the past have made a big difference regarding social equality. I’m just not sure how the change is going to happen — unless everyone who is of like mind keeps working at it after this election. And they must decide, I suppose, which party represents the best opportunity to move the needle (unless they want to overturn the 2 party system, which may be a fools errand).
Just some random thoughts. (I wish I could be as organized in my thinking as you.) Again, much appreciated.
TarheelDem, this long, thoughtful comment from you is much appreciated!
I hope there are people like you at the table as things get worked out between the campaigns. As you say, that is only part of what needs to happen. The democratic party really needs to wake up and make some serous changes – basically your items 1-10 in your second to last paragraph.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, the one exception being your description of 15 years of continuous fear mongering related to foreign policy. I think that was true before President Obama and I fear that would be true with a President Clinton. I don’t think that has been true of President Obama’s foreign policy, which has helped me sleep at night.
The kitty has crawled up into my lap and is demanding that I stop typing.
I will just close with another thank you – this comment has been so helpful. You are a treasure.
I did not say that President Obama was doing the fear-mongering. For his Presidency, it was the environment within which he was compelled to act.
I hadn’t thought about it from that perspective, but uou are so right about that.
Thanks so much for the reply! Apologies for the belated response – today has been a whirlwind with no time for the computer.
I share your hope that the cooler heads will prevail in both camps. What we really need right now are people who can leave the pettiness of the campaign season behind, can see the big picture and can act on it.
I have worries about national security, too. I didn’t realize it until I saw your reply, but as I have worried about the house burning down my focus has been on the domestic side of things. When I worry about national security I worry about war and things blowing up – literally and figuratively.
I don’t recall you being quite this pessimistic in the past. I am seriously hoping that both of us end up pleasantly surprised by foreign policy choices under Clinton. I have no positive expectations for anything at all if Trump wins. Basically, if Trump wins, the entire country loses, and our democracy becomes a joke.
Having Pat McCrory as one’s governor and a GOP majority legislature for the past six years in a state that was the most progressive in the South makes one pessimistic, especially after the “We are watching you” letter that the NC Democratic Party sent out right before election day in the last election. It did not go down well with so many progressive Democrats and a whole lot of long-term Democrats. Not to mention that it was boneheaded, poorly expressed, and apparently went out without Patsy Keever’s approval (or that’s the current story). And there’s no narrative about it being a GOP dirty trick.
I see things trending further away from reality and being peddled with a wash of cynicism. Yes, I’m more pessimistic than I’ve been in years with the eager embrace of the New Cold War. The Old One nearly got us annihilated a couple of time, and it was more often the Soviet Union that blinked that the “strong” United States.
No one alive really remembers an America that even briefly has both peace and prosperity.
“No one alive really remembers an America that even briefly has both peace and prosperity. “
What a sad statement that is about the limited success of our nation’s experiment in democracy.
Actually, we don’t need anything like a all-progressive majority in Congress. A 10-20 seat majority of the current Democrats in the House will get major sections of Hillary’s platform through, including a substantive minimum wage increase, a childcare package, campaign finance reform (with a Court that will let it stand this time) and curbs on police brutality. That will bring substantial life improvements in precisely the working classes who have been left behind for the last 40 years, apart from Bill Clinton’s administration. That will be enough to earn re-election for a generation, and a lot of further improvements during that generation.
Is the Senate going to confirm a Supreme Court nominee with a minimalist majority?
A minimal Republican majority in either house of Congress with lead to same obstructionist tactics. They are not going to be cowed with a Trump loss.
The filibuster is dead. The next time it actually stops something it’s gone. Assuming a Democratic Senate (we don’t even need the House for this) we’ll either get Garland or somebody Hillary appoints, and they’ll be the 5th vote for campaign finance reform.
You are correct that if we don’t get a House majority very little will get done. Ergo, our focus should be “how do we get the House”.
Let me fix this for you:
“Well, when you get right down to it all politicians at the state and national level are motivated by power and not much else.”
Could be re-written as:
“Well, when you get right down to it all politicians at the state and national level are motivated by SELF INTEREST
Which also could be re-written as:
“Well, when you get right down to it PEOPLE are motivated by SELF INTEREST”
Up to the point at which that self-interest rots the political process and undermines the future of the Republic.
That’s where an Ayn Randian understanding of self-interest has brought us in this election.
