HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » appal_jack » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »

appal_jack

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: North Carolina
Member since: Wed Aug 11, 2004, 06:57 PM
Number of posts: 2,828

Journal Archives

To be expected & a long time comin'.

For my entire life, spineless Democrats have clung to the "middle of the road," refusing to believe the plain truth that nothing belongs there except yellow stripes and dead 'possums.



-app

Exactly.

Thanks for this exhaustive research, paulthompson. While the primaries continue, there is still the chance to choose a candidate not under investigation and very likely imminent indictment. Let's hope Democrats pay attention while there is still time.

k&,

-app

It is fucked-up beyond words.

I weep for my state.

-app

She did not say "...relative to the population;" she said "many"

55 out of more than 7000 is not "many."

Less than 1% is not "many."

Your math is bad & you should feel bad.



-app

Hillary didn't understand her own position:



Clinton and Sanders Hashing Out Whether Next Debate Will Be a New York One

Source: New York Times

The Clinton and Sanders campaigns are in discussions about when to hold a debate in April, but whether it is held before the critical April 19 New York presidential primary remains an open question.

The campaign for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont sent out a news release on Tuesday proclaiming that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had made “an agreement to debate him in New York before the state’s April 19 primary election.”

That, however, is not exactly what the Clinton campaign has said, at least publicly.

“We have expressed our willingness to debate in April, and the campaigns are discussing different options, including the option of a debate in N.Y. before April 19,” said Brian Fallon, the press secretary for the Clinton campaign, in an email on Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/30/clinton-and-sanders-hashing-out-whether-next-debate-will-be-a-new-york-one/



Seems like the interwebz' "#Tonedownforwhat" campaign is having an impact. Keep the pressure on: there is no reason why a NY debate should not take place in advance of 4/19.

-app

Clintons (like Repubs) like to attack opponents' strengths.

It's almost like the Clintons and Repubs are operating from the same election-fraud, military coups across Central America, disenfranchisement of voters here, Iran Contra, War-Hawkin', 1%-er type playbook. Hmm...

k&r,

-app

The NC cartoons are particularly (& sadly) on-point.

#Wearenotthis

All of you out there in bluer states, please remember that many of us in NC find our state government's actions abhorrent. Gerrymandering and holding the state legislative bodies during a redistricting year has tilted the balance of power so far from where we should be.

Let's organize for 2020 and beyond! k&r,

-app

Democrats need to get it, now.

It seems like at least one of these scenarios have to play out:

1) Hillary is indicted before the Democratic Convention. Sanders would then hopefully be able to step up. And if the DNC types try to pick someone else, the Party would fracture irreparably. Sorry, Biden, but not this time either.

2) Hillary is indicted after the Convention, during the GE. If this happens, Republicans almost certainly win. Welcome to Trumplandia.

3) Hillary is not indicted at all before November (or for that matter, January). If this happens, maybe she has a chance in the GE, but even so, Clinton corruption, the e-mail server, Clinton Foundation issues, etc. are all still issues in the GE: red meat for the Republican base. Maybe the Repub nominee wins due to that, maybe not. But if Hillary does make it through the GE without an indictment and with the majority of votes, what happens on 1/20/17? I'd say that the House opens an investigative committee on the above issues, and government is paralyzed from day 1 via an investigation into whether the "corrupt Obama DOJ" enabled "corrupt Clinton cronyism" and a nepotistic avoidance of justifiable prosecution.

None of these options sounds good to me.

-app

No, the US would lose its money entirely.

Unless you're older than 45, the US Dollar has never been even partially backed by gold in your life time. Ever since Nixon over-spent on the Vietnam War and decoupled US currency from gold, our dollar has had two reasons for its value. One is that it is the international standard currency for trade in oil and other valuable goods. But that reason only persists because of the second reason: US military strength regulates the norms, routes, and openess of all trade and shipping.

One might oppose further corporate power via trade deals like the TPP (As do I). One might wish to see the US act more judiciously and fairly to protect human rights over profit across the globe (I share this wish). But one cannot pretend that the US Dollar will be worth more than the paper on which it is printed if China starts controlling shipping and trade through the Pacific. Every grocery item we buy, every piece of electronics, every everything that we can afford is only affordable because the rest of the nations of the world trust the US to keep the system cranking, occasional glitches and frequent injustices notwithstanding.

When the right wingers tell us to thank a veteran because they protect our freedoms, they are partially correct. It's true that the US military has done little to explicitly protect Constitutional Rights, either at home or abroad. But the military has kept this government in liquid capital via the security, continuity, and power it projects across the globe.

I wish we had other measures of value behind our currency, but at present, we don't.

-app
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »