Member since: Thu Apr 17, 2008, 04:51 PM
Number of posts: 10,459
Number of posts: 10,459
A disabled librarian from Tampa, Florida
- 2016 (10)
- 2015 (119)
- 2014 (103)
- 2013 (164)
- 2012 (165)
- 2011 (9)
- December (9)
- Older Archives
But do you know what would have to happen to make single payer a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.
now, let's apply other variables
But do you know what would have to happen to make INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.
But do you know what would have to happen to make GAY MARRIAGE a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.
But do you know what would have to happen to make THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.
But do you know what would have to happen to ENDING THE VIETNAM WAR a reality.... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.
But do you know what would have to happen to make WOMEN"S SUFFRAGE a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.
You see, there are always the "realists" who in reality are the privilege upper middle class, or those that think they can become that class, who always wag a finger and show concern. Yes, most things worth fighting for are long shots, but when those long shots come in, they are what we all benefit from. The problem is that those who define what can be a "reality" are very often people who can take their prejudices and privileges and define reality, as if they were facts. I am not saying you are, but you may want to scrutinize those that are attempting to define your reality.
The United States of America was built by people who did not accept conventional wisdom.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Thu Feb 4, 2016, 05:09 PM (1 replies)
To see Obama having to smile and help the person that blew every dog whistle she could in 2008, mocked his policy in the book "hard choices", and yet is coasting along because of the efforts of those people who supported Obama. even as they were mocked and spat at by both the right and left wings of the party. Obama is a big enough man to do this, which is why, despite mistakes, the years will polish his legacy to a fine shine. The Clintons will always be the people that we admire for skill, but never ever trust, like those ex-con relatives you love, who can help you, but always leave with whatever valuables they can steal.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:39 PM (3 replies)
I can tell you this article is true: not everyone who dislikes POSITIONS and ACTIONS Hillary has taken and IS taking is a sexist, and just like in 2008, people are using that term to make anyone who points out those positions and actions of Hillary to shut up or risk being demonized. Meanwhile many of the women whose family members would risk being sent to Syria, those female soldiers who have already done five tours in the middle east, those women who have had their houses stolen by bankers, or who are in hock for medical bills, are all magically erased from perception because all who are HURT by Hillary are supposedly all sexist college age white males.
This would not be so sad if this was not a proven failure of a technique. Hillary could have run a successful 2016 campaign, but instead, she is running the same campaign she did in 2008, with the same people, and for the benefit of those who seemed to think we could roll things back to 2008 and have that promised kingdom denied us by Obama. Obama is the person they exploit for the Afro-American vote, yet they sick out Krugman, who talked about him in the condescending, patronizing tone that many non-whites have heard come out of some "liberal" mouths, and who has resumed that same talk as he thinks he will get that cabinet position that Obama failed to hand him on a silver platter.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:01 PM (1 replies)
I have been reading Paul Krugman about how we need to go to Clinton because she can be pragmatist. It is funny coming from someone that chided Obama about not asking for a big enough stimulus, or for being too willing to work with Congress. Another aeticle (the fourth of fifth to be named "the audacity of nope" basically says that Obama was an idealist, and now Hillary will go ahead and be practical.
'The argument for Clinton is that she's best suited to handle this war of partisan attrition — she knows how to work the bureaucracy, defend against a hostile Congress, and find incremental gains where they exist. This is a realistic vision of a Democratic presidency after Obama. It's a vision, as best I can tell, that's shared by Obama. But it's not a vision liberals want to believe in. It's not a vision that Hillary Clinton has figured out how to sell. Perhaps it's not a vision that can be sold.
Bernie Sanders's vision of politics may be less realistic, but it's a vision suffused with hope. And there's never been anything audacious about asking voters to hope."
Now that I have laid out two examples of what some call "pragmatism" let's scrutinize this. Yes, the GOP would probably find Clinton easier to work with, even as they keep fishing up material for an impeachment. However, while there were a lot of ugly, nasty choices Obama and Clinton made, the fact is that the very right wing 2016 congress is exactly the reason why trying to be "pragmatic" can be the least practical thing.
The fact is, thanks in no small part to the failure of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the GOP is at a point where they do not need to pretend to listen. Donald Trump has done things that, even in 2008, would have been political suicide, but only make him stronger. Trump is not the exception, as Ted Cruz, someone who is considered too extreme by many GOP, is a hot number two behind him. The conservative base, unlike the liberal one, fully expects to be let out of the attic and march right into the Oval Office, and sorry to say, Trump and Cruz represent the fact that they are getting what they want, even if Jeb Bush is about to faint. The right wing media (which never could have gotten so big without that "practical" gutting of the telecommunications act) is stronger than ever; you have media networks like OAN and Newsmax which purposefully report to the RIGHT of Fox news. Even MSNBC leans right, Rachel maddow notwithstanding. Of course, after Citizens United, the billionaires know they can just pump dollars into any idiot and buy a puppet. Many Congressfolk will see the example of Trump and Cruz and say "why dammit, I AM being practical, the more of an ass I make of myself, the more money I get!"
So, if the virtue of Hillary is that "she can get things done because she is practical" we have to be clear about what we mean. As shown with the Telecommunications act, a lot of things that seem practical short term are disasters long term. Add to this that we have one party that frankly, no longer needs to pretend it is practical, and you have a disaster. Add to this the idea that Hillary and some supporters really agree with the idea that a lot of programs need "reform", and you have a recipe for even greater disaster, as the negotiators walk into the room ready to give the other side concessions, without even thinking that the GOP does not merely want to divide a loaf, but they want to break the whole damned bakery because they think starving people is a virtue.
Yes, pragmatism is a virtue, but those who wish to keep the current problems always manage to cloak their motives in a false pragmatism, based on short term victories. There were practical folks which said we should never even think of rebelling from England. Was it pragmatic to keep kicking the can on the issue of slavery? On the right of women to vote? On fighting Jim Crow, or the issue of LGBT marriage? Now, we can look and say no, and that the delay in action wound up being anything BUT practical, but read back on those issues, and you will hear the self proclaimed "pragmatists" explain very clearly why ALL those ideas were impossible. The fact is, while we want to be practical, it is also pragmatic to realize that whatever gains we have made are because a barrier that was assumed to be unbreakable turned out to be much more vulnerable than the practical types said it was. The reason the "sensible people" said these walls were indestructible is because they had perched their nests at the top, which was a very practical way to keep their rears warm and dry.
However, let's attack one more sensible idea: "look, Bernie won;t be able to pass half the stuff he wants!" OK, let's grant that...at the very least, he would offer RESISTANCE, and be reluctant to go into that back room faux "negotiation" which is where the practical GOP types know THEIR GAINS are made. Compromise is supposed to be where two people split a loaf rather than starve, but the false compromises that the GOP offers are where they give you a crumb and poison it so they can loot your corpse. Even Moderation needs moderation, and being so willing to bargain that you walk right into a rigged Casino/ambush is nto pratical either.
AND BTW, no I do not hate Hillary, indeed, my beef with her is that , in a very UNPRACTICAL way, she is surrounding herself with the same idiots that crashed her 2008 campaign so badly, especially DWS. If Donald Trump can pretty much run in such a manner that he tells a lot of his GOP people to go jump in a lake (which is why the independents love him) why can;t Hillary tell DWS and Mark penn to shut up, let her get on debate television, and shine? It would be one thing of DWS had a winnign track record, but she does NOT.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri Jan 29, 2016, 05:29 PM (0 replies)
I remember hi ow a lot of people would quote Joe Bageant, author of books like "deer hunting with Jesus." His theme was the poor whites, which he called the "scots-irish" were an oppressed, exploited people, and that the nation had been so busy labeling them rednecks that they had failed to help them. Yes, there was truth in that, but the one thing Joe never hit on is that, unlike all other races, the poor whites were always willing to give sympathy and allegiance to the rich whites, because they never want to think that they are just one group among many. They wanted to feel they were the chosen people. The Calvinist churches (baptist, etc) that are a major part of Southern Culture also do a lot to keep the poorer whites from actually get angry enough to rise up. It is why Unions are weakest in the South, despite labor conditions that cry out for Labor unions. It is why so many Southern Churches are outright citadels for the GOP, preaching politics from the pulpit and raising funds to win elections. While I can sympathize with the genuine plight of many poor whites, there is alwasy the fear of what has happened many times; that all a preacher or politico has to do uis strum the right heartstrings and my comrade will suddenly turn on me, and join the rest of the GOP kicking my face in.
And yes, this is why I never forgive either Clinton for all the damn racist dog whistles they blew in 2008. If that worked and put Hillary into the white house that year, that would have said "we would rather have the membership of the bigot than the minority." I know I may have to choke down Hillary, and the thought of it, howevfer necessary it may be, makes me sick, because I know if she could turn us in for the support of half the old "dixiecrat" types, she would.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Jan 27, 2016, 03:58 PM (0 replies)
It would counter the myth they are trying to establish. There are people who think that the mere fact of (insert group here) getting the White House will somehow change the narrative, i.e. "once one of ours becomes president, White males will have to respect us more because they know we can become president."
They overlook the fact that this political establishment will make damned sure that said candidate has already been set to approve of keeping those rich white males at the head of the table. Just to get close enough to be thought of us a candidate, you have to be used to slicing the rough edges off your face so that your donors will be pleased, like they would of any livestock.
Why not ask Union people how great it was when the first head of a labor union became president, aka Ronny Ray Gun.
For that matter, why is it that despite 8 years of a successful presidency, by a man that killed Ben Ladin and brought healthcare to millions, that everyone from candidates to pundits to cops feels more free than ever to support the killing of young black men and women, even if they are on camera? If the solid year of once per month publicized black killing were back in the 90's, there would have been a call for repentance; now, it is not only routine, but many of the bigots feel free to outright smile for the cameras and post it on Facebook and You Tube Worse, they often get praise and paychecks!
As for women, no, I do not think Hillary would be Maggie Thatcher, with one caveat. If she does get the wars she has been CONSISTENTLY calling for, be it with Iran or Syria, if she wants to declare again that "Assad must go", then all bets are off, because those two wars happen to be the ones where the Russians can get involved. Russia does not want a repeat of Iraq where another ally that gives them port access is attacked, then turned into a hornets nest within as few day's drive to their borders. If that happens, the past ten years of playing at war could make the whole world burn, especially if the Chinese finally decide it is time to cut up the credit cards that the generals and the tycoons have used for so long.
I think that Hillary herself may be far more left than she lets on. It is not her fault that she does not have the "slick Willie" charisma, it is actually OUR fault that we demand a successful candidate to be as much as performance artist as a problem solver. I would rather elect let that lawyer who used to be named Hillary Rodham, who was so competent that her opponents used to call her "The Angel of Death", then some body is who is being told by Willie and Debbie and Mark and a whole nest of parasites who to be. The problem is, if she allows these people to control her during the campaign, what the hell will she let them do once she is in office. I am not just talking about Willie, though I sure as hell will keep one eye on him the whole time. I mean even people who try to sell her an idea like "Gee Hillary, why don't we go ahead an keep your stuff on a private server, it's routine, really."
Yeah I hear people yell "are you saying she is naive?", I am saying that when someone cultivates a reputation for never ever apologizing for anything, it becomes easy for the people behind the throne to make that person start something, and keep charging, even though it is right into the bullfighter's lance! Yes, I realize because she is a woman, that any hint of her backing off as perceived as weakness which the ugly manchildren of the right wing will attack. Of course, wouldn't the ability to step back and not charge like a bull be the rejection of testosterone laced thinking that even many of us men know is what is desperately, desperately needed? The problem is, just as Obama was, Hillary is surrounded by the same nest of parasites who know their job is to keep the rich white guys happy, so all that "hope" of "change" gets melted down to steam.
Again, if she is the nominee, I will be down trying to get her into 1600 pa ave. However, once she getsb elected, I will double down to keep pressure on her, not out of spite, but because I saw what the poltico parasites did to Obama, and I know that for them, Obama was the appetizer, Hillary will be dessert.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:21 PM (0 replies)
Now, I am not going to dent that some people have gotten really unhinged, especially those who seem to get all pissed that not every African American Democrats seems to march behind Bernie. However, I need to make clear that there are those whose reasons for making Hillary go through the primary paces have nothing to do with behavior that might very well make Bernie and O Malley gag.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the left were led through the admittedly tough compromise years with the promise that, when things got better, we would go back to work on repairs, pushing forward. I had no illusion that we would summon some storm to wash away 30 years of Ronnie Ray Gun. I knew it would be a trickle. I also knew that FDR had his opponents from the left, the ones that were angry that social security was too small, and a far, far smaller number (a number inflated by Joe Mccarthy) who were genuine radicals who feared that FDR might save capitalism from itself. However, the wheels spun, Social Security grew, and begat the Great Society program, and begun a wheel of progress so strong even a GOP SOB like Dick Nixon had to admit there was a need for an EPA and an OSHA, and that he had to admit "Red" China existed.
However, the 90's, and the ability of the media to lie for money made progress harder to come by. However, it was aided and abetted by folks whose only problem with the GOP were some social issues and the fact they were incompetent. They loved the War Machine, and loved Wall Street financial hucksters who could get caught lying, blow millions and still get good jobs. They also hated stuff like the Fairness doctrine, because they were so confident they could get the job done and not risk their money. Enter Bill, who undid sacred cows of the Democrats, who could bait welfare mothers as demons as much as anyone else. We were told to keep smiling, else the GOP come in. Yes we got some good things, though we paid dearly for them, and the bill came due long after Bill had left office. We had the Third way people tell Gore to take Joe Lieberman. Some people even voted for a glorified clown named Nader, we know what happened next.
Then, we thought Bush could not be a two term er, and then 2008 came. The problem was, as good as Hillary would have made (one that would have gotten my vote if she won the primary) she allowed everyone from Mark Penn to her Husband to Debbie Wasserman Schultz to yank her to the right. It was not that Obama was that different from her, but we saw Hillary make it very clear that the changes she wanted where not the FDR/Truman/Carter changes, but to somehow prove that the only difference between her and the GOP was simple competence. Thankfully, we did not just have to grin and bear it and listen to those that took the ship away form the FDR liberals say "just keep going, I will get you a pony someday, I promise." We did not want ponies, we just wanted a chance to earn our daily bread and get back some of the dignity Ronnie Ray GUn and Idiot Son took from us.
and the Obama, who admittedly faced more opposition than even Bill did. That Democratic Majority turned out to be full of Blue Dogs who seemed to go "oh shiot, we have to fulfill all those promises now." Manchin, Landrieu, Baucus, all of them used something that at the very least is cowardice, and yes, at the worst, is RACIST!!! And I will not exonerate so called liberal leaders like nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi. And of all of these, the person selected to run the ship, despite the DISASTER that was the 2008 campaign, was none other than an enemy of liberals, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. OH, I have my beef with Obama, as he did back down from fights that needed fighting, but I also think he knew the ground under him was damned slippery. In any case, the Democrats stopped pretending that they needed to try and fight for the left; this relationship went from "I promise I will never hit you again" to "look what you made me do again! (slap)"
and yet we know that at their worst, the Democrats are better than the GOP, and that Hillary, at her worst, is better than any GOP. That is a fact as provable as 2 plus 2. However, whenever we tried to put pressure on her to lean left, since we know damned well there is pressure on her to go full right, we were called traitors, sexist, hippies, ratfuckers, operatives, and a whole list of other names. We did not want to tear down Hillary, we just wanted our voice at the table to be heard. Some of us even think Hillary is being given very bad advice by the same people who should have been fired because they screwed up so badly last time, people like DWS who got promoted, people like Mark "keep down the black vote" Penn, people like Arriana "I will publish conservatives in my liberal paper "Huffington". All people who, BTW, if Hillary did not get hired by Obama, would simply have moved on to the next host.
But alas, we were evil, even though, because we raised issues, Hillary stopped supporting the TPP and the Keystone pipeline. Really, some of her supporters, the ones that defended these policies as if they were life and death, have been tombstone silent. What';s the matter, you realize you are too lazy to somehow express why your icon disagrees with you, that maybe yoiu did not understand her as well as you thought you did? It's not like we were given a chance to apply any pressure within the Hillary establishment, especially as Debbie, sweet INCOMPETENT Debbie, has botched the debate process so bad that people focus on Trump. And please, wen all know even Jeb "my brother will be remembered as the smart one" Bush will march in perfect lockstep goosestep behind Trump if he wins, just as they will behind Ted Cruz, or even Marco Rubio. Say what you will about the GOP, but they know how to keep a base together, where they know they have to pay even the scary people in the corner. We, frankly, you already have people wanting to kick US out of the party, even though we know damned well when it comes to gruntwork and money, they will be knocking on our doors come Fall.
Many of us have no desire to repeat a Nader, we know that half a loaf is better than starving, but when the establishment tried to turn the primary into a coronation, where the right wing had prime seats at the banquet, we had to do something to save this party form itself. Like it or not, if Hillary wins, it will not be because a bunch of celebrities and bankers had caviar dinners where they promised to give the rich what even a crusty old GOP bastard like Nixon would never do.It will be because, we , THE BASE, the ones who were called Pinko liberals before Progressive became cool, hunkered down and hit it. We will beat the GOP despite you, even though we know the Mark Penns and Debbie Wasserman Schultzes plan to spike out victory champagne with cyanide so they can get rid of us, so that they can use Hillary and move on to the next host, fleas spreading plague to what was the Democratic party.
Just do not be surprised if we say "You drink it" after all, you know that Wall Street and the Military industrial Complex have a double strength cocktail ready for you in mid terms. Kind of a "first they came for the (blank) sort of thing. It is not like I cannot read DU and see a lot of former Clinton supporters rage when they got sent to the abandoned pet shelter.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:42 AM (8 replies)
There is a lot of talk about how Hillary might lose Iowa, again. The ironic thing is, we in this country place a lot of emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that show some parts of America, but not tall.
So, even if she loses these two states, why should this county make it the coup de grace, and I say this as a Floridian, a member of the BLUE State that voted Obama twice and is bigger then every other state save for Texas, CA, and NY.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Thu Jan 21, 2016, 08:25 PM (4 replies)
the same damned Reagan democrats that have been the favorite children since Clinton, the same people who like the idea of a rich white guy who knows the "problem" is that "we ain't takin care of us, and listening ta all dose Minorities pinkos and wimmin." Your classic Archie Bunker types in the North and Bubbas in the South who the Democrats have been so desperate to trade the left in for. Guess what, they will always go for a GOP, especially a loud and crude GOP whose whole selling point is that complicated problems are just simple things to smash, things the intellectuals and minorities made up so they could make a living off the "hard working people."
The DWS wing of the party has been trying to woo the Reagan Democrats for years, and no matter how many times the DINOs blow smoke in our faces, we are supposed to grin and bear it, and ignore it when the Democrats are busy trying to throw another constituent overboard:
Time to get rid of the unions!
Time to get rid of people on welfare!
Time to get rid of the working class!
Time to toss out hippies that won't let us make oil money!
Time to toss out anyone that don't want more guns!
splash splash splash glub glub glub
And then, after the Democrats have been emaciated, they stride the boat acting like an admiral, while down below, the Reagan Democrats have been getting fat and strong, so much so the wight of their posteriors makes the boat tilt so far right even Nixon and Reagan fall overboard! But Admiral Debbie does not have to worry, she still gets paid, even though the ship is racing right towards the rocks. But no, Debbie and your crew, the Reagan Democrats will get rid of you too, and the fact that you will be the last to go will simply mean that, in the end, you are alone and helpless, because the people who you were supposed to protect were long ago sold out, because you wanted to think you could turn your blood enemies into friends. You will be like a stray dog in the street, alone, with no one to feed you because everyone is either too poor or selfish.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:08 PM (1 replies)
OK, was PP throwing support to HRC before the primaries STUPID? Of course, because if nothing else, it lets the GOP associate PP with HRC, instead of simple damned medical science. Abortion should be no more political than a root canal, and this endorsement before the primary is settled makes PP look like a political arm of HRC. They could not wait, or keep things going by saying "the democrats support us" which would have been a safe and true statement?
It also makes Hillary look weak because it looks like yet another heavy handed approach to make sure the primary is nothing more than a coronation process, which will play right into the hands of whoever the GOP appoints.
Now, with all this being said, when I read people saying they will cancel PP donations, I have to ask, are you foolish? We do not have the right to treat the health of women as collateral damage; that is supposedly what makes us better than our enemies. Perhaps if PP gets funding, then they will not feel so desperate as to think that they have to let DWS co opt them.
If you are liberal, you will support PP, period. Full stop. The lives of women are not pawns, even if DWS, despite being a woman, choose to make them so.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:16 AM (15 replies)