delrem
delrem's JournalI don't know how to discuss politics with you.
I didn't say that KM's endorsement proves something about the Black community, and I didn't say that it'll have some overwhelming effect on the Black electorate. That's your red-herring. Your avoidance.
I said that your suggestion that KM might endorse HRC was to laugh. And it is to laugh.
I didn't say that I knew of KM before this. In fact in other posts I've said to the contrary. But because of this now I have listened to his endorsement speech and a couple of his raps, and wow...
Chance of KM even considering endorsing HRC = 0.
Absolute 0.
In fact, I'm surprised he endorsed any Dem or any Rep, including Bernie Sanders. The fact that he did endorse Bernie made me listen closer to what he's saying and not go off like a half-cocked reactionary like I usually do.
The raps I listened to are incandescent.
I'll put it this way:
I'm white, Canadian, unaware unless my nose is pushed into it.
Bob Marley, MLK, have a "safe" way of expressing their message to my ears, and yes, my general agreement with that message (hey, I'm no rasta) goes little further than the weakest lip service because it's not my immediate world.
The KM raps I listened to were scary. The references to Malcolm X's statements and to immediate reality don't make for comfortable listening. In fact, as I said, scary.
I just listened to _Pressure_.
Nobody who wrote that would endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Not even close. Way better chance of me switching over to her team and joining you in the disparagement of "economic justice", in whittling down the well-known and applauded demand for a $15/hr min wage to $12/hr, the dismissal of universal single-payer health care as a ridiculous pipe dream, the dismissal of universal guaranteed public college education as too costly, and etc. in EVERY PARTICULAR. And that won't ever happen.
And if *you* were aware of his poetry and music before this, you'd know that.
So I really do wonder what you're about, claiming some identity with KM's politics and goals, because nothing you've written to disparage the politics of economic justice over the past few months is consistent with that, and in fact as I said is contrary of that.
True Democratic and progressive ideas belong on the main board.
They'll get a lot of flack.
Some will try to exterminate them. Like, they'll actually contend against a single payer health care system. They'll actually contend against $15/hr in favor of $12/hr.
Just because.
Hey, they own the Democratic Party.
I expect to be alerted on, now.
But I've learned certain lessons after posting a lot to DU and having posts hidden, having to go through time-outs where I took the time to re-think how I express myself.
My rules are:
1. be honest.
2. be unafraid to say the truth.
3. be diplomatic, but defend free speech, the free discussion of ideas, and push back against censorship however it is being pushed.
WillyT's point was entirely about politics. It wasn't "anti-LGBT" or "anti-" any identifiable group.
WillyT's post implicitly as well as explicitly criticizes HRC's so-called "evolution" from the HRC evidenced in her 2004 speeches (when she was 57 yrs old, so set in her moral compass), which proudly proclaim a faith-based Methodist absolutist moral judgment w.r.t. (in the words I grew up learning go together in perfect synchronicity) "the sanctity of marriage", to being a "progressive" who supports "marriage equality" in 2013.
Remember, HRC was 57 years old in 2004. When a person is considering retirement plans and whose moral compass is set by a long life. Then from 2009-13 she was Secretary of State, planning the future of the middle east with the "Friends of Libya" and "Friends of Syria", and doing other important things having nothing much to do with LGBT rights. When did HRC have time to undergo such a profound "evolution" with respect to her foundation principles of morality and ethics?
While claiming a leadership role regarding "progressive social values", HRC's campaign disparages a focus on "economic justice" and attacks "socialists" who want ponies, like single payer, a $15/hr minimum wage for federal workers, reasonable access to the kind of generic pharmaceuticals, at the bulk prices of a universal pharmaceutical plan coupled with single payer health logistics - as exists in other countries. However, HRC's only "reality based" argument against these public goods is that it'll raise taxes.
HRC and her husband took in $140 million, approximately, in speeches.
That is to be beholden, to be "compromised", in a way that's never before been seen in the history of western democracies.
I think WillyT's mention of the idea "Stockholm syndrome" is perfectly fine.
Indeed. A couple of those posters are far beyond democratic (small 'd') politics:
they admire what HRC and crew did to destroy democracy in Honduras, are fine with HRC's bff Kissinger and what he was all about in Chile and etc, they want to undo all that's been done for the people by the Bolivarian revolution in several countries and especially in Venezuela, and if a return of the death squads accompanies it then that's fine with them. Not a downside to them as it accelerates a return to the unbounded profiteering they anticipate.
I admire Judi Lynn, being able to handle that kind of pure evil. One of the finest posters I've ever encountered on the net.
The US has it within its power to put an end to its senseless war.
The US has it within its power to turn 180 degrees and become a force for the good.
I wonder, though,
why it is that bin Laden, a former CIA asset in the US proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan, turned coat and attacked the USA?
What could be gained by it?
Looking at this war 15 years into it presents a different perspective than immediately after 9/11/01.
I say that a person can't understand it without coming to an understanding of who profited from it.
So one looks at who are the investment bankers and war profiteers.
War profiteers need investment bankers, investment banking isn't the proximate cause, war profiteering is.
Once one understands it, one understands that the cause is so fundamentally amoral that it doesn't distinguish war in the line of defense from war of choice, of aggression, for private profit.
I think, maybe,
one should look toward the origin of the spankin' new white toyota trucks, tearing across Libya and the Syria/Iraq borders, and to the payroll of the rag-tag armies of freedom and democracy, the "moderate rebels" that the US bombs in advance of. If one wants to get an answer.
3rd-way and the Republicans they hold in such esteem are so yesterday.
And oh yes, now the leader of 3rd-way (HRC, obviously) wants to undo everything good that Obama did and restore US ties with Netanyahu, because that appeases the Republicans, who are conceded to in principle.
My fucking lord god above, deliver me from this.
I think the big question for Sanders is how he can bring this about.
The entire process in the US is extremely right wing.
By that I mean that the US favors investment capital more than anything, the US creates infrastructures favorable to investment capital at every opportunity, and this has created a right wing war economy having near infinite power.
Impenetrable.
Opinion surveys across the world show that the US isn't considered to be a peace keeper.
It is considered rogue.
He's very popular. Very popular indeed, within the Republican party.
And that party takes up fully half, sometimes more, of US voter turnout.
Jeez, I pity you US Americans! For your political system.
It's like, everything is reduced to two, and those two duke it out with fists in the coliseum while everyone throws tomatoes and even live squid.
You've got these no-holds-barred primaries that occur only right before elections. I mean, right before. To the fucking minute. So there's no time to blink before you get to vote for your monarch.
It doesn't make sense to me, so the kind of year-long campaigning that goes with it doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
I mean, dirty politics? Tell me about it, DU.
The whole process seems to be designed to eliminate any actual political ownership, by the people.
