What happens in Vegas is supposed to stay in Vegas, but whatever happens in Atlantic City is broadcast on the Philadelphia evening news, so Clinton is probably going to get some good publicity in Eastern Pennsylvania for traveling to the Jersey gambling mecca and highlighting Trump’s many bankruptcies. She’ll be there on Wednesday, and it will help change the subject from her damn emails.
She met with the FBI today, supposedly for about three and a half hours. I have no idea how that went, but I don’t expect anything to come of it.
Good times.
I would imagine that Trump will have a good response about his numerous bankruptcies. He will probably talk about how the GOP still likes G.W.Bush even after he trashed the US economy. Thus what is a few bankruptcies among irresponsible GOP members.
this was a final check, covering all the bases, tying up any loose ends, on the way to a “no-indictment” announcement.
Hopefully so; and hopefully they’ll announce it soon so we can get the predictable wave of “coverup!” etc. wailing and whining out of the way.
Or mostly out of the way, of course; the diehard Hillary haters will never give it up, will they?
If there’s a safer-than-that conclusion to be drawn from the experience of the past 2 1/2 decades, I’m at a loss to imagine what it might be.
Ayup, ranks right up there with “water is wet”.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but water is NOT always wet
It’s just as well — it’s one of the few things that Americans left and right can agree on.
So little brings us together any more.
Agreed. It’s more than unlikely that the FBI in a Democratic administration would recommend an indictment over such trivial charges during an election year.
I’m not sure why our conservative friends seem so sure an indictment is coming. Actually, no — I know exactly why they think that.
You recon this will be the most content-free campaign evah? Can it surpass GWB’s?
No it won’t. Infotainment Mediums need controversy and hysteria to keep those eyeballs glued to the tube. True, half-true, false, it doesn’t matter to them.
I wonder if the powers that be set up areas where politicians can and can’t attack their opponents. The media certainly does. Someone to the Left of Clinton, like Stein, could exploit Clinton’s foreign record, her curious weapons sales as SOS, the Clinton Foundation. Maybe even her history in the halls of power.
But no one will listen to Stein if she does and all the rest of Hillary’s problems will be pushed out of the picture. And then we’ll get her wars, we’ll get the half-stepping on progressive issues, we’ll get the excuses for why she can’t get anything past Congress.
Now I understand why people stop voting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyqSmvXS-6A
That’s an utterly stupid reason for people to stop voting. Denying oneself the franchise because of the behavior of the mainstream media and subsequent political outcomes? I don’t understand that at all.
“I’ll stop voting. THEN we’ll stop conducting wars and pass Medicare For All in three months tops!!!”
The game is fixed. It’s always been fixed. The difference is that one of the two parties actually was responsive to the bottom 80%. No more. So you can fear Trump because Hillary says he’ll get us into wars when she has already put the pins into the map.
Back in the sixties they resorted to assassination, modifying it to character assassination as time went on. But the rich decide who will be allowed to win and most of the time who can even run.
So work yourself into fear with Trump when Clinton has already announced where she plans her escalation.
Enjoy. You bought her, you own her.
The record of the 111th Congress wasn’t “responsive to the bottom 80%”? I mean, Bob. COME ON.
Hillary would lack the political capital to run a belligerent foreign policy which conducts multiple wars against nation states. You, you want to mail it in and just say “She can’t be stopped!” I disagree.
Remember when many were certain we were going to send a major ground troop invasion into Syria? That didn’t happen, in part because Americans didn’t want it to happen. That was one of many recent times when people’s cynicism didn’t serve them well in successfully predicting future events.
You pay no attention to Hillary’s campaign at all, instead choosing to dishonestly summarize what she is running on. And you want to lead us into despairing, self-defeating cynicism? No thanks. How would I be helped by joining you in folding my arms and pouting like a child? That doesn’t mobilize jack shit. That’s a totally dispiriting idea that hurts not just the 80%, but the 99%.
I’m not working myself into fear about Trump getting elected. Clinton will win in November; you occasionally show an understanding of this. I’m working myself into fury about people whose unwillingness to see Hillary and the Democratic Party for what they are, the good and the bad, and their willingness to propagandize against the Party and candidate from both the Left and Right, is the main thing which stands in the way of Democratic Party candidates getting the landslide victories the nation badly needs.
Look at the platform committee.
Thank you.
Also, how long after her coronation until we’re in a shooting war with Russia?
I see Hillary as a corporate insider. There will continue to be private prisons, payday debt factories (thanks, Debbie), lots of hanky panky on Wall Street, the slow starvation of too many Americans. The drug war will continue as long as it’s politically profitable for her.
Actually, the only argument we have is whether we believe her or not. You do. I don’t. We’ll find out soon enough.
I know people who never vote. One makes this a point of high principle (“It doesn’t matter!”). And his spouse is a political junkie, has even been a Democratic precinct captain (or whatever the term is). Others just tell me they’re too busy. I don’t know anyone who has ever told me that he/she doesn’t vote because Hillary Clinton is disgusting, or because Hillary did this or didn’t do that.
Please quit pretending that you understand at some deep level why some people don’t vote. You’re just projecting your own feelings onto some imaginary, canonical non-voter.
Cognitive dissonance usually comes first.
They scream, and yell, and plead, that voting for Hitlery Clinton is just as bad as voting for Strongman Trump. And then they ponder why it is that people stay at home instead of voting. And then they project their dissatisfaction with Hitlery Clinton’s progressivism as everyone else being disgusted by Hitlery Clinton’s progressivism.
Many progressives are so deep in their own carefully tended bubbles that they don’t realize that a good portion of the US electorate not only doesn’t know what progressivism is and consists of, but doesn’t necessarily want every single progressive policy to be implemented as soon as possible. Damn the facts where the Republican party controls more states, controls the House, controls the Senate, and can deadlock the Supreme Court.
If the current candidate doesn’t demand free K-16 education and the end of each and every trade agreement made in the past 50 years, well, fuck it, I’m staying home, or voting for the Jill Stein/Mickey Mouse ticket.
And some progressives hear that, and say, fuck it. Other people who are more centrist say, well, yeah, fuck it, it doesn’t matter. And instead of getting incremental changes and some bad changes, we get Bush Jr., or Strongman Trump. Because fuck it, it doesn’t matter anyway.
And the best part?
The people on the left who pay attention to politics, and vote in each and every election, who don’t stay home to let Bush Jr. or Strongman Trump walk away with a landslide, are blamed when only incremental good and bad changes happen, while the SuperUltraMega RealProgressivesTM get to trot out their Purity, as if staying home to let Bush Jr., or Strongman Trump burn shit to the ground is more ethical than voting for the lesser evil. Because neoliberalism.
Also, one thing I’ve found is that like Chris Hedges, (who I agree with substantively but disagree with procedurally), SuperUltraMega RealProgressivesTM somehow think that if the percentage of the electorate drops down low enough, that somehow the results of the election won’t hold up. They believe that by voting for the lesser evil, voters are actually holding up and perpetuating an illegitimate system. What scares me about this analysis is that:
What I wish I saw more of, is solutions being offered to, for example, make Hitlery Clinton stay as left of center as possible. If you want to force her to move left, then we need more left politicians in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court.
So, how do progressives who aren’t exactly enthused about a Clinton presidency make Hitlery move to the left, besides talking mad shit about Clinton on internet comment boards, or calling into question the ethics, morals, and humanity of people who are willing to vote for Hitlery Clinton to keep Strongman Trump and his millions of right-wing authoritarians away from the levers of power?
Some of Sanders supporters have already started, by focusing on getting progressive House members ready for 2018. Sounds like a good plan to me. Because ultimately, the centrist Democratic party doesn’t pull the country to the left…people do. Those same people have an easier time moving the country to the left when they work on moving the Democratic party to the left. Not by voting for Jill Stein/Mickey Mouse, or by bitching on the internet.
Ultimately, the electoral system itself needs to be changed. Something as simple as Single Transferable Voting (STV), or any number of (even better) alternative voting systems can create much needed political change, without the Purity Caucus essentially threatening to be a spoiler for the worstierest evil. While I realize that a STV system isn’t a particularly easy change to enact in the US, either is getting a Social Democrat elected to the Presidency. It will require a lot of work, and if you’re serious about it, start more than 365 days before the damn general election.
*This has been a paid message, brought to you by David Brock, Victoria Nuland, and Huma Abedin’s ISIS contacts.
© Neoliberalism
MMXVI
Before Bernie was a pup THIS was already happening:
“…when we looked at 2014, we were astounded. The fall in voter turnout from 2012 to 2014 was the second-largest of all time: 24 percentage points.
In many states in the East and Midwest, voter turnouts collapsed to levels not seen since before the Jacksonian revolution, when property suffrage laws choked off voter turnout.
Some states in the West recorded their lowest turnouts since their admission into the union. And for the first time since Reconstruction, turnout in the South finally caught up with turnout in the North — thanks to the latter’s collapse. (https:/www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/ferguson-clinton-sanders-election-democratic-party-trump?utm_ca
mpaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork)
So, I find it astounding that in primaries that actually tried to educate voters on WHY things became so shitty is being blamed for the increasing de-legitimacy of our parties. The system that cannot be named is pulling out the stops to conceal itself from any scrutiny.
But don’t worry, we are rapidly reverting to norm and the actual election will be all about the personalities. Neoliberalism will only show up for discussion on a few tolerant blogs.
There are two choices.
Bitch and moan and whine like Bob from Portland, in order to prove your true RealProgressiveTM bonafides. Or do something about it.
Bob has chosen option one. He’ll continue using the word neoliberal on tolerant blogs, while staying home and bitching, moaning, and whining.
But don’t worry, those of us who are cursed with another 50 or more years on this rock will actually be doing something about it. Part of that is not letting Strongman Trump and his millions of right wing authoritarian followers have the power they want so much.
But, Strongman Trump is just a clown, as Bob from Portland points out. The REAL scary thing to cower away from is Hitlery Clinton!
Same shit, different day.
Vote accordingly.
Or, stay home and post on tolerant blogs, I guess.
That’ll REALLY show ’em!
How low does it need to go to make an impression on your
fondness for status quo?
If your presidential base keeps delivering candidates too conservative to attract the present profile of mid-term voters (who ARE more progressive, by and large), it is a recipe for gridlock and dysfunction, no?
If you cannot attract those small donors and volunteers at mid-terms, you have to seek corporate/mega-donors, that further compromises your “appearance” of impartiality. You already are off the charts on that one with the public.
But your “beatings will continue until moral improves” is too much fun, eh?
MY fondness for the status quo? MY presidential base?
Join me, mino, here in objective, observable reality.
I am not fond of the status quo.
I don’t have a presidential base. The Democratic party does.
I don’t have small donors, volunteers, or mega donors. The Democratic party does.
Why does the Democratic party keep delivering candidates “too conservative” to attract mid-term voters?
Because the people who should be working within the Democratic party to move it left, are busy commenting on tolerant blogs about just how awful the Democratic party is and how we should all just stand outside of it, frowning very adamantly.
Because the people who should be voting more than every 4 years for their favorite personality, aren’t coming out to vote because they’ve heard from…somewhere…and heard from…someone…that their vote doesn’t matter. That nothing is going to change anyway. And then they believe it it is true, and make it so.
Why aren’t small donors and volunteers attracted during mid-terms?
Because mid-term elections aren’t 16 month long election seasons covered every single day by the media and made into a spectator sport.
Here in objective, observable reality, you don’t get more progressive candidates by letting the most regressive candidates win the election. You either beat the centrist candidate in the primary with a better candidate and a more enthused group of volunteers, or you work twice as hard during the off season, and during the next primary.
Or, you can comment on tolerant blogs and blame everyone else for all problems, because everyone else didn’t stay home and let Strongman Trump win.
Being a pendant over inexact pronouns?
“Because the people who should be working within the Democratic party to move it left, are busy commenting on tolerant blogs about just how awful the Democratic party is and how we should all just stand outside of it, frowning very adamantly.”
No. People trying to move the party left cannot do so without making the case that their solutions are an improvement over what is currently being done. You do this through critique, not osmosis.
pedant, not pendant. Sheesh.
I am a Sanders supporter and voted for him in the Georgia primary, which he lost. I have “converted” a Florida nominal Republican into voting for Sanders in Georgia, and dropping all her former Republican leanings. She’ll tell you that I don’t talk up the Democratic party, or even Obama. I simply describe objective, observable reality, where Obama is a socially liberal 70’s era Republican who isn’t batshit insane like a modern Republican.
And yet, I have been accused multiple times, HERE, of having no ethics, morals, or values, because I see in Strongman Trump a narcissist who has access to tens of millions of right wing authoritarians, some of whom have made death threats against me on other sites. Yes, online, but even so, it takes a special kind of person to make death threats against you, and say, “nothing personal, but you’re on the wrong side”, or “you’re either with us or against us in the upcoming race war”. All in sites where it’s ALL TRUMP ALL THE TIME. This is different than Rmoney, or McCain. Just to go Godwin for a second, plenty of people considered Hitler (not Hitlery, her predecessor) a clown. I don’t.
So, when a post says that it’s “My” Democratic party, or that I am fond of the status quo, I make sure to make clear that here in reality, I’m not a figment of your imagination. While I’m willing to say, out loud (!) that I’ll vote for Hitlery Clinton, it doesn’t make anything else that you can say true. It doesn’t make me a neoliberal neoconservative, who…let’s say…wants there to be more homelessness, more poverty, and more dead babies. Yet, I and others have been literally accused of that. Here.
That aside:
There are people who are working within the Democratic party, right now, to make the party move left. Using their influence, and their power, and experience, to convince people that their views are better.
None of those activities involve sitting at home on election day.
You are not saying…Go, vote.
You are saying….zip your lip. Read what you have posted.
Nope.
Calling attention to delusional people accusing me and others of things that we are objectively not isn’t the same as telling people that they cannot communicate their political ideals or use this forum.
You might find THIS instructive:
AUSTRALIAN VOTERS JUST PUT THE ENTIRE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT ON NOTICE
What made this election different was the clear arrival of a global trend to Australian shores.
The nation can now count itself among the increasing number of advanced democracies worldwide where anger and cynicism about mainstream parties is crystallising into decisions at the ballot box and reshaping western politics.
The primary vote for independents, at more than 23%, is at another record high. The Senate is looking like a disorderly nightmare for whoever ends up managing to forge a working majority in the House of Representatives.
(http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-election-result-voters-put-political-establishment-on-n
otice-2016-7)
Imagine if this could be electorally organized. Imagine if the electorate had the option of choosing a third party without fear of the worst evil stepping in and winning.
The best method of breaking up any oligarchic, status quo electoral system is to get rid of the first-past-the-post voting system and adopt something like Single Transferable Voting, or other systems that are even subjectively better.
This is how someone like Bernie Sanders would have, I’d argue, won the primary this election cycle.
If the people who had come out to vote for either Clinton, Sanders, or O’Malley known that they could mark Sanders 1, Clinton 2, O’Malley 3, and X, Y and Z whatever/blank, I believe that Sanders would have won.
And it prevents Independent and independent parties from acting solely as spoilers, allowing the candidate that the majority of people definitely don’t want to win.
Counting the votes is the most important part of voting. Just changing how that is done, to make a more representative system that allows third parties to compete and actually win the electorate without fear that they’re just going to make things worse, would begin the breakup of the big parties.
I actually like your proposal for party primaries. It could eliminate the presence of lobbyist super delegates, fgs. Something to talk up on those tolerant blogs? I think so.
Not sure I would go further to Parliamentary system. Look what Harper did to Canada with 30some% of the vote. And it has not saved anyone from misplaced austerity.
There are many alternative voting systems, and STV wouldn’t necessarily create a parliamentary system as the Executive power in a parliamentary system is elected from the legislators, whereas we have an entirely separate Executive branch. I like STV voting because I think Congress has far less representatives than necessary and also want more than two parties.
Instead, Instant Runoff Voting would accomplish pretty much the same thing.
For President this year:
1. Bernie Sanders; 2. Jill Stein; 3. Hillary Clinton; 4. Donald Trump
As long as people are willing to objectively rank the candidates according to their principles and how bad the person is going to destroy everything if in power, the results are the same.
If Sanders could have won the Presidency as a Democrat, he’d win it as an independent. If not, and Jill Stein isn’t going to get more than 3% of the total vote regardless, Hitlery Clinton gets the vote before Trump. This allows people who have a conscience, unlike the pseudo-progressive neoliberal trash that would would vote for Clinton or Trump, to vote their conscience, and prevent Trump from becoming President at the same time.
It also makes it possible to bypass shitty candidates when both parties nominate them, assuming the electorate is awake and paying attention, which is iffy.
Voting for Clinton will bring more wars. There is no anti-war movement in the US anymore. It’s acceptable. It’s normal. We carpet bomb somewhere because we can. We little people have no choice. Of course, now there’s no draft, and despite the thousands of vets who come back ruined for life, with our push button remote control warfare there will be less loss of American lives.
There is no pretense anymore. Neoliberals will ignore the wars if they don’t outright cheer them. They’ll tune into late-night shows and laugh at Putin jokes, which is a necessary step before that war. The propaganda will continue apace.
Enjoy, Nicholas. Sorry the orange-haired clown scared you.
The US is an Empire.
Welcome aboard objective, observable reality.
Stay awhile and work on fixing it. Or stay home. Whatever.
This post aged real fucking well!
Reports are there will be no charges, etc.
In a perfect world there will be no indictments for Clinton; Bill will learn to stay inside his own plane; and then the steady stream of Trump lawsuits will start to hit the courtrooms in full view with a continual stream of con artist revelations. The Trump Univ, Institute and condos south of the border are so well documented they should keep him busy.
How sweet it would be to see Trump continuously dragged from one courtroom to another all summer long with only Gingrich or Christie to keep re lighting his torch.