Member since: Thu Apr 17, 2008, 05:51 PM
Number of posts: 9,386
Number of posts: 9,386
A disabled librarian from Tampa, Florida
- 2015 (47)
- 2014 (102)
- 2013 (165)
- 2012 (165)
- 2011 (9)
- December (9)
- Older Archives
I have seen people take the Bernie Vs Hillary conflict and make all sorts of twisted knots. There is one thing I want to address, identity politics.
I am Hispanic, and I know both parties will want to court us because we are that last bits of fuel that are up for grabs. On the one hand, I am, happy Hillary seemed ready to address Immigration reform. It is a comfort considering I can get on here and read people who claim they are for "labor" demonize Immigrants. On the other hand, I am truly surprised that the GOP seems to be preparing people like CRuz, Rubio and yes, even Jeb Bush, who, to give a devil his due, has taken hits for immigration reform.
However, I have no illusions about the Latinos the GOP is promoting: they serve the GOP, which means when they get into office, they will serve the agenda of those that hate everyone, but especially minorities. To cop a riff of Hillary: No way, no how, no GOP! Yes, I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, because I have no illusions that failing to vote Democrat is not AFFIRMATIVELY voting FOR the GOP. Go ahead and say otherwise, nader voters, history knows you were baited, hooked, and we ended up in the frying pan, thanks to the guy shilling for Rand Paul.
However, while I will vote for the people that represents me on the issues, I do wonder why the bloody hell the Democratic party does not have several Hispanics ready for the time ahead. Is there some sort of moratorium that says no other Democrat can be primed until such time as Hillary is president? This will bite us in the rear, as frankly, it sends a message that only a certain type of face is wanted for the democrats. The fact that some of Hillary's supporters were the ones that still have not apologized for letting Big Dawg Bill dogwhistle against blacks AND younger voters does not help.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed May 27, 2015, 09:46 PM (3 replies)
from the article:
Rogozin was speaking on state television, and was asked about the European and American concerns over Moscow’s increased military presence in the energy and mineral rich Arctic.
“I've always joked about it,” Rogozin said. “So what if they won't give us visas, put us on sanctions list... tanks don't need visas.”
Rogozin is known for his combative orations and inflammatory outbursts. Reports The Diplomat: “Dmitry Rogozin’s most recent comment on Russia’s ties with the West was published yesterday on his Twitter account: ‘It’s not Russia that threatens the West. Its foundations will crash down under the pressure of ISIS and gays.’”
and this fine gem:
Writes the Inquisitor: “Rogozin, who also became one of the first seven persons who were put by President Obama under executive sanctions to freeze his assets in the U.S. and stop him entering the United States, has previously gone on record stating that the sale of Alaska was a ‘betrayal of Russian power status’ and that Russia should also have the ‘right to reclaim our lost colonies.’”
Now, I do believe that many war hawks here are doing their best to get us into war with Russia, and I certainly have little sympathy for the neo Nazis that hid under the banner of freedom in the Ukraine, however, I do hope Putin keeps this guy on a leash. While I would gladly give him Sarah Palin, the idea of reclaiming a lost colony is savage.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Tue May 26, 2015, 03:15 PM (2 replies)
If this is not sealed before the election kicks into high gear, then Hillary will have to explain it. Granted, we know the GOp loves this bill, but because Hillary will be running on her Secretary of State credintials, they will not resist the chance to attack her on this, something a lot more meaty than Bengazi.
Either three things happen:
She gets smart and ditches the mess, which can also be one more slap to Obama, much to the delight of the Pumas still fighting the 2008 war.
She holds onto it, and has to defend it, which opens her up for all sorts of attacks, because, unlike Bengazi, it is pretty hard to say you had no idea this was being talked about. It will also open her up to all those juicy "public speaking fees" Bill collected as president while she was Sec of State, from places like our old firends in Saudi Arabia.
OR, the worst case scanrio, she spoends the whole campaign wiffling and waffling, speaking so that you can nbever be sure iof she is for or against. Democrats that wiffle and waffle are of course, the candidates that get whopped, because, as Bill himself said, Americans prefer "strong and wrong to right and light." This of course hands the campaign over to the masters of strong and wrong, the GOP, who consider wrong to be a form OF strong.
So, the striong scenario is for this to be passed, so Obama can get praised if itworks, but more likely, blamed when it does not work, and Hillary can continue her theme of "I would have done this so much better then Obama" meme, even though a lot of those things she would have done better include starting mid east wars and exporting jobs.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sun May 17, 2015, 11:19 AM (6 replies)
I can genuinely understand why some of us are asking "Why should we care about deflate-gate when there are so many serious issues going on?" However, if there is one thing we have learned from the GOP, it is that we need to pay attention to the culture at large, because there, people will be influenced before they even think they are talking about politics.
So why should we be cheering Patriot Punishment? The Pats cheating to get to a Super Bowl embodies the one ugly facet of our culture that will prevent any real change in this country; thou shalt win at all costs. Not that winning is not needed, but the idea is that we are willing to do so much to "win" that we make a joke out of the very games and prizes we tend to love so much.
