HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Babel_17 » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

Babel_17

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Tue Mar 16, 2004, 08:58 PM
Number of posts: 4,195

Journal Archives

The state should have been a Sanders cakewalk (sarcasm)

Lol, Clinton had campaigned there, albeit intermittently, for a decade, still had all her contacts from last time, and had the Democratic establishment behind her. She's had years worth of free publicity, and Senator Sanders has been barely been an afterthought in the media until the last few months.

Half of Iowa defied the media, the party leadership, and said "No!" to one of the largest, and most lavishly funded, political machines ever to set foot in their state. Half of Iowa said "Yes!" to the campaign that the establishment has tried to ignore, and which is funded by the small donations of the people.

Half of Iowa voted for the campaign that generates its own buzz, and which doesn't need publicity, and establishment endorsements, handed to it as an entitlement.

All of the nation got to see that Secretary Clinton's campaign couldn't put down the upstart rebellion of the Sanders campaign. Combine that with the ongoing FBI investigations into the Clintons modus operandi, and ethics, and then add in a likely defeat for them in New Hampshire, and we'll see that adding up to the Sanders campaign being portrayed in a more positive light by the media.

The party establishment will look rotten to the core if they continue to ignore the importance of the enthusiasm of this part of the party, and that of Independents who are now willing to vote for a Democrat. They must begin to weigh how the party will fare with Clinton at the top of the ticket, vs. with Sanders at the top of the ticket.

A Clinton that already has 60% of the voters seeing her as dishonest, that the FBI wants to see indicted, will not bring out the droves of Independents and new voters that we must have to win in the swing states. And that won't win us the close elections for the House and Senate, or win us back the local offices. The party establishment will be seen as clearly having a choice here. They can keep their fingers off the scales, or they can risk being seen as willing to crash and burn our chances in November because they can't think outside the box.

I'll spell it out for them. For whatever reasons, Secretary Clinton is basically incapable of ever co-opting the vast majority of Sanders supporters. So when they crunch the numbers for winning swing states, prudence dictates that they should allow for a massive Republican turnout (look at Iowa) to keep Secretary Clinton out, and a depressed Democratic turnout as many of these new voters just won't show up for a Democratic candidate who looks like part of the problem.

Interesting, but I still think they should have "read them the riot act", ...

... as the saying goes. That should have happened, repeatedly, and from the beginning. We knew who they were, and what they represented. Federal law enforcement should have loudly explained the penalties they were risking. They should have also offered the carrot of being willing to use their discretion if the nonsense ended immediately. As things stand some are going to use the defense that they thought they had a tacit understanding that law enforcement saw them as peaceful protesters, and not actually committing the kinds of crimes that would have been spelled out to them. IANAL but listing the statutes being broken would have helped make the prosecutor's case easier for the more basic charges. And that would have smoothed the path for the more serious charges.

And now the bar is raised, and every bunch of wackos will want this level of deference, and "if they don't get it, it's discrimination, and because this time the government is really scared of their righteous cause, and they're martyrs" (as I imagine their claims going).

There's discretion, and then there's the rule of law. People don't want to see the rule of law go down the tubes just so those enforcing it get to look clever.

And somebody did get his wacko ass killed, so the "nip it in the bud" side has that going for it.

But I'll be impressed, and adjust my weighing of things, if the government goes after all the shitbirds on conspiracy and/or other charges. And with "all" I include the shitbirds from the standoff at the Bundy ranch. Because that helped enable what happened in this new instance of armed insurrection.

If all of this was just so the government could rack up a non-controversial win, one that doesn't upset the anti-government gun-humpers, I'll be very unimpressed.

P.S. There's something to be said for the government having an obligation to not give people too much rope to hang themselves with. Not that I think the government wasn't smart to listen in, and so on. But I think we'll be hearing more about that defense at the trials. And that goes back to why I said the riot act should have been read to them.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/read+the+riot+act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act#.22Read_the_Riot_Act.22

To this day many jurisdictions that have inherited the tradition of English common law and Scots law still employ statutes that require police or other executive agents to deliver an oral warning, much like the Riot Act, before an unlawful public assembly may be forcibly dispersed.

Because the authorities were required to read the proclamation that referred to the Riot Act before they could enforce it, the expression "to read the Riot Act" entered into common language as a phrase meaning "to reprimand severely." with the added sense of a stern warning. The phrase remains in common use in the English language.

If you want to stop smoking, the Allen Carr book works (he tells you to smoke while reading it)

He doesn't use scare tactics, says they don't work. He tells you not to nag current smokers, it's not helpful.

His book works like deprogramming/hypnotic suggestion. He addresses your concerns in a well thought out manner. He addresses all the concerns that smokers have.

I read the book several times, watched the movie a few times, and I became convinced I was now a non-smoker.

You don't stop smoking when you open the book, all that's needed is a desire to stop. As he says, you have nothing to lose. You'll either want to stop at the end, or you won't. Lol, and it's a very entertaining read.



Well, the full movie is back up on youtube. That alone can be enough for anyone. See if you can spot which Game of Thrones star has a prominent part in it. He's good in his roles, he doesn't reek. lol

Leading to the follow up question; Who has ever won major office with such bad negative numbers?*

The current (December 2, 2015) Quinnipiac poll:

December 2, 2015 - Bump For Trump As Carson Fades In Republican Race, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Clinton, Sanders Surge In Matchups With GOP Leaders
PDF format

Additional Trend Information

Eleven months before the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump is the undisputed leader in the Republican field, as Dr. Ben Carson, in a virtual tie with Trump four weeks ago, drops to third place, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today.

On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton widens her lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont to 60 - 30 percent, compared to 53 - 35 percent in a November 4 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has 2 percent, with 6 percent undecided.

Trump gets 27 percent of Republican voters today, with 17 percent for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, 16 percent each for Carson and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and 5 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. No other candidate tops 3 percent, with 8 percent undecided.

Last month, Trump had 24 percent, with 23 percent for Carson.

Among Republicans, 26 percent of voters say they "would definitely not support" Trump, with 21 percent who would not back Bush.

"It doesn't seem to matter what he says or who he offends, whether the facts are contested or the 'political correctness' is challenged, Donald Trump seems to be wearing Kevlar," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"Dr. Ben Carson, moving to center stage just one month ago, now needs some CPR. The Doctor sinks. The Donald soars. The GOP, 11 months from the election, has to be thinking, 'This could be the guy.'

"Secretary Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders have to be hoping Trump is the GOP's guy."

American voters shift to Clinton as the Democrat gains ground against Republicans:

47 - 41 percent over Trump, compared to 46 - 43 percent November 4;
Clinton at 45 percent to Rubio's 44 percent, compared to a 46 - 41 percent Rubio lead last month;
Clinton tops Cruz 47 - 42 percent, compared to Cruz at 46 percent to Clinton's 43 percent last month;
Clinton at 46 percent to Carson's 43 percent compared to Carson's 50 - 40 percent lead last month.

Sanders does just as well, or even better, against top Republicans:

Topping Trump 49 - 41 percent;
Getting 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent;
Beating Cruz 49 - 39 percent;
Leading Carson 47 - 41 percent.

Clinton has a negative 44 - 51 percent favorability rating. Other favorability ratings are:

Negative 35 - 57 percent for Trump;
40 - 33 percent for Carson;
44 - 31 percent for Sanders;
37 - 28 percent for Rubio;
33 - 33 percent for Cruz.

American voters say 60 - 36 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 59 - 35 percent. Sanders gets the best honesty grades among top candidates, 59 - 28 percent, with Carson at 53 - 34 percent, Rubio at 49 - 33 percent and Cruz at 43 - 39 percent.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2307

More people polled as seeing Clinton as being "not honest and trustworthy" than did so for Trump.

Trump, and the Republicans, have spent diddly so far on reinforcing that message. I'd prefer taking my chances on them trying to convince Democrats to stay home, and Independents to vote for their lunatic platform, because the Democrats were running a wild eyed Socialist, rather than taking my chances on millions of people coming out and voting for someone they saw as "not honest and trustworthy".

*Seriously, when will a journalist do the research and present the list? I'd like to see the names of those winners.

How do we define victory?

I think we all agree that victory exists in opposition to failure. I'm going to argue that both Sanders and Clinton had victories. I think however that Sanders won the most meaningful one.

Secretary Clinton was victorious in looking poised, prepared, and professional. She showed that all the negative attention she's been getting hasn't diminished her likability among Democrats.

Senator Sanders for the first time was in a national debate running as a Democrat. He had to answer question going to his origins and he dealt with them admirably. He finished the debate by being viewed warmly by our party as a whole as a great spokesperson for us. He reached many Democrats who had little idea as to who he was and he's now on their radar after having made a favorable impression.

Young voters, and Independents, got to learn more about the candidate who's been doing extremely well with their demographic. They now have had confirmed his authenticity as the kind of candidate they want to see on the ballot. They represent important "stealth" votes, in key states, that normally can't be counted on for much turnout. Sanders can get these voters to show up while other candidates just don't appeal to them.