The difference is, and always will be, the difference between enlightened self interest against a view that regards everything as a zero-sum game.
anegadagino, every politician wants power. Do you think that Trump and H. Clinton don’t want power? The question is power for what. I trust Sanders. I don’t trust the frontrunners. Trump is publicly masturbating, massaging his huge ego. Clinton’s is similar, with a stronger profit motive and an unfulfilled desire to please her father. Both of them are filling holes that can’t be filled.
Not much of a choice, but H. Clinton is the one more likely to get us killed.
So, since you mentioned me by name, and I appreciate your thoughts, let me ask this: Are you a psychoanalyst? On what do you base your trust in Sanders? Are you afraid of dying (thinking that Clinton will get us killed?). I don’t know which Portland you live in, but neither one is far from Canada. Perhaps you should give that some consideration since you have such a doom-and-gloom assessment of the future of America.
Also the past of America.
No, I am not a psychiatrist.
I am an American. I was born an American, and will die an American.
Will Clinton get us killed? Russia is talking about a third world war. They rightly point to NATO trying to stir up problems all around their border, the failed attempt to bankrupt it through sanctions and driving down oil prices globally, Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia, Afghanistan et al. The Russians are well aware of the US’s strategy against Russia, and they are more prepared to fight back this time. Will that bring on a nuclear conflagration? I’m not a fortune teller either, but trends are trends.
If you can recall back to post-9/11 America, remember all the calls against us starting unnecessary wars? All those unnecessary wars are essentially H. Clinton’s foreign policy. Remember how shocked we all were when we discovered PNAC and that Dubya was essentially following that blueprint in our Middle Eastern conquests?
What is the difference between H. Clinton’s foreign policy, as much as we can derive from her campaigning and her time as SOS? Any? We still support regime changes and coups and invasions as much as we did under Dubya. The difference is that Democrats who were upset about them seem to take them in stride when they’re waged under a Democrat.
I agree with Sanders’ positions. He’s not going to get the nomination, it’s in the cards that Hillary will win. I would advise those who see themselves as progressive to not cuddle too closely to that fan of Kissinger. You will either be very embarrassed or you will find yourselves making excuses for the next four years, and I don’t want to see Democrats betray their consciences in order to cheer someone with a D after her name.
Most progressives can agree that Saudi Arabia is our most despicable ally. Why did the House of Saud give H. Clinton a half-million in jewels? Oh, she hasn’t pawned them or shown them off at fundraisers. But the Saudis gave her a half-million that they knew she was going to have to surrender under federal law. So it was a half-million dollar show. You may not find any symbolism in that gesture, but I’m sure folks in Iran have figured it out.
Well, that’s a serious reply. Thanks. We aren’t likely to agree on most of this. I think, however, that the point has been made to Clinton and others about overly aggressive foreign invasions. Hillary was not alone in some of the things you suggest. And Sanders was a non-entity (sorry) when it came to these things. But, I’d posit, that given the positions Hillary has been in, as an observer in the WH with Bill and as SOS, she has a different view of the complexities of international affairs, than most anyone else. We (you and I) may not always agree with her, but from the perch of the situation room, things may look a little different. We can all look back to Obama’s 1st campaign and hear the “smart war” talk, the Nobel peace Prize talk, and think we’ll not get entangled. Even the Cairo speech. And still there were drones, and a few US citizens (most likely bad guys, but still) hit. The middle east is a pretty difficult place to get out of once you decide you’re going to be a world leader, in all respects. So I’m counting on that, on some lessons learned, on people like you, to not be duped into another war of choice.
AS for the jewels, I guess they were given to her because they’d look better on her than on Bernie. Don’tcha think?
Have “folks in Iran” figured out why Hillary supports the Iran nuclear deal, and why her State Department helped pursue intitial talks which eventually led to the final settlement?
I know better than to believe that Clinton will be some terrific peacemonger, but she’s not going to take us to war with Russia. She’ll keep it in the ballpark here, unlike these charges you’re leveling. Daddy issues? Quite the roll you’re on.
One thing I’ll give her, Jake Sullivan, her senior campaign advisor on foreign policy was in on the Iran deal when she was SS, and continued after she left that office.
Don’t think she’ll be turning her back on the deal.
I get so tired of those that claim to be members of the Democratic party and complain about the party. Is is perfect NO! But complaining about how little President Obama accomplished is a waste of time. Also comparing him to what all FDR accomplished is insane to say the least. Too many either are to young to know the facts or just plain lazy in this age of internet.
Look at the makeup of the Congresses FDR had to work with
http://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/73rd/
Party Divisions
Democratic Party 313
Republican Party 117
Farmer-labor 5
http://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/74th/
Party Divisions
Democratic Party 322
Republican Party 103
Progressives 7
Farmer- Labor 3
Compare the above to the pitiful Congressional makeup of today. That is the REAL problem folks. You want things done on social issues, climate change, trade agreements… Then recognize we need a huge Democratic Party lead Congress. That means quit trying to clean out the party and vote for Democratic Party members in everything at every level. Facts folks yes even blue dogs help the party. A blue dog will not vote for every bill but if they average say 65% of support. That is 65% more then any GOP member will vote for a Democratic Bill now days. It is strictly a numbers game. The more Democratic Party members we have the further left we can push. These politicians want to keep their jobs thus once voted in they will support what their constituents push them to or face being voted out.
So gripe and complain but name one GOP politician that you are sure will vote for the issues you support. If none then get everyone you know to run out and vote Democratic Party. The more active voters are the more change that will occur history shows that for all of those that care to look and learn.
Damn shame Tim Cain and debbie wasserman whatever gave up on the 50 state strategy eh?
With it the democratic party gained both houses of congress, without it the democratic party LOST both houses of congress.
Maybe, just maybe Barack Obama has nobody but himself for appointed those two, eh?
The better explanation is that there were other factors that led to two wave elections in 2006 and 2008. Widespread discontent with regards to the Iraq War likely drove the first and the economic collapse helped greatly in 2008.
Grassroots organizing is bigger than any one person. The losses in 2010 and 2014 have little to do with the lack of a 50 state strategy.
Except for the fact they stopped trying to win every seat, which means they handed seats to the GOP for free.
Allowing money to be spent in other places where the race was close.
I don’t think it would have mattered in either of those cycles. One could argue that it would have been a waste of money to seriously compete in 2010 in districts with a PVI of R+10 when the fundamentals (turnout, economy, and anti-Obamacare sentiment) indicated that incumbents in swing districts were likely to get wiped out. It’s logical to direct the money to where its most needed. I would love to see a true 50 state strategy but that will come from bottom-up organizing and not some figurehead at the DNC.
The other problem with your math is that it doesn’t include how many Republicans are willing to vote with a Democratic president and how many Democrats are actually progressive and not Republican-lite. The guy the DNC chose to run for the senate is up to his eyeballs in dirty money and was a Republican a couple of years ago. It appears that in our neoliberal world the difference between Republican and Democrat is a costume change. Trump, who used to support some Democratic positions to get along in New York, is now a Republican. Clinton, who is still worshipping at the altar of her dead Republican father, is now a Democrat of sorts.
Some people actually believe in things but for the frontrunners it’s only a matter of political positioning. The danger of Trump to Republicans is that he really doesn’t give a crap about who uses what bathroom because he owns his own bathroom. H. Clinton’s danger to the Democrats is that she could effectively eliminate progressives in the party.
If any of my Facebook friends actually abstain from voting against Trump, they will be unfriended. However, there a lot of folks new to the process, who need some time to be coaxed and educated. Many of my new mom friends (ie not my political comrades in arms) are a good decade younger than me; they Bernie supporters and are being given a steady diet of Bernie or bust on Facebook. And most of them are politically ignorant. They don’t remember the 2000 election and the Naderites. They don’t remember people saying, “If Bush wins, it’ll bring on true change because people will get fed up.” They need to be reminded of history. I’m not sure the threat of Fascism holds any real meaning to them. They certainly hold zero negative reaction to Communism or the Soviet threat.
In a sense they were correct. Bush gave us the first African-American president. Also, in my opinion, the greatest president of our time and one of the greats of all time. That’s the extent of my respect for President Obama.
“If any of my Facebook friends actually abstain from voting against Trump, they will be unfriended.”
And when H. Clinton starts another oil war and a million more people die what should people do with you? You know it’s going to happen. There are US combat troops now in Iraq and Libya. There have been US combat troops in Ukraine. Enjoy Hillary’s bloodbath.