The GOP of course, lets the "winner" get everything. Get caught stealing money, NP, as long as you win. Get cuaght doing other crimes, it's only, as long as you win. In a sane world, neither Chris Christie nor Scott Walker would be anything but leaders, but the GOP cuts them slack, because they "WON" states that used to be hard blue. If they came from Mississippi or Texas, they might be heard from, but not serious contenders for the presidency.
The democrats do it too. So what if a Blue Dog advocates soemthign that would have FDR spinning in his grave, that person is a winner! Yes, we did let Bill Clinton get away with murder because he projected that he is a winner. The illusion is so strong that even after winners get caught or lose their luster, people will still turn to them to WIN. Judging from the Mid Terms, democrats took a whooping, but we want so bad to be a "winner" that we ignore the voters who want us to run plays that indeed, were winning in the past, instead of this new playbook.
But polticians know that as long as they can sell people on being a winner, they will be forgiven, even praised, even imiated. Of course, victory is short term. As Obama sadly proved, winning in the short term will not win the long game, and unlike sports, makign a society is a long game. So, all metaphor aside, seeing the Pats pilloried is a short term play to actually demystify this cult of the winner. Am i saying this will lead to wall street tycoons going to jail?, not in the short game, but how can this society take on the wall street "winners" when the myths they hide behind are reinforced.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Tue May 12, 2015, 10:44 PM (1 replies)
As many know, llabor got thrashed last night. The issue that came up was nationalism, both England wanting out of the EU, to Scotand rejecting Labor and wanting out of the UK. Of course, Angela Merkel's austerity measures have soured many about the EU, and France looks ready to elect marine Le Pen who is running on getting rid of the Euro.
So,is the EU still viable at this point?
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri May 8, 2015, 02:35 PM (2 replies)
I know the Veep is president if the President dies. Is there a succession after that. ?
Posted by DonCoquixote | Tue May 5, 2015, 09:35 PM (33 replies)
I write this OP because I have seen some people who support Hillary accuse Sanders supporters of being GOP pawns, or to quote one OP "stalking horses" for the GOP.
Now, I do understand some reasons why people can be paranoid. I still remember the week after Election 2000, where, even as the votes were being counted, and "chads" were still new, right wing operatives would call in to the right wing radio station, WFLA Tampa, and BRAG in gloating detail about how they used the Nader Campaign to their ends. You had people who were previously pretending to be left wing callers come on and say "yes, I was really a Republican!" and get cheered on like some Fraternity and Sorority member that played a really stupid joke. One of the cheerleaders of this was a then local talk show host named Glenn Back, who, despite a very dismal performance in Tampa otherwise, got promoted to the national level.
However, when some people say that Sanders supportets are hust Hillary Haters/stalking horses/people not ready to have a woman president, et cetera, they are not being honest about Bernie, nor us. First of all, Bernie is running WITHIN the Democratic party. He specifically adressed the Nader scenario, where he said he would "not be a spoiler" the way Nader was.
He is bringing matters up because frankly, while the Clintons and Obamas did take measures attempting to keep the right wing at bay, they have also given up ground that used to be standard Democratic ideas since FDR. Unions, especially Teacher's Unions, have been thrown under the Bus. Even with the figures suggesting a "recovery", Wall Street is getting so many slices of the pie that many who used to be considered "middle class" are broke. We know that is due, to a large part, to pressure the right wing of the Democrats places, be they "philanthropists" like Bill Gates, Think tank pundits like Erskine Bowles, donors like Alice Walton and Lloyd Blankfeld and polticians like Joe Manchin and Mary Landrieu that, however they are on social matters, still defend the industires that literally kill both their voters and those near their voters. Yes, the people I mentioned ARE to the left of the MODERN GOP, aka Fascism with better marketing. No, they are not supprters of the traditional, proven, successful FDR era Democratic policy. All of them have a vested interest in weakening or destroying the remnants of the New Deal. Now, we knw these folks are applying pressure on Hillary to lean rightward. We as Democrats, have every right, and every reason to apply pressure on her to lean leftward. We do this NOT because we do not plan to FIGHT to make sure the GOP does not gain one more inch of ground, we do it because, as 2010 and 2014 proved, the masses, the people we need to convince to vote against the GOP, are not happy with a supposed "kinder, gentler" Republican.
If Hillary is the only one who can beat a Jeb or Scott or Marco, she will have no problem beating a Bernie Sanders. The worst case scnario for her is that Bernie gives her leeway to lean left, much as she recently has when talking about Taboo subjects like prison reform and financial regulation (bet that gave Blankfeld a headache.) She will be onoculated against the "cornonation" meme that the GOP would be able to use, and the GOP will be left bleeding for the genuine attacks Bernie will level, which, like it or not, do help Hillary look good against the GOP.
If, on the other hand, the HIllary campaign were to somehow stumble because of Bernie.
(disclaimer, I do not believe this will be the case, especially if she learned her lesson from 2008)
But if her campaign implodes against Bernie, then frankly, it would not have been the ship we would sail against a Jeb or Scott or Marco. It is one thing to lose to Barack Obama, who was able to embody a lot of the disllusioned voices in the masses, Bernie is mostly preaching to a choir at this point. At this point, Hillary would have to make some serious blunders, blunders like she did in 2008, that she would not repeat. I do not expect Mark Penn to be getting any phone calls.