We're going to be hearing lots more about issues important to these voters, and Sanders has wisely played the long game by laying out in a deliberate fashion the parts of his platform that win them over to our side. It's also going to become more clear as to why we need the unique appeal of Senator Sanders to voters we've let slip through our fingers.

"The media’s lying to you about Bernie Sanders ..."

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/the_medias_lying_to_you_about_bernie_sanders_this_is_why_a_socialist_can_win_the_fox_loving_red_states/#

The media’s lying to you about Bernie Sanders: This is why a socialist can win the Fox-loving red states
I spent days with Sanders fans across red states. They watch Fox, live in the heartland, and are voting for Bernie
Rick Perlstein, Washington Spectator


Really inspiring journalism from an on the ground reporter.

I often wonder if there's a correlation between the compensation talking heads get now versus what they got 40 years ago, or even 20 years ago, that would go to explain the rightward shift in American politics.

Politics of the very wealthy, for the very wealthy, as reported on by the very wealthy.

Click the link for the Salon article to see that there's reason for lots of hope.

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ (Economix explains the Trans-Pacific Partnership)

http://economixcomix.com/

Clicking that link above will take you directly to the well written (and drawn) comic that goes to a great length to explain some of the pitfalls of this TPP deal. It also uses humor while doing so, and it also expounds in a readily understandable way on how trade in general can be subverted from being a good thing.

What is Economix?
Economix is a graphic novel by Michael Goodwin, illustrated by Dan E. Burr, that explains the economy. More than a cartoon version of a textbook, Economix gives the whole story of the economy, from the rise of capitalism to Occupy Wall Street. Economix is published by Abrams Comic Arts.

Praise for Economix

“I just cannot stress enough how amazing this book is.”
–James Floyd Kelly, Wired.com

“It’s simply phenomenal.”
– David Bach, author of Debt Free for Life and The Automatic Millionaire

“Goodwin has done the seemingly impossible–he has made economics comprehensible and funny.”
– Joel Bakan, author of The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power

“An amazing lesson in true-world economics! Delightfully presented, powerful, insightful, and important information. What a fun way to fathom a deep and often dark subject”
– John Perkins, author of Hoodwinked and the New York Times bestseller Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

“Economix is a lively, cheerfully opinionated romp through the historical and intellectual foundations of our current economy and our current economic problems. Goodwin has a knack for distilling complex ideas and events in ways that invite the reader to follow the big picture without losing track of what actually happened. Any reader wondering how our economy got to where it is today will find this a refreshing overview.”
– Timothy W. Guinnane, Philip Golden Bartlett Professor of Economic History, Yale University


Here's the link to the home page for that. http://economixcomix.com/

The link in the thread title is to an excellent "comic" that I found to provide an amazing focus on the TPP treaty. http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

Please share this if you found it useful! Reposting here at DU, as appropriate, would be great.

Edit: Woops! I forgot mention that I scored this link at the "news for nerds" website, slashdot. /. link to the TPP thread I got it from: http://politics.slashdot.org/story/15/10/09/2242252/eff-the-final-leaked-tpp-text-is-all-that-we-feared

Edit 2: I placed another link to the comic at the very top of this post.

lol, the title itself is a rapid descent into self parody

It surpasses even Muslim Communist, and Anarchist Fascist, and those are two of my favorite internet signposts signalling a turn into The Twilight Zone.

It is what it is, the Clinton campaign is a machine designed to defeat the Republican candidate

I'm not saying it won't break down, I'm just saying that Clinton staffers mapped out a firm plan to take Secretary Clinton to the White House. DWS is playing along, it's just that the circumstances of reality aren't. Many, many, Democrats are aroused and participating at a very early stage of the primary season. They're demanding a lot more than the Clinton campaign has so far seen fit to offer. That's a problem for the Clinton campaign as they apparently have a pretty rigid schedule for how they'll unfold their platform and engage with voters about it. They seem averse and unable to adapt to these changing circumstances and that's compounding the impression of being out of touch with this groundswell of Democrats who are asking for more.

Another month of this and the bar is going to be set extremely high for how extensively the Clinton campaign will have to deal with this perception. This bar will apply to the debates, and to engaging with real, unscripted, moments of having a dialogue with crowds of primary voters.

It's come to pass that the Democratic primary is going to be a real contest. Candidates will have to persuade the voters by dint of their articulated ideas, and the projection of their value as a politician.

Prophetic: Videodrome, "Soon all of us will have special names"

O'Blivion was not the name I was born with. That's my television name. Soon all of us will have special names, names designed to cause the cathode ray tube to resonate.


And here we all are, visible to others on the LCD successor to the CRT, and mostly posting behind "special names", Babel-17 for example.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Videodrome

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »