Land Shark's Journal
Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 05:48 PM
Number of posts: 6,126
Number of posts: 6,126
Posted by Land Shark | Wed Aug 10, 2016, 02:38 PM (1 replies)
In the attempt to spin out of Trump's Second Amendment threat, Trump's handlers referred to the "unification" of Second Amendment defenders as being a force that could stop Clinton gun control judges or measures. This too is a dog whistle attempting to explain Trump's comment while still satisfying the right wing base.
The "Second Amendment people" are the members and supporters of the militia movement, not so much the NRA. The NRA will expend all of its political power in the national election, and they will lose. The real sub-headline of Trump's comment could well be "Trump Contemplates Losing, and a Clinton Presidency" and "Muses About How to Stop Gun Control."
But though the NRA will have blown it's wad on the election, the right wing militia movement has been literally threatening "bloody civil war" if any new gun control legislation is passed. These are the same folks who took over via armed occupation the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. But this fizzled only because the rest of the movement condemned the takeover ON TACTICAL GROUNDS, saying that this was not the time or place for their bloody civil war. But they quickly went on to add that their long promised civil war was definitely still coming.
If you want a string of quotes about bloody civil war threats, and the terrorist plots and broken windows in Democratic Party offices that have already happened because of the leader of just one od these militia groups, read the Southern Poverty Law Center bio on this leader. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/michael-brian-vanderboegh-0
I hate to say it, but those saying this is simply a reference to assassination are wrong. Trump is the king of dog wbistles, and what he knows well are his dog whistles and extreme right symbolism and politics. The militia has been promising "bloody civil war" for years if there is new gun control law, and the threat here is not limited to assassination.
What makes sense of the gun control context, the post-election Clinton presidency context, as well as the subsequent spin about the "unification" of Second Amendment people, is that Trump is dog whistling civil war, AFTER HE LOSES. An assassination is usually a small number of people acting alone, but it takes "Second Amendment PEOPLE" to prosecute armed resistance and fight a "bloody civil war." Once again, Trump dog whistles to what's left of his base. "Bloody civil war" can include, but is not limited to, assassination.
Those who have some exposure to militia rhetoric about the Second Amendment will certainly understand Trump in the above way, and Trump is adept enough at extreme right dog whistles that this interpretation has the major advantage of making sense of everything he and his campaign said, other than the lie that this was about mobilizing people for an election....
Posted by Land Shark | Tue Aug 9, 2016, 11:30 PM (43 replies)
Mindful that well-watched conventions get ratings and produce bumps, my thoughts:
If dishonesty is the charge, honesty is the remedy, not the problem. It is honest to clap for what you like, and not clap or boo what you do not like.
If being unprincipled is the charge, showing that principles are important enough to fight for is the answer, not a problem.
If, in the Republican party, saying "vote your conscience" is a political suicide note, the answer should be that in the Democratic party conscience is celebrated, even when it sometimes leads to debates or actions some may consider divisive.
Let the world see that freedom reigns in the Democratic Party, knowing that freedom is only meaningful when it involves the freedom to disagree on matters of some importance.
And let the world see that, on the final day, what unites us is more important than what divides us, because what divides us can be dealt with in a more appropriate way.
Given the appetite for change, one of the most powerful messages that can be sent is that this convention was not just politics as usual, and we send that particular message by not doing what may be expected from the usual political professionals.
My conclusion: handle the Wasserman-Schultz fiasco with some more finesse and fairness and this will go down as one of the most compelling and important conventions in American history. And not doing so will squander that opportunity in favor of politics as usual.
That process has begun, and may it continue, because the answers, not only to charges against Hillary but also to the question of the Trump Pence candidacy, are honesty, principle, conscience, freedom of dissent, and a greater unity. These are always American answers.