So, while I do admit, there may indeed be some "stalking horses" supporters of Hillary do not help their cause when they stamp that label on anyone who is not already campaigning for Hillary like it is October 2016, as if the Democratic Convention was already old news. You do not give a teenager whiskey, and the campaign should not be forced to "grow up" too quick. Now disclaimers: Yes, if I see stalking horses, I will call them out. Anyone who reads my journal knows what i think of Ron Paul, and the current schill for Ron Paul, aka Ralph Nader.
Now, a whole OP can be done asking Nader how the hell he intends to get consumer protection from the guy that would destory government's ability to regulate, but that is not the point, except that I would suggest HE is the staking horse that deserves more hate.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Mon May 4, 2015, 08:28 AM (11 replies)
I am very happy that I will be able to vote for Bernie in the primary. Question is, what Veep would you give him? This can be important, as a younger Veep will kill a lot of the "he's too old" BS.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri May 1, 2015, 11:48 AM (72 replies)
Unlike some here, I will not lionize the youth that destroyed buildings, but I will not demonize them either. The Cops repsonded with violence first, and apparently showed no fear of the state, not did the state give them any reason to fear. When it becomes clear that the law is NOT going to see you as anythign but a target for bullets, you will want to throw a rock, if nothing else to show that if the state refuses to hold the police accountable, somebody will.
However, let's not whip ourselves into "anarchy is so cool!" bullshit either. The people that will be hurt are not the cops, nor the people that employ the cops, it will be mostly poor people sweeping the streets, and chances are even the local roofers or carpenters will not get paid. Violence may be need in a short term after someone make it clear that they want to be violent with you, however, violence is always deadly in the long term, because it does not actually make people want to stop.
Nothiong will be done, not all the rioting, not all the pretty speechmaking, until someone IN POWER gets fired and disgraced. Those in power have the resources to outlast both the rioters and the "can't we all just get along?" well wishers. We need to have high ranking people FIRED, period, because THAT is the violence power understands and cannot exploit.
This is where Obama and Hillary can earn their paychecks..Call for the FIRING of a chief of Police.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:18 PM (7 replies)
Now, let me cut the standard discussion killers off at the root. I have criticized Obama for not being liberal enough. From this TPP to drone strikes, he has shown that he has drunk a bit too much of the centrist Kool Aid. Unlike many, I think the ones feeding it to him are people like the Geitners and Emmanuels who would have fit into a Clinton admin, including Hillary "we came we saw he died" Clinton herself. However, there is a greater point this op will be about. How do people who supported Clinton, who proudly wear her banners and are polishing her crown for the coronation, claim to be to the left of Obama?
Look, from the very moment in the first presidential debate, where Bill mocked Jerry Brown and said "you are from California, so chill out" the Clintons have made a point of mocking liberals and getting them out of power. Now, I know the thought killer that people are summoning, "Hillary is not her husband!" Well, never mind the fact that if she wanted to espouse polcies that were to the left of her Husband, not only would she be heard, she would be cheered. She may not have had the same "bully pulpit" people slam Obama for not using, but if she were to let's say, come out against the TPP, does anyone doubt she would NOT get the Press? Does anyone doubt that even Liz and Bernie and maybe even Ralph Nader and Michael Moore would heap praise upon her?
She will not, nor will she apaolgize for her crack about "we came, we saw, he died" even though that war in Libya helped to fuel Isis recruitments. It's the same reason she did not get on the mic and condemn Bibi Netanyahu for using the Koch Brothers congress to undermine peace talks. It's the same reason she supports H1b-Visas, despite the fact they are not only a means to exploit India's poor, but also helped gut a generation of American workers. It's the same reason she was tight lipped even as Cops were killing black men and women as if they were deer during hunting season.
She, is, NOT a leftist. She may be to the LEFT of TED CRUZ OR SCOTT WALKER, and while that will enable me to use her to keep those two out of office, she does not deserve the crown of liberal, and she sure as hell is not more liberal than Obama. The one, and only thing she might have done is "evolve" quicker on LGBT rights, even though people forget who helped craft "don't ask don't tell" in the FIRST PLACE. When it comes to NAFTA, GLass Steagall, The Telecommuncations act, has she ever said she would roll back any of the polcies her husband did that have been shown to undermine liberalism? She could, what's Bill going to do, divorce her? Go ahead Bill, if your wife did make a clear break from your MISTAKES, she would become Joan of Arc as soon as she did the Orpah Interview. She does not, even though she would be praised, because she belives in that move from the left to the CENTER.
No, she is not a GOP member, but please do not talk about how she is to Obama's left, or that she would have done anything more leftist than Obama did. She has had a decade to do just that, and has not. So when I see someone with a Hillary sticker join on the "Obama made me mad coz I am a liberal" bandwagon, I will see that Hillary t shirt, and Know that they are either being dishonest to the realliberals, or worse, and more likely, that they are being dishonest to themselves.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sat Apr 25, 2015, 08:50 AM (42 replies)