HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rhett o rick » Journal
Page: 1

rhett o rick

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 01:05 PM
Number of posts: 55,981

Journal Archives

Is Clinton progressive? Let's look at her positions on issues. How about legalizing marijuana?

Asked if she supports the legalization of marijuana, a simple yes or no question, she resorts to rhetoric.

She says "we need an approach" That's rhetoric folks. Needing an approach is no commitment to anything.

She goes on to say that she thinks it would be ok to let allow the states to act as "laboratories of democracy". What the hell are "laboratories of democracy? So hey, do you support the legalization of marijuana or not?

She hints that she would favor letting the states legalize the use of marijuana without any federal government interference unless (oh oh here's the catch) unless certain federal guidelines are violated. Then the federal government can step in and overrule the states and throw people in her Prisons For Profits. Hello, that's exactly the way it's handled today. So her answer to the question do you support the legalization of marijuana is to keep the status quo.

I can see were the conservative Clinton would be leery of the legalization of marijuana for recreational use because conservatives long have been against the peons having their freedoms. It's her stand on medical use of marijuana that upsets me the most. She thinks it needs more and more and more studies just like Big Pharma thinks, hmmmm. To deny people suffering, the use of a drug that has been "tested" for years and found to be more effective with less side effects than some of Big Pharma's drugs, seems to me to be not empathetic.

There are a lot of sources of her position on marijuana on the intertubes, hell even her CNN wrote this:
"I'm (Clinton) a big believer in acquiring evidence, and I think we should see what kind of results we get, both from medical marijuana and from recreational marijuana, before we make any far-reaching conclusions," Clinton told KPCC in July. "We need more studies. We need more evidence. And then we can proceed."

How is that for rhetoric?

So what is her position? "we need an approach".

She doesn't agree with him on anything. Did you watch the debates?

Here is a list of issues that the two are miles apart:

We want to Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
We are Opposed to job killing "Free Trade" agreements
We are opposed to fracking for oil company profits over people's water
We want to help college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it)
We support making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
We want to end the unregulated domestic spying and making the NSA/CIA Security State have oversight.
Also end drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands (100 innocents killed for each suspect)
We are for reducing the defense budget
We are for taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
We support the end of the militarization of our local police forces.
We want to end Prisons for Profits
We support legalizing marijuana esp. for medical use.
We believe in the need for funding rebuilding our neglected infrastructure.
We support single payer health insurance.
We want to see the regulation of Wall Street (e.g. reinstate Glass-Steagall)
We want to break up the big bank and media monopolies.
We are against American Exceptionalism and an excuse for neocon imperialism.

Bullying For Goodness

I have learned a lot about bullying in the last few years and some thanks to DU. My below text is my attempt to put some of what I think I've learned down in writing. I would greatly appreciate comments as I may be way off. I am posting this here because I view this Group as the Progressive Group were we can post progressive ideas and have discussions w/o the disruptions.

Bullying For Goodness

Bullying can be defined as the abuse of an imbalance of power.

We run into bullies everywhere in our everyday lives. Our first experience was probably at school as children often vying for dominance. It seems natural and may be human nature. Maybe those tribes that had an authoritarian social structure survived and those that didn't, didn't.

Our schools don't handle bullying well as we've seen time and again where the victim is often punished in lieu of the bully. Why is this? I think that we've evolved to live in a bully run culture. It isn't just our schools but most of our institutions don't handle it well either. We've all experienced case of coaches, bosses, family, friends, that abuse others verbally, emotionally and in some cases physically.

Let's step back a little because I don't think we can have a discussion of bullying without including authoritarianism. I believe that bully-ism is part of authoritarianism.

Here's a definition of authoritarianism (from merriam-webster.com):
1. of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.
2. 2. of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite.

Does that sound familiar? Bob Altemeyer has written a great book, “The Authoritarians” (free on the internet). He provides a great insight into authoritarianism which is important to the discussion of bullies.
More about authoritarianism http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710250

As mentioned above we are introduced to bullying (authoritarian domination) from an early age. Some parents bully their children. Some teachers bully as do scout leaders, coaches, and other authorities that children deal with at an early age. Many of these people don't even realize that they are bullying. Some do it because it's easier for a leader to dominate.
Bullying is deep seated within our culture. The USofA has been a bully nation since the beginning. The Native Americans were bullied, Mexico was bullied when we took the southwest from them. The Monroe Doctrine is bullying personified. Many of our presidents were bullies, like Woodrow Wilson, for example. And Theodore Roosevelt even used the term “Bully, bully”. Ok, sorry for that. Some look to make heroes out of bullies like Dirty Harry and Jack Bauer because they rationalize that they are bullying on the side of goodness. Vigilantism is bully for goodness. And we've seen that right here in River City.

The Stand Your Ground laws normalized bullying for goodness. All one has to do is decide they represent goodness and they get a free hand.
The Zimmerman case is a great example. He was protecting the neighborhood from perceived badness. He got away with murder because he was perceived as on the side of goodness.
Bullying is common on message boards. People form groups that make themselves feel safer. If they think another poster is on the wrong side of goodness (maybe doesn't agree with their worldview) they will ridicule and hound (bully) until they get a response that they can point at as challenging goodness (sexism or racism). This gives them the justification they need to do whatever is necessary to get the poster banned. Bullying is ok if done for the sake of goodness.
“Research indicates that adults who bully have personalities that are authoritarian, combined with a strong need to control or dominate.” (Wikipedia)
Some bullies are arrogant and domineering while others will use bullying as a tool to boost self esteem by siding with the dominate bully.
Subordinate bullies may not be brave enough to aggressively bully but will support the dominate bully by ridiculing the victim and egging the dominate bully on. In this we can clearly see mob mentality. The individual bully is emboldened by the pack.

Some observations about bullies.

I have seen this first hand. A strong dominate bully will acquiesce to a perceived stronger bully. And the weaker bullies will become dominate bullies if they find a weak enough victim.

In the bully mindset, if one is bullied they rationalize the need to seek a bigger bully for help with revenge. For example, if a child is bullied they may go to their older, bigger sibling to fight for them. This cycle can continue and escalate out of control on a large scale as we've seen in the middle east. Who is getting even with who?

When a dominate bully is confronted, they are quick to play the victim card. They are, after all, really cowards and only bully those that are weaker.

Unless physical danger is involved, stand up to bullies but never sink to their level. Don't justify fighting them on their level. Keep strong to your principles. “Never wrestle a bully in the mud. You will only get dirty and they love it.”

This is intended to evoke a discussion about what I see as a significant problem.

I guess we can call each other trolls now. Or at least the Clinton side.

With due respect, that's a typical bunch of rhetoric. It's real easy to say

that she supports the legalization of marijuana use. She goes way out of her way to not say that. She says "we need an approach" yada yada yada. We don't need an approach, we need straight talk. She would be ok to let allow the states to act as "laboratories of democracy", what does that even mean. She hints that she would favor the federal government leaving states alone as long as they didn't violate some arbitrary guidelines that could be changed and enforced any time wanted. For example, who gets to decide if organized crime is involved or not? Her half-assed stand on medical marijuana use lacks empathy. She wants to "advance research into it's health benefits" while people are suffering. Again, bullshit rhetoric. She does not commit herself at all.

Some will always side with the big power, big money.

Some of us have been fighting against the bullies for most of our lives, in school, in business and now the rich and super-rich, the Oligarchy.

I work at a foodbank and see daily the ravishes from the collateral damage from the rich and powerful looting the lower classes. In the last 30 years the rich and powerful have tripled their wealth while us peons have had to help each other, the poor, our vets, homeless, and seniors. I have family and friends that have lost homes, jobs and retirements thanks to those , living in denial, ignoring the real problem.

I think this race, if won by the wealthy 1% may break the backs of the lower classes and that's why so many of us are fighting so hard. It's literally a war a class war, and if the Oligarchy wins, people will die from lack of proper nutrition and lack of needed health care. More jobs will be lost and wages will go lower. Banks will take more homes and retirements. Most likely there will be another bank realignment where we, the lower 99%, bail them out again.

Clinton doesn't even pretend to want to fix the growing, GROWING wealth gap. Why would she, she has benefited greatly by the system to the tune of $50,000,000. She talks about how growth is needed to help the lower classes. That's code for more of the same crap we've been seeing for the last 30 years. We've had tremendous growth in the last 30 years, but the wealthy have not shared it with us peons. We we need jobs, homes, infrastructure, single payer, and the expansion of Social Security, but most of all we need to stop the looting by the wealthy and start making them pay their share.

Some Democrats that I've spoken to ask why would Democrats side with the big power, big money, over the People, the lower 99%. The same reason they side with the police beating protesters, side with the government when they spy on Americans, side against whistle blowers and investigative journalists, side with Republicons when they invade Iraq, etc. They are authoritarians, raised to revere and never question authority. They can ignore those among us that are suffering and bow to the power. They revere the Clinton Aristocracy and ignore the 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty
Posted by rhett o rick | Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:33 PM (3 replies)

But she is not progressive and she has only given us rhetoric about the wealth

gap. Nothing convincing.

She wasn't progressive when she betrayed the Democratic Party and supported the worst foreign policy mistake in recent history. I say mistake, but actually to all that profited from the IWar, and I suspect she profited indirectly, the war was very profitable.

She is not progressive on these issues:

Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
The job killing "Free Trade" agreements
Fracking for oil company profits over people's water
Help college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it)
Making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
Ending the unregulated domestic spying
Drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands (100 innocents killed for each suspect)
Reducing the defense budget
Taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
The militarization of our local police forces.
Ending Prisons for Profits
Legalizing marijuana esp. for medical use.
The need for funding rebuilding our neglected infrastructure.
Single payer health insurance.
Regulation of Wall Street (e.g. reinstate Glass-Steagall)
Breaking up the big bank and media monopolies.
The continuous war in the Middle East
Posted by rhett o rick | Tue Mar 8, 2016, 07:30 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1