Posted by Land Shark | Mon Jul 25, 2016, 10:04 PM (9 replies)
Before the convention and during the campaign, Wasserman-Schultz worked to promote Hillary's campaign, and she will continue to do so until the nomination is formalized. Then, at the end of the convention she resigns from the DNC, and per Hillary's statement today she will become "honorary chair" of her 50-sfate strategy. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/07/24/hillary-clinton-statement-on-the-resignation-of-democratic-national-committee-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz/
So Wasserman-Schultz's support for Hillary goes from subtle/denied (supply your own adjectives here) to open and honorary.
What is really going to change? Little or nothing with respect to Hillary. Some, if you consider the non-campaign aspects of being DNC chair. It doesn't seem like Wasserman-Schultz will be "gone" -- because usually there is a gap, hiatus or "time out" before a return to public life. That will not happen here.
I'm more troubled by Hillary's follow-up hiring, than by the "damn emails" in this context. How does such a honorary position promote unity??? Do you think the hiring promotes unity? Vote below.
Posted by Land Shark | Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:10 PM (62 replies)
Of course the county Republican DA claims the problem was restricted to Republican voters, but multitudes of complaints from all over California belie that particular detail. But it is always a major story when something breaks through the twin election official stonewalls of (1) blame the voter, and (2) deny there's any evidence, or sufficient evidence, to think anything at all is wrong
Most importantly, in this story labeled as "developing," the original story still (pinted at the link above) reports some problems but just blames them on voters not doing their online registrations properly, and election officials also use their mantra of "no evidence" of fraud, while adding that the DA did not respond in time for the original story. But, in the updated story later, the California DA for Riverside County did respond and stated and confirmed that hackers did indeed change online voting registrations in their part of California.
The same DA added a suspicious qualifier: only Republican registrations were changed. This dubious restriction in scope isn't even modified by a sensible phrase like "it appears limited to..."
Still, this case is nevertheless very notable because it is still developing, election officials rarely if ever admit to problems, and the confirmation of hacking in one county should cause all California counties as well as the CA SOS to look carefully into the now-admitted reality that hackers are in fact altering party registrations, as so many Democratic Voters have alleged not only in California, but in New York and Arizona and other presidential primaries around the nation.
Posted by Land Shark | Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:23 PM (67 replies)
Constitutionally, every "natural born" citizen over the age of 35 is qualified to be President. The Constitution only recognizes two classes of citizens, natural born and naturalized, so for Constitutional purposes of presidential qualifications, if you're not a naturalized citizen, then you're a born citizen, naturally. Everyone currently running is constitutionally qualified and over 35 years old. And every reader 35 years of age or.older is qualified to be President, constitutionally.
The "qualifications" that Sanders and Clinton currently speak of are different. These qualifications exist in the minds of the voters, which is where the true qualifications for President rely. They can be different for every voter. In fact, as voters we are equal and can enforce qualifications only through our own votes and through nonbinding persuasion.
Some think that being a Senator makes one qualified. Others may think it disqualifies a person if they think every single elected official in DC is no good. They are entitled to that opinion, no matter if wrong.
Many think being a Senator and Secretary of State qualifies a person. Many think only in terms of a resume, but for many others qualifications have political components. And it certainly does, since treason would be disqualifying. The only question is which political stands besides treason make one not qualified.
Obviously there is no final definition of "qualified" -each voter can determine their own. Thus, both Democratic candidates will be qualified in some.people's minds and disqualified in others minds.
Because there is no binding standard or definition for the political qualifications for President, everyone can and will disagree. So it is a perfectly meaningless disagreement. "Qualifications" is just a stand in for whatever one likes or doesn't like about a candidate.
Sanders and Clinton fail to understand that anyone can call them disqualified. The Founders deliberately left the people free to determine their own qualifications, and the 35 year age requirement was just to discourage dynastic presidencies passed from parent to child.
There is nothing here except the general debate over pluses and minuses of candidates. So at least let us not act like things are getting so bad nobody can take it any more.
Posted by Land Shark | Thu Apr 7, 2016, 07:35 PM (5 replies)
I am a donor to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and also to other Democrats.
In my experience as a donor, the following is crystal clear to me: I do not control Bernie Sanders. It is also true that Bernie Sanders does not control me.