Did anyone see Mitch McConnell on CNBC this morning. That show many not be your cup of tea. But he blamed Obama for regulations in years 3 to 8. He claims that the populace wants divided government, so Obama just side-stepped Congress to implement (through oppressive regulation) the liberal agenda he wants. He painted the Republican party as “the center” on the political spectrum. He said Obama wouldn’t move to the middle. So there’s another perspective from the other camp. They are the middle and Obama is the dangerous liberal. And Bernie wants to give everyone everything for free.
That’s what we’re up against. It seems delusional to me, perhaps to all of us. And then we complain that not enough gets done? Hmmmmm.
McConnell is another one I find really hard to listen to. I suspect it is a trait of these people to lie about anything that does not fit their world view.
The Turtle, interviewed on NPR last night (I think), repeatedly refer to the GOP as the “right-of-center” party (almost certain that quote’s verbatim).
Yet you want me to believe a prominent rightwing politician would reverse his message — to the point of self-contradiction — depending on the audience at the moment???
Say it isn’t so!
I met my best friend’s new girlfriend for the first time this past Memorial Day. She hit me with the “There’s no difference between Hillary and Trump” and “she’s the lesser of two evils” bullshit that the Self-Righteous Left keeps espousing.
I wasted not a nanosecond arguing with her because I know that the smell of their own farts is all the Purity Warriors care about.
“There’s no difference…” talk is that of a third party afficionado. And the key point that is available to refute that is differences in demonstrable action.
Has Hillary Clinton ever filed for bankruptcy to solidify her financial gains and stiff vendors, employees, and creditors? Donald Trump has — multiple times. What does that tell you about how they will handle the national debt?
How has Bernie Sanders handled personal and public debt?
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has taken the “best advice” of the national security establishment at least twice with known consequences. How did Iraq turn out? How did Libya turn out? Are we safer today than we were 16 years ago? In what way?
The other side of this is that Donald Trump has zero record in national security. We can go only on what he thinks he would do. Well, not even that. On what he says he would do. Well, what he says at this moment that he would do. At base, there is an attitude of unwillingness to be held accountable. Compare to Clinton’s credit the long hours she endured before the Benghazi committee. Isn’t it clear that Donald Trump would not deign appear before a Congressional investigating committee and would answer with word salad?
There are in fact differences between the halves of the establishment that reside in the two parties. For the voter, the difficulty is ferreting out who to compare to see those differences. What kingmaker corresponds to Sheldon Adelson or the Koch Brothers in the Democratic Party? What are they expecting the Democratic Party to do for their private interests? How well will they accept a government action that regulates their industry for good and sufficient technical reasons? Few voters have the time or inclination to puzzle this out, and the bases of figuring it out are difficult to state in the heat of an election. So the default assumption becomes that “there’s not a bit of difference between the parties”.
Yes, there is–because their establishment benefactors are in conflict with each other.
Of course there’s a difference. That doesn’t mean that either of them is good, just bad in different ways.
Militarism, a key component of fascism, is embedded in the Clinton doctrine. The last time she ran for president she and John McCain argued over which of them would make Iran glow more. Iran hasn’t invaded anyone in something like four hundred years. This time Hillary is talking up a no-fly zone in Syria. Guess who that will directly confront? Not ISIS. They don’t have an air force. Have you followed the weapons trail to ISIS?
When the US supported death squads in Latin America, when our intelligence agencies supported Operation Condor, were we fascist or just helping fascists? Today you can google pictures of Ukrainian troops wearing swastikas into battle. Apparently, that’s not enough to convince Americans that we’re on the side of fascism, or that we’ve been on the side of fascism since Germany stopped being the enemy and the Soviet Union became it.
Your choice in 2016: efficiency versus entertainment. We know how the Clintonites in the corridors of power have no problem in killing people around the world. The only question is how much the clown enjoys killing.
Edward Snowden has a legitimate beef.
We indeed have a two-tier society. Maybe three-tier.
There it is.
How come so many people cannot deal with that simple fact?
It’s beyond understanding.
AG
thanks for sharing, BooMan.
Donald Trump’s Money Is A Myth – Will He Bankrupt the RNC Too?
Moneyquote:”The idea that Trump is wealthy to the tune of his oft-claimed $10 billion dollars, combined with his utter lack of transparency regarding his fantasy financial statements left little to go on. For political professionals, due diligence required we assume he could bring serious cash to the game.
By August of last year, I was working to convince major donors that Trump would be a destructive force and likely throw the race to Hillary Clinton. One moment from that period sticks with me as a turning point in my thinking about Trump’s money; a major Wall Street donor laughed when I told him we’d need to mount a serious and fully-funded effort to take on Trump if he chose to self fund.
My friend scoffed at the very idea that Trump was worth even a
quarter of the mythical $10 billion, much less that he was liquid to
the tune of more than $200 million. “He’s not a billionaire. I’m a
billionaire. He’s a clown living on credit.”
*
The evidence is mounting, and quickly, that his promises to fund his campaign are just one more Trump con; a shell, a hollow edifice of fake-it-til-you-make-it. Trump, is by the standards of
99.9% of Americans, a wealthy man, but he’s not liquid enough to fund an actual modern campaign. It’s not simply that he doesn’t have the money; it’s that his mythos requires that no one ever figure out that he doesn’t have the money.
Excellent point. I hope that the Democratic campaigns can quickly make this understood to the people who have latched onto his shtick. Start an effective expose in August and sink him in September. Then start hammering a policy mandate and attack Republican Congressional candidates and legislative candidates as being part of the Trump con.
Play on “conservative” and “con”[fidence man]
But be ready for the screeching culture warriors.
What if Hillary is actually a fraud candidate? Dems might be suspected of that, after Gore, Kerry.
The fact that Trump is going to be the Republican nominee is such a sad indictment of our system- he won the Republican primary by getting the votes initially of about a third of the Republicans. In any sane system he wouldn’t have been able to get the nomination with two thirds of the primary electorate opposed to him. And a Trump-Hillary election… just awful. But we have a flawed, broken system and two very broken parties in my opinion.
But unfortunately, the lesson of this slow rolling disaster isn’t going to be how we need to fix our broken electoral system… it’s now vote for Hillary or the fascist wins. But if Hillary wins, it will be business as usual. And If Trump wins… god help us.
In deep blue California, its easy for me to make a protest vote. If the Democrat needs my vote to win here, then the election was lost way before that. But in a swing state, or near swing state, I probably wouldn’t even entertain the idea.
Um, when there was a 17-person Republican field Trump “only” got a third of the vote? And this is an indictment of the “broken electoral system”?
Anyway, go ahead and vote for Jill Stein or Vermin Supreme or whomever. Let everyone know how pure you are, or perhaps how edgy. Just don’t expect people to respect that choice.
Well, at least participate in the game: Where will the next US oil war be? Does Clinton send a few thousand soldiers to Libya or Syria? What civilian population will be fleeing for their lives. Those people drowning in the Mediterranean? Pile them up on Clinton’s Democratic platform.
In places where a candidate, either one, has an overwhelming majority in the polls, using your vote to send a message isn’t a “purity test”.
Maybe just maybe is is the first step in breaking the logjam the two parties have on the electoral process, and allowing a little more in the field of options than the lesser of two evils we face today.
I’m in a similar situation here in KY where no democratic national or state wide politician has much of a chance because of the hard right conservative religious views of quite a large part of the voting public.
I have a choice to cast a ballot both for senate and president knowing it has no chance of deciding the outcome. The religious leaning hard right trend in the state is growing not shrinking here. If I can however, help a third party to get more open access here, that is also an outcome with some positive possible result.
Because the two party system in Kentucky is totally corrupt, and until they get an outside challenge nothing is going to change in the two party good ole boy system in this state.
Will the IG report throw a wrench in the Clinton monkey works?
I doubt it. Too big to jail. She’s been running an extortion scheme through the Clinton Foundation and no one’s even thought of touching that operation.
Our President yesterday:
Much of this is justly aimed at the GOP’s — to be fair, corporate media’s — “free markets” propaganda machine.
And that’s 17 kinds of awesome.
But also:
“we’ve got to stop pitting working Americans against one another”
I read that as a well-deserved rebuke to the dead-end identity politics that have come to be so prevalent among many Democrats. We’ve seen it again and again from backers of Clinton in downplaying the importance of the victories Sanders has had: they’re due to the race, due to the sex of his supporters. IT’S POISONOUS.
Obama signals he gets that.
Take a clue, the rest of us, please!