The limited relationship I have with Bernie as a donor consists of free will gifts and electronic thank yous and that works fine for me. I don't require the actual or facsimile signature of the candidate on stationery or any other written evidence of the candidate's thankfulness or obligation to me.
My political donations are not a command and control relationship in either direction. I prefer to discover candidates sort of on my own, as opposed to being directed what to do.
But I am willing to donate to other Democrats, preferably those strong on economic inequality and other Bernie style issues. Please reply and draw my attention to those Dems you think may have merit.
Thank you in advance. I prefer to take my cues from the community here at DU, rather than be told by any politician. I also lean toward general election help, but will consider primary help in appropriate cases.
Posted by Land Shark | Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:18 PM (30 replies)
That is more than double, all over the world!
That is a 125% lead in delegates!
Democrats abroad and around the world, as well as domestic Democrats who have either traveled or else learned about other countries, sure as hell know that education and health care are not luxurious "freebies" in the modern world!
On edit: Sanders also scored 4 out of 4 superdelegates, on top of the above. For those counting supers, today's total is this 13-4 in favor of Sanders. See http://www.democratsabroad.org/global_presidential_primary_results
On second edit: ambiguity in the source document between two groups of four delegates (supers and at large) may mean supers are not fully determined yet so to be safe.let's go back to original 9-4 margin in the original, unedited post.
Posted by Land Shark | Mon Mar 21, 2016, 12:15 PM (10 replies)
Today the Repubs say they will stop Trump "by any means necessary" whether he has delegates or not, via floor votes. To heck with democracy! Apparently the Constitution is on their side, with Lopez-Torres v. NEW YORK BD OF ELECTIONS holding that candidates need not get a "fair shot" and have no right to a fair process.
If they screw Trump they may or may not get Trump's promised riots, bit we will get an independent run by Trump. And if we get an independent run by Trump, it is entirely possible.or even fairly likely that trump.could veer somewhat more left and pick up, say, Democratic states - just a couple or a few. Enough to make it hard to get a pure majority.
Without a real majority, the Republican House of Representatives picks our next president, on a one state one vote basis per the 12th amendment. That means a losing Republican is president.
So if everyone is going to go against the Republicans purported invite to be more.democratic and let the voters decide SCOTUS opening, in favor of lobbying to DO THE SENATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, the Republicans easiky dodge the bullet by voting down every nominee. So easy for them.
But come November, if there is a three way race we are in danger of having the House pick the President because of the 12th amendment. So HARD for us -- because we would be hypocrites to oppose the House it if we urge the Senate this Particular way.
And if that hapoens, how will all the Democrats who screamed for the Senate to do their constitutional responsibility object to the House doing their constitutional responsibility and installing a Republican who most likely lost the popular vote AND lost the elector college and even lost their own party's primary elections as the next PRESIDENT??
It is simple for the Republicans to vote down a nominee, while dedicating ourselves to constitutional responsibility could mean the least popular Republican is in stalled as the next President.
I do not guarantee no candidate with a majority. I don't think replies that attempt to say it won't happen are particularly necessary. I'm just saying that there is a Constitutional sinkhole if no one gets a majority and everybody should be aware of that gaping hole in democracy so we don't accidently fall into it.
Under the circumstances where the likelihood of 3 major candidates rises every day, it is dumb to get everyone rushing to commit themselves to "constitutional responsibility" of the Senate unless we can show why the Senate has to do its responsibility but the House doesn't. "CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" DOESN'T GIVE US ANYTHING, JUST A VOTE, BUT IT MAY GIVE THE REPUBLICANS THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER WE BEAT THEM.
Posted by Land Shark | Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:55 PM (50 replies)
Lawrence O'Donnell brings us the powerful thought of Elizabeth Warren, combines it with Edward R. MURROW, and builds to a powerful conclusion:
On Trump, someday we will be asked what we said and did during this historic moment. Will our answers be good? Please watch this video!
Posted by Land Shark | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 02:06 PM (3 replies)