REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, March 15, 2024 20:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 98762
PAGE 3 of 10

Wednesday, May 11, 2016 9:19 AM

RIVERLOVE






NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:21 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Your position? After I remove all the inert ingredients? And boil down your position to its radioactive element? Your position is the same as a retweet by Jayne:
Quote:

Adam Baldwin Retweeted
Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter 19h19 hours ago

One US Soldier's life > Hiroshima.




Not even close, and why I don't bother talking to you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:51 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Your position? After I remove all the inert ingredients? And boil down your position to its radioactive element? Your position is the same as a retweet by Jayne:
Quote:

Adam Baldwin Retweeted
Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter 19h19 hours ago

One US Soldier's life > Hiroshima.




Not even close, and why I don't bother talking to you.

Hello, military strategy genius and moralist, too! Read what you wrote:
Quote:

The allied bombing campaigns might seem cold-blooded and vindictive, and to an extent they probably were. But that doesn't mean they were pointless slaughter. They undoubtedly shortened the war and thereby saved lives, possibly even more than they killed.
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&mid=1001370#
1001370


Assume you’re either Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris or Brigadier General Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. or General Curtis LeMay. You’re put on trial in Switzerland, a neutral country, because your side lost. Where would your Swiss defense lawyers go to get proof in a Law Court of any of those points you made? Saved more lives than killed? Not vindictive? Undoubtably shortened the war? (You went too far when you wrote “undoubtably”.)

The prosecution could easily prove Harris or Tibbet or LeMay killed thousands of civilians with all the physical evidence that is still available, but the defense team would find it impossible to prove the benefits from killing civilians are comparable to killing soldiers. The facts won’t back you up.

One thing easy for the Swiss prosecution to prove is that the bombing was for the benefit of politicians who need the enemy to be bombed. Politicians and their advisers do love to brag in their war memoirs.

There is an old movie called Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. “The cost in pilots and aircraft for the Americans may be staggering, but the raid forever shatters the Japanese people's belief that the vast Pacific Ocean protects them from American counterattack.” That is how real bombing campaigns are run. FDR bombs Tokyo for 30 seconds to show the people that the US Army Air Force and US Navy carriers weren’t worthless. Truman bombs Nagasaki to show the people he was in charge. Hermann Göring bombs London to prove he wasn’t an irrelevant fat ass commanding the Luftwaffe. Nixon bombs Vietnam for whatever that crazy man’s motivation was for dropping more bombs than WWII. It’s all about the psychology of politicians, all the time.

After the bombing, the unproven military benefits are trotted out by politicians and military historians paid by War Departments. They are always covering their ass because the bombing cost a very large fortune in explosives, planes, missiles, flight crews and dead civilians. So they write make believe storys to justify want the politicians always want to do: drop bombs rather than sending the Army and starving the enemy of foreign supplies of food, fuel and ammo.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 12, 2016 10:17 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I always wondered why Hillary gave me a big case of the willies every time she tried to be charming. Now I know why:

HILLARY CLINTON, WARMONGER

- Stupid, quickie anti-Hillary Video -



I finally watched this... you have to be really all-world stupid to believe any of it. It's obviously extremely edited from a multitude of clips, sources borrowed from different times and places, like a really bad, hack photoshop job. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe any of it or post it as factual.

Enter Signym.


All of that, and it's quite obviously made by some Trump fanboy. I'm looking forward to Siggy's open cheerleading for Donald Trump before the election. And will kiki join her, or go her own way? Fascinating.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 15, 2016 6:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You Know Those Missing Hillary Emails? Russia Might Leak 20,000 Of Them

Quote:

But despite Bernie Sanders’ apparent annoyance with the “damn emails,” the scandal just exponentially intensified, when Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed on Monday that Russia has possession of around 20,000 of Clinton’s emails — leaving open the possibility her deletions might not have been permanent after all.

“There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in an interview for The Kelly File.



Really? I doubt an American judge knows what kind of debate is going on in the Kremlin. And even if Russia has those 20,000 emails, it might turn out that Russia doesn't like the Trump alternative any better. Still... it sure would be interesting, wouldn't it?



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 15, 2016 7:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BTW- this is the unedited version of what creeped me out about Hillary




--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 16, 2016 9:45 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clint
ons_problem_isnt_bernie_sanders_its_hillary_clinton
/

This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton
Clinton's camp thinks her résumé will be enough to carry her to the White House. No one should be that sure
David Niose

No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.

Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.

Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.

Maybe. But don’t be too sure.

Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?

Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.

A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”

Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.

Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.

Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recognize that the Sanders campaign represents an agenda that is fundamentally different from Clinton’s. This is not a debate between two candidates with slight differences in substance or style, but of two vastly disparate philosophical views.

Even if Sanders loses the nomination contest, which at this point appears likely, he represents an egalitarian, democratic vision that is highly skeptical of corporate power and the neoliberalism that Clinton represents. This agenda has resonated, fueling a surprisingly strong campaign that has energized many, especially younger voters, and those supporters expect that their message will be carried all the way to the convention. For Sanders, stopping the fight at this point would be senseless.

Clinton herself has the tact to refrain from urging Sanders to exit. She instead is doing the smart thing by basically ignoring him and focusing on Donald Trump and the general election. Still, there can be no doubt that she would love to be in Trump’s position, having no opponents remaining with any mathematical chance of seizing the nomination.

The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat, should be a grave concern for her and her supporters. Although her credentials are strong, her candidacy isn’t—and blaming that on Sanders would be nothing but a form of denial.






SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 16, 2016 11:39 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So here are some dead reasons why Hillary is so great:

she supports down-ticket candidates
Except, she doesn't. Her campaign has Hoovered-up 99% of that money.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-littl
e-for-state-parties-222670

Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised

she's a democrat
Who remarkably doesn't care about 45%+ of what voting democrats think. You know, she could put a lot of angst to rest if she seemed like she was the least bit concerned about what the other half of the party wants.
Instead, her strategists and allies make statements like this:
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), told the political website that her campaign couldn't make any more leftward concessions, saying, "I don't know what's left to extract"
Parnes also cites an anonymous Clinton ally who said, "We can't do it," regarding meeting some of Sanders' policy demands.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/29/clinton-camp-says-shes-bee
n-forced-left-enough-already

And rather than courting Democrat voters (what a concept!), Hillary is courting Republicans:
More broadly, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is repositioning itself, after a year of emphasizing liberal positions and focusing largely on minority voters, to also appeal to independent and Republican-leaning white voters turned off by Mr. Trump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-republic
an-party.html?_r=0

When push comes to shove, Hillary doesn't give a rat's ass about democrats or their interests, as long as she can easily get them to fall in line.

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?






SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:17 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clint
ons_problem_isnt_bernie_sanders_its_hillary_clinton
/

This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton
Clinton's camp thinks her résumé will be enough to carry her to the White House. No one should be that sure
David Niose

No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.

Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.

Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.

Maybe. But don’t be too sure.

Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?

Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.

A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”

Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.

Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.

Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recognize that the Sanders campaign represents an agenda that is fundamentally different from Clinton’s. This is not a debate between two candidates with slight differences in substance or style, but of two vastly disparate philosophical views.

Even if Sanders loses the nomination contest, which at this point appears likely, he represents an egalitarian, democratic vision that is highly skeptical of corporate power and the neoliberalism that Clinton represents. This agenda has resonated, fueling a surprisingly strong campaign that has energized many, especially younger voters, and those supporters expect that their message will be carried all the way to the convention. For Sanders, stopping the fight at this point would be senseless.

Clinton herself has the tact to refrain from urging Sanders to exit. She instead is doing the smart thing by basically ignoring him and focusing on Donald Trump and the general election. Still, there can be no doubt that she would love to be in Trump’s position, having no opponents remaining with any mathematical chance of seizing the nomination.

The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat, should be a grave concern for her and her supporters. Although her credentials are strong, her candidacy isn’t—and blaming that on Sanders would be nothing but a form of denial.



>



Not one original thought here 1kiki. Why do you clowns cut and paste entire articles?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 11:44 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Because if I post it as an observation ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES will demand a cite.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 9:20 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?

I think the word you're searching for is "centrist".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?- KIKI

I think the word you're searching for is "centrist".- KPO



I think the word you're searching for is "plutocrat".

The USA is an oligarchy and there's no getting around that fact. It's the wealthy who determine policy, not the people. And Hillary has her nose up the butts of the wealthiest of the (international wealthy) like Goldman Sachs. She's so much in the pocket of international capital, she doesn't need the (national) capitalists, like the Koch brothers, who are mere dirt under her fingernails.



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:40 AM

REAVERFAN



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:58 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?- KIKI

I think the word you're searching for is "centrist".- KPO



I think the word you're searching for is "plutocrat".

The USA is an oligarchy and there's no getting around that fact. It's the wealthy who determine policy, not the people. And Hillary has her nose up the butts of the wealthiest of the (international wealthy) like Goldman Sachs. She's so much in the pocket of international capital, she doesn't need the (national) capitalists, like the Koch brothers, who are mere dirt under her fingernails.




The United States is an oligarchy, but as is being witnessed today, we still have the power to take the country back. If Hillary wins and does not stay left leaning, she will not be reelected and the march to move the Democratic party back from whence it came will continue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



Quote:

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?- KIKI

I think the word you're searching for is "centrist".- KPO

I think the word you're searching for is "plutocrat".

The USA is an oligarchy and there's no getting around that fact. It's the wealthy who determine policy, not the people. And Hillary has her nose up the butts of the wealthiest of the (international wealthy) like Goldman Sachs. She's so much in the pocket of international capital, she doesn't need the (national) capitalists, like the Koch brothers, who are mere dirt under her fingernails. - SIGNY

The United States is an oligarchy, but as is being witnessed today, we still have the power to take the country back. If Hillary wins and does not stay left leaning, she will not be reelected and the march to move the Democratic party back from whence it came will continue. -THGRR



Either that, or the USA will become a completely totalitarian state, where people are being held in thrall while the banks suck the life juices out of them, like "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

I wish I had come up with that, but it was Matt Taibbi.
http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbis-vampire-squid-take-down-of
-goldman-sachs-is-finally-online-2009-7


But it seems we agree- things can't go on as they have been, and they won't.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 1:29 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Either that, or the USA will become a completely totalitarian state, where people are being held in thrall while the banks suck the life juices out of them, like "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."





You mean like Russia, I don't things will ever get that bad here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

BTW - I've asked you a number of times and you've never responded (of course).:
How did you get your house? Cash?

Don't you think that's a little too personal to expect an answer? So why do you think you're entitled to one?

But, as usual, you have precious little to say about the topic (Hillary, remember?) and a whole lotta personal jabs to add.

Troll.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Either that, or the USA will become a completely totalitarian state, where people are being held in thrall while the banks suck the life juices out of them, like "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."





You mean like Russia, I don't things will ever get that bad here.



Soviet citizens never thought it would get "that bad" either, and yet, it did.

I wonder if KPO will put this in the predictions thread?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

This is another SIGNYM 'so very obvious' habit - trying to denigrate the US and just be generally insulting (Troll) by comparing it to Russia. The whole "Oligarch" thing for example. Kind of funny when you think about it.


The United States is an oligarchy. A study from one of the most radical universities ... Princeton ... found that the wealthy get their way, virtually all of the time.

Quote:

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics — which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism — offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism



https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf


I suggest you read it.


--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Pansie.

troll

Quote:

It's not a hard question and it IS about the topic, and no, it's not that personal. I have no idea who you are IRL.
Why does it matter who I am IRL? Aren't we here to discuss "real world events", not each other? Either there is evidence supporting an interpretation of an event, or there isn't.

Or do you prefer just to gossip and backbite?



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So I don't know whether this belongs in a thread about Trump or a thread about Hillary or a thread about Bernie, but


Trump beats Clinton by 3 points in new poll

Quote:

Clinton rival Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, leads Trump 46 to 42, according to the same poll.


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/fox-news-poll-b
ernie-sanders-donald-trump-hillary-clinton


--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:35 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by G:

Who's poll? Oh, right.
Donald Trump edges out Hillary Clinton by 3 percentage points in a hypothetical general election match-up, according to a new Fox News poll.

Are you sure you're not a Republican politician?

One of the things Trump seems to have learned in his career is that it's NOT hard to kiss and make up. You can treat people as harshly as you want, but once the fight is over all you have to do is announce publicly that these are really great guys and you have nothing but respect for them. It's life as a football game.

Will it work in a presidential campaign? Can Trump make up with women, blacks, gays, Hispanics, and the disabled? It's possible. People have short memories, and they're suckers for praise. If he's smart enough to rein in the insults and shower conservative-leaning groups with praise, there's no telling how far he can go. Probably higher than Hillary, who will always have Bernie's voters hating her. Bernie's people will hold a grudge against Hillary forever. It is how the left-wing defeats the Democrats and Republicans win.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:09 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

This is another SIGNYM 'so very obvious' habit - trying to denigrate the US and just be generally insulting (Troll) by comparing it to Russia. The whole "Oligarch" thing for example. Kind of funny when you think about it.


The United States is an oligarchy. A study from one of the most radical universities ... Princeton ... found that the wealthy get their way, virtually all of the time.



I am aware of the research SIG refers to. Right now our country does function LIKE an Oligarchy, and the rich do control more of what happens than they should. However to quote Bernie Sanders, 80% of poor people don’t vote. And if just 15% more did, this country would change dramatically.

In other words, much to the dismay of SIG, Americans still control their own fate. They just haven't been pushed hard enough to action.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:39 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:


I wonder if KPO will put this in the predictions thread?


Why do people say this, as if I'm the only one who can post in the predictions thread?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:05 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


I'm probably going to regret this, but...

Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Assume you’re either Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris or Brigadier General Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. or General Curtis LeMay. You’re put on trial in Switzerland, a neutral country, because your side lost. Where would your Swiss defense lawyers go to get proof in a Law Court of any of those points you made? Saved more lives than killed? Not vindictive? Undoubtably shortened the war?


First of all, you're misreading and exaggerating all my points (that never gets old). Second of all, the points I made are not applicable for your alternate reality where the Allies lose the Second World War.

Thirdly, what are the Allied commanders on trial for? The entire bombing campaign against the Axis, or just a few specific raids? And if only a few specific raids, does that mean that you think the bombing campaign against the Axis was generally ok?

What, for example, do you think of the 1943 bombing of Hamburg? To quote myself in the old thread:

Quote:

Operation Gomorrah killed 42,600 people, left 37,000 wounded and caused some one million German civilians to flee the city.[3] The city's labour force was reduced permanently by ten percent.[3] Approximately 3,000 aircraft were deployed, 9,000 tons of bombs were dropped and over 250,000 homes and houses were destroyed. No subsequent city raid shook Germany as did that on Hamburg; documents show that German officials were thoroughly alarmed and there is some indication from later Allied interrogations of Nazi officials that Hitler stated that further raids of similar weight would force Germany out of the war.


This raid killed almost twice as many as the 1945 raid on Dresden (yet gets talked about much less it seems). Surely this was a war crime then?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 9:58 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

I predict you won't.

The military thinking about strategic bombing runs precisely this shallow: We’ve got millions of tons of bombs, but not enough military targets. Valuable military targets are really dangerous for our bombers to approach. We can calibrate exactly how valuable military targets are to Japan or German because the most valuable targets are the most highly defended by anti-aircraft guns and fighter planes. Instead, why not make our lives easier and longer by bombing women and children where there are fewer anti-aircraft guns and fewer enemy fighter planes shooting down our bombers? We can justify it after the fact by claiming there were some soldiers home on military leave and we killed those soldiers. If we win, nobody will be able to prove differently because we will be in control of all the records!

Hiroshima was the ultimate soft target. Where are Hiroshima's anti-aircraft guns? Where are the Jap fighter planes? Not there! Perfect target for testing one of two bombs of alternate design.

On the opposite side, from today’s Houston Chronicle
Quote:

Hiroshima perspective

Regarding “Should America apologize for Hiroshima?” (Page B14, Sunday), I believe President Obama is going to throw one of the best presidents in my lifetime, President Harry S. Truman, under the bus.

Can anyone imagine the hours he spent before he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima to save thousands of lives?

Maybe President Obama should visit the National World War II Museum in New Orleans before the visit to Hiroshima. Then maybe he would understand the shoes President Truman wore that he has not walked in.

Ken Rosenberger, Houston

The Trinity test bomb was July 16, 1945. Hiroshima was bombed Aug. 6, 1945. Truman had 3 weeks to think about stopping the A-bombing, but if he gave no orders and did absolutely nothing, General Curtis LeMay had all the authority he needed to drop or not drop whatever bombs the Navy delivered to Tinian Island in the Marianas.

After the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon: "We may be grateful to Providence" that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had "spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history—and won". Truman then warned Japan: "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware."

Big talk from a little pipsqueak of a man that wasn’t trusted enough by FDR to know about the A-bomb until after FDR was dead. When Truman became president on April 12, 1945, upon the death of President Roosevelt, he had no knowledge of the actual bomb project itself and his first information about what was really being done came from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson on April 25th.

Truman didn't want to waste that two billion dollars. Bombs away!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 10:31 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

I predict you won't.

The military thinking about strategic bombing runs precisely this shallow: We’ve got millions of tons of bombs, but not enough military targets. Valuable military targets are really dangerous for our bombers to approach. We can calibrate exactly how valuable military targets are to Japan or German because the most valuable targets are the most highly defended by anti-aircraft guns and fighter planes. Instead, why not make our lives easier and longer by bombing women and children where there are fewer anti-aircraft guns and fewer enemy fighter planes shooting down our bombers? We can justify it after the fact by claiming there were some soldiers home on military leave and we killed those soldiers. If we win, nobody will be able to prove differently because we will be in control of all the records!

Hiroshima was the ultimate soft target. Where are Hiroshima's anti-aircraft guns? Where are the Jap fighter planes? Not there! Perfect target for testing one of two bombs of alternate design.

On the opposite side, from today’s Houston Chronicle
Quote:

Hiroshima perspective

Regarding “Should America apologize for Hiroshima?” (Page B14, Sunday), I believe President Obama is going to throw one of the best presidents in my lifetime, President Harry S. Truman, under the bus.

Can anyone imagine the hours he spent before he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima to save thousands of lives?

Maybe President Obama should visit the National World War II Museum in New Orleans before the visit to Hiroshima. Then maybe he would understand the shoes President Truman wore that he has not walked in.

Ken Rosenberger, Houston

The Trinity test bomb was July 16, 1945. Hiroshima was bombed Aug. 6, 1945. Truman had 3 weeks to think about stopping the A-bombing, but if he gave no orders and did absolutely nothing, General Curtis LeMay had all the authority he needed to drop or not drop whatever bombs the Navy delivered to Tinian Island in the Marianas.

After the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon: "We may be grateful to Providence" that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had "spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history—and won". Truman then warned Japan: "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware."

Big talk from a little pipsqueak of a man that wasn’t trusted enough by FDR to know about the A-bomb until after FDR was dead. When Truman became president on April 12, 1945, upon the death of President Roosevelt, he had no knowledge of the actual bomb project itself and his first information about what was really being done came from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson on April 25th.

Truman didn't want to waste that two billion dollars. Bombs away!



I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 12:07 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.

That's a nice story that appeals to Americans' vanity, but it is not true. On 9 May 1945 (Moscow time), Germany surrendered, meaning that if the Soviets were to honour the Yalta agreement, they would need to enter war with Japan by 9 August 1945. The Japanese were caught completely by surprise when the Soviets declared war an hour before midnight on 8 August 1945, and invaded simultaneously on three fronts just after midnight on 9 August. The Russians waited until the last day so that Japan would run low on fuel, food and ammo. Japan did as predicted, using up its fuel, food and ammo.

The million Russians rolled up the Japanese Army like it was a carpet. Americans were too afraid to invade and, to justify being chickens keeping as far away from Japan as possible and only lobbing bombs at it, the Americans gave grossly inflated predictions about American deaths. Fortunately for America, Russians didn’t believe the American predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 12:13 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


I forgot about Hillary!

Trump reacted to the terror attack in San Bernardino with a nakedly nativist, shamelessly demagogic, yet politically shrewd call for (temporarily, allegedly) banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. Roundly denounced by Democrats and leading Republicans alike, Trump watched his poll numbers go through the roof. Turns out that GOP voters supported the ban, 2 to 1.

A candidate with the tactical acuity to successfully deploy such breathtaking, bigotry-tinged cynicism is not to be trifled with. Under normal circumstances, Clinton wins. But if the fire alarm goes off between now and Election Day, all bets are off. Clinton had better be ready. Trump has shown he will be.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 1:38 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

I predict you won't.


You predict wrong.

In my post to you I posed 3 main questions (and some sub-questions):

1. What specific actions you would put the Allied air commanders on trial for
2. Whether you think the Allied bombing campaigns were broadly morally acceptable, outside of the most egregious raids
3. What you think of the 1943 bombing of Hamburg, and did it constitute a war crime


And in your response you addressed... none of them.

As I say, like arguing with a television set.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 2:30 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

I predict you won't.


You predict wrong.

In my post to you I posed 3 main questions (and some sub-questions):

1. What specific actions you would put the Allied air commanders on trial for
2. Whether you think the Allied bombing campaigns were broadly morally acceptable, outside of the most egregious raids
3. What you think of the 1943 bombing of Hamburg, and did it constitute a war crime


And in your response you addressed... none of them.

As I say, like arguing with a television set.

I'm not somebody who is trying to look good in the history books.

I don’t care about the morality of WWII. I would not have respected any boundaries about what I was not permitted to do. I would not have cared how many American troops died while targeting the top Nazis or Japanese Generals. I would have bombed the Emperor’s palace. I certainly would not have wasted bombs or planes on women and children. Killing them gets me no closer to winning the war, so why do it other than they are easy targets? They are easy to find, they move slowly, and easy to kill, but you have accomplished nothing by killing them. And as little as I care about fighting a morally admirable war, I certainly would not have lied from 1939 until today about why I killed. I would not have been making Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments about my morally superior war strategy, like America does. To make that point clearer, America killed millions of German and Japanese civilians, so America came to the wrong conclusion that killing millions of civilians was especially how WWII was won.

Maybe I need to make it even clearer than that. American went on to build thousands of H-bombs, only suitable for killing hundreds of millions of civilians, because America thinks it won WWII by killing millions of civilians. Winning WWIII should be really quick and easy since America was willing and able to kill a hundred times more people than WWII. I must add that along with this nonsense that guided Americans thinking there was also a sensible reason to build thousands of H-bombs: trillions of dollars could be made from the building of H-bombs and their delivery systems of rockets, submarines and long range bombers. Americans may not correctly understand how to win a war, but American business knows how to make trillions of profits.

I goofed by not making the connection between WWII and losing in Vietnam. America came to all the wrong conclusions about how WWII was won and then applied those conclusions to Vietnam. America was bombing South Vietnam! How the hell would that win a war with North Vietnam? And if you have an unsolvable diplomatic problem with the leadership of North Vietnam, you kill that leadership of North Vietnam, not bomb the countryside of your ally. And you certainly do NOT assassinate the President of South Vietnam, like happened during the Vietnam War. That would be as stupid as planning to assassinate Stalin, our WWII ally. Oh, I forgot Republicans were planning to kill Stalin after WWII. Awfully expensive to start a nuclear arms race with a former ally like Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_assassination_of_Ngo_Dinh_Die
m



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 4:09 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.

That's a nice story that appeals to Americans' vanity, but it is not true. On 9 May 1945 (Moscow time), Germany surrendered, meaning that if the Soviets were to honour the Yalta agreement, they would need to enter war with Japan by 9 August 1945. The Japanese were caught completely by surprise when the Soviets declared war an hour before midnight on 8 August 1945, and invaded simultaneously on three fronts just after midnight on 9 August. The Russians waited until the last day so that Japan would run low on fuel, food and ammo. Japan did as predicted, using up its fuel, food and ammo.

The million Russians rolled up the Japanese Army like it was a carpet. Americans were too afraid to invade and, to justify being chickens keeping as far away from Japan as possible and only lobbing bombs at it, the Americans gave grossly inflated predictions about American deaths. Fortunately for America, Russians didn’t believe the American predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29



As I said, the Japanese were more afraid of Russia than it was of the United States. Japan was witnessing for three months now the difference in treatment of Germans and Jews at the hands of Russia, as opposed to the United States. Also, The commencement of the Russian invasion you speak of fell between the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9, and was not on Japan itself. Some also suggest it does not appear Stalin was overly impressed with the atomic bomb's potential. Not so much as to think it might compel a nation as averse to surrender as Japan, into an earlier capitulation.

I stand by what I posted. The fact that you suggest these facts are a nice story and appeals to Americas vanity suggests a bias on your part in interpreting the facts. You like many others need to research the Japanese psyche before you judge. Remember, they were about to defend their god. Remember the suicide bomber, it started there with planes and what I remember being called bonsai attacks that sent thousands of Japanese at a time to their deaths.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 7:03 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I stand by what I posted. The fact that you suggest these facts are a nice story and appeals to Americas vanity suggests a bias on your part in interpreting the facts. You like many others need to research the Japanese psyche before you judge. Remember, they were about to defend their god. Remember the suicide bomber, it started there with planes and what I remember being called bonsai attacks that sent thousands of Japanese at a time to their deaths.

My bias is that I dislike historical reference material written by liars.

While you’re claiming the high moral ground, I claim you’re standing on a hill of dung. Less metaphorically, a hill of lies and misinterpretations and missing information. Here is one little story about how war is truly fought by people who are incompetent at the art of war.

Morley Safer wrote a newspaper column about a visit to Saigon by Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs — i.e., the head of all the U.S. military’s PR.

Sylvester said, “Look, If You Think Any American Official Is Going To Tell You The Truth, Then You're Stupid.”

Sylvester didn’t stop there, saying, “I can’t understand how you fellows can write what you do while American boys are dying out here,” he began. Then he went on to the effect that American correspondents had a patriotic duty to disseminate only information that made the United States look good.

A network television correspondent said, “Surely, Arthur, you don’t expect the American press to be the handmaidens of government.”

“That’s exactly what I expect,” came the reply.

The Pentagon hated having these words and much more accurately printed in the newspaper. “Unless you get Safer out of there, he’s liable to end up with a bullet in his back,” said the Pentagon to Safer’s boss. With high quality people like this in the Pentagon, it is easy to see how America has gotten its ass beaten in war after war.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-once-told-morley
-safer-that-reporters-who-believe-the-government-are-stupid
/

I don't find it one tiny bit surprising that the US Army Air Force killed civilians to impress Emperor Hirohito under the assumption he cared what happened to Hiroshima despite him not caring at all about anything but himself and his glorious lineage being pissed on by the Russians.

If you want to win a war with a country like Japan, start killing the people at the top of the hierarchy, not the bottom, because you have to kill millions before those on the top notice the loss of those on the bottom. During the war, America should have had more Operation Vengeance and less fire bombing of houses made of paper and wood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance

There is a fascinating article today about how we’re really good at forgetting all the terrible things we’ve done. It is not about War.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/20/were-really-good-at-for
getting-all-the-terrible-things-weve-done
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 7:37 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I stand by what I posted. The fact that you suggest these facts are a nice story and appeals to Americas vanity suggests a bias on your part in interpreting the facts. You like many others need to research the Japanese psyche before you judge. Remember, they were about to defend their god. Remember the suicide bomber, it started there with planes and what I remember being called bonsai attacks that sent thousands of Japanese at a time to their deaths.

My bias is that I dislike historical reference material written by liars.

While you’re claiming the high moral ground, I claim you’re standing on a hill of dung. Less metaphorically, a hill of lies and misinterpretations and missing information. Here is one little story about how war is truly fought by people who are incompetent at the art of war.

Morley Safer wrote a newspaper column about a visit to Saigon by Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs — i.e., the head of all the U.S. military’s PR.

Sylvester said, “Look, If You Think Any American Official Is Going To Tell You The Truth, Then You're Stupid.”

Sylvester didn’t stop there, saying, “I can’t understand how you fellows can write what you do while American boys are dying out here,” he began. Then he went on to the effect that American correspondents had a patriotic duty to disseminate only information that made the United States look good.

A network television correspondent said, “Surely, Arthur, you don’t expect the American press to be the handmaidens of government.”

“That’s exactly what I expect,” came the reply.

The Pentagon hated having these words and much more accurately printed in the newspaper. “Unless you get Safer out of there, he’s liable to end up with a bullet in his back,” said the Pentagon to Safer’s boss. With high quality people like this in the Pentagon, it is easy to see how America has gotten its ass beaten in war after war.

And I don't find it one tiny bit surprising that the US Army Air Force killed civilians to impress Emperor Hirohito under the assumption he cared what happened to Hiroshima despite him not caring at all about anything but himself and his glorious lineage being pissed on by the Russians.

If you want to win a war with place organized on Japanese lines, start killing the people at the top of the hierarchy, not the bottom, because you have to kill millions since the top cares nothing about those on the bottom.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-once-told-morley
-safer-that-reporters-who-believe-the-government-are-stupid
/

There is a fascinating article today about how we’re really good at forgetting all the terrible things we’ve done. It is not about War.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/20/were-really-good-at-for
getting-all-the-terrible-things-weve-done/



First of all I never claimed the moral highroad, just that your bias is showing. Secondly, you quote one person as though he represented the definitive truth. End of discussion. I was in the army during Vietnam and can tell you. The truth is always subjective and twisted by the interpretations of who is telling it. It has always been up to the reader to check the facts against the so called other set of facts. Then to use some common sense in coming to his or her own conclusions. We would never have seen the anti war protests to the degree we did, if the truth was not getting out.

As for the emperor of Japan. He was against the war and his military acted out against his wishes. He was powerless against his own military regime. He humbled himself greatly after the war in order the save the lives of his countrymen. You post in black and white terms on this topic. Nothing about this affair was black or white.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 11:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



Quote:

Pansie.- THIRDSTOOGE

troll- SIGNY

It's not a hard question and it IS about the topic, and no, it's not that personal. I have no idea who you are IRL. -ONEOFTHETHREE

Why does it matter who I am IRL? Aren't we here to discuss "real world events", not each other? Either there is evidence supporting an interpretation of an event, or there isn't. Or do you prefer just to gossip and backbite? -SIGNY

It matters that I DON'T know who you are - it means you can drop the pretense and be honest. Or at least it should. But instead, you go out of your way to be fraudulent. Take this for example - very much on topic - you rail against banks but you use them all the same.

The way this works, THIRDSTOOGE, is that if I said I used cash you would have said I was "rich", and if I said I took out a loan you would have said I "took money from banks". It was a no-win, disingenuous question. Since you're not being honest with me, why should I be honest with you. Troll.

Quote:

So which is it?
Yes indeed.

Quote:

Would you have taken speaking money from GSachs if offered? Of course you would. Would you be better off as president to be in conflict with banks, or have a professional and even good understanding and relationship with them? Besides Health Care and Defense, it is one of the most critical structures any nation has. But go ahead, be a hypocrite. It only underscores how faulty your logic is and few people agree with your observations. Maybe you should observe that?
A lot of assumptions again, as usual.

Quote:

Just so we're clear I was referring to Sig's repeated use of the word "Oligarch." As far as I am concerned, when haven't the very wealthiest not had more influence over our government? That just seems obvious. I certainly don't need a Princeton study to tell me that.
Not "more". Nearly all.



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 1:22 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I also love how anti-Clintonites (pro-Trumps) try and smear her by saying she is a Hawk."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-
a-hawk.html


One very long article that definitively portrays Hillary the Hawk - but fails completely and without exception to explain why her bent to confrontation under every circumstance would turn out well. That would take analysis of each situation, and the actors and movement, and a laying out of the potential outcomes ... which it doesn't do at all.

So Hillary is a Hawk. I get that. What I don't get is why that's supposed to be so good.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 1:28 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Are you sure you're not a Republican politician?'

Are you sure you're not insane, ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES?

According to you, Signy is a paid Russian troll in love with Putin, and a republican politician. Do you know how NUTS you have to be to believe both of those - and may I point it out, completely incompatible - ideas, at the same time?




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 1:41 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


" It is how the left-wing defeats the Democrats and Republicans win.'

They're not the 'left-wing'. And your attempt to portray nearly HALF the democratic party as if they are somehow an outside 'other' is dishonest in the extreme. These are REGISTERED DEMOCRATS. People who've asked the question 'are you better off than you were eight years ago?' and answered NO. These are REGISTERED DEMOCRATS who are looking to THEIR OWN PARTY to represent THEM - what a concept!

But honestly, you've sunk about as low as geezer in your pretenses at being reasonable and discerning. You've straw-manned every one of my posts, ignored the facts you couldn't dispute, and now you're engaging in that well-known tactic from the McCarthy era - red-baiting. It's people like YOU in your slavish emulation of Hillary, Debbie and Roberta, who are giving the 'democratic' party it's bad reputation, by your refusal to even consider that your fellow democrats and equally worthy citizens as yourself should be represented.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:


The way this works, THIRDSTOOGE, is that if I said I used cash you would have said I was "rich", and if I said I took out a loan you would have said I "took money from banks". It was a no-win, disingenuous question. Since you're not being honest with me, why should I be honest with you. Troll. - SIGNY

Here we go again... nice try. Your honest answer would force you to admit your lie. - THRIDSTOOGE



WHAT "lie"? There is literally NO ANSWER I could give that you wouldn't use against me. Therefore, I refuse to answer.

The rest of your post is just more irrationality and hate, the only relevant part is this ...

Quote:

Just so we're clear I was referring to Sig's repeated use of the word "Oligarch." As far as I am concerned, when haven't the very wealthiest not had more influence over our government? That just seems obvious. I certainly don't need a Princeton study to tell me that.- THIRDSTOOGE

Not "more". Nearly all.- SIGNY

Meh.- THIRDSTOOGE



Because you love being ruled by oligarchs so much you don't care whether you are? Is that why you keep defending Hillary?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 9:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Clinton fury with Sanders grows

Quote:

Fury against Bernie Sanders is growing in Clinton World.

In public, Hillary Clinton's aides and allies have kept their anger checked, decrying the rowdy outbursts at Nevada’s state convention last weekend but saying they believe Sanders will ultimately do the right thing by helping to unite the Democratic Party.

Behind the scenes, however, they are seething that statements by the Vermont senator are just making matters worse by further alienating his supporters from Clinton, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination.

The continued combat on the left is also complicating Clinton’s efforts to fully turn her attention to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who is reveling in the Democratic feuding.

“This is the worst-case scenario and the one people feared the most,” said one Clinton ally and former Clinton aide.

“Unfortunately, he’s choosing the path of burning down the house,” the ally said. “He continues with character attacks against Hillary. He continues with calling the Democratic Party corrupt, and he not only risks damaging Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party but he's currently doing it."

But the Dem Party IS corrupt!

Quote:

Clinton allies say Sanders is only piling on by insisting that Clinton join him for a debate ahead of California's primary on June 7. The debate would be aired on Fox News, a network Clinton supporters see as fanning the flames between Sanders supporters and the former secretary of State.

A second ally said Sanders should stop criticizing the party and the front-runner’s supporters even if he continues to fight for delegates through the six state contests on June 7.

“It’s inappropriate at this point, and I hate to tell him, it’s not helping him in the long run. It’s only hurting her,” the ally said. “The Republican Party has their nominee, and he’s free and clear of his Republican opponents and is taking shots at Hillary. We need to move closer to that process, and he’s not helping."

So Sanders refuses to say "YAY TEAM!" I guess the Dem Central Committee expects "representing the public" to give way to the tribalism that makes up so much of party politics.

Quote:

In an interview on CNN Thursday, Clinton projected extreme confidence that she will be her party’s nominee.
True

Quote:

The remarks could be read as a signal to Sanders that he should get real with his supporters about his chances of winning the nomination.

“I will be the nominee for my party, Chris,” the former first lady told CNN's Chris Cuomo. “That is already done in effect. There is no way I won't be.”

She added that Sanders “has to do his part to unify the party.”


Why? Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He's been elected as an Independent since forever. So what does he owe The Party? This Party sounds like some version of the Soviet Central Committee.

Quote:

“He said the other day that he'll do everything possible to defeat Donald Trump. He said he'd work seven days a week. I take him at his word,” Clinton said. “I think the threat that Donald Trump poses is so dramatic to our country, to our democracy and our economy that I certainly expect Sen. Sanders to do what he said he would.”
This from the person who has done her best to support Muslim extremists?

Quote:

Clinton currently leads Sanders by 274 pledged delegates, according to The Associated Press’s totals. Including superdelegates, the party officials who have their own votes in the contest, Clinton is 760 delegates ahead of Sanders and just 90 total delegates away from the 2,383 needed to clinch the party's presidential nomination.

Sanders has argued that he can convince superdelegates to switch their loyalty and that he could cut into Clinton’s lead with pledged delegates by winning California. But Clinton only needs to win 10 percent of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.

Clinton's comments to CNN triggered a fiery response from the Sanders campaign.
“In the past three weeks voters in Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon respectfully disagreed with Secretary Clinton," campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement. "We expect voters in the remaining eight contests also will disagree."

I hope Sanders continues to fight on. He is a voice for those that neither Trump nor Clinton represent. 55% of people polled want someone other than Trump or Hillary to run.


Quote:

Supporters of the Vermont senator have claimed the primary has been stolen from their candidate because of the use of superdelegates and closed state contests at which only Democrats may vote.

Some Democratic officials have criticized Sanders for feeding those sentiments, which have frustrated Clinton supporters given their candidate's lead in virtually every metric in the race.

“To his supporters who are grousing about the fact that everything is rigged — it’s not rigged,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who was booed off the stage by Sanders supporters at the Nevada convention, said on CNN on Wednesday.

“You know, we’ve had elections. Hillary has more votes,” Boxer continued. “And Hillary has more delegates, not even counting superdelegates. So I think we need to look at … what is at stake here. And let me tell you what’s at stake here: everything. Everything that we believe in.”

Oh, bull. Boxer doesn't believe in much, and Hillary believes in even less. Except lining her pockets, that is.

Quote:

Several polls this week have forecast a competitive general election fight between Clinton and Trump, unnerving some Democrats.

“He needs to stop doing this or Donald Trump will win,” one of Clinton allies said. “While his intentions started off in the best of ways, he’s shown he has no loyalty to the Democratic Party. One hopes he understands that his actions could result in giving Donald Trump the nuclear launch codes.”

The polls, however, could give more ammunition to Sanders, who says he would be a stronger candidate in the fall against Trump.

"With almost every national and state poll showing Sen. Sanders doing much, much better than Secretary Clinton against Donald Trump, it is clear that millions of Americans have growing doubts about the Clinton campaign," Briggs said in Thursday's statement.

Democrats continue to point out that the party survived a bitter 2008 primary between Clinton and then-Sen. Barack Obama.

What is this talk about "party survival"? It's stupid and meaningless; the Party will ALWAYS "survive", and to even pose it as an argument is disingenuous. In addition, Party "survival", even it it was at stake (and it isn't) isn't the most important thing about the Democratic Party. How about ... representing its constituents instead of selling them down the river? Do you suppose that might be something the Party should aspire to?

Quote:

Seth Bringman, who served as a spokesman for the Ready for Hillary super-PAC, said he believes the party will inevitably come together.

“The events in Nevada and some of the posts on social media get a lot of attention, but it doesn't represent the sentiment of the 10 million Americans who have voted for Sen. Sanders,” Bringman said.

“What I hear from Sanders voters in Ohio is, 'I agreed with him more on this issue or that issue, but I'm voting for Hillary in November.'

“Sen. Sanders will decide what he does and when, but the vast majority of both candidates' supporters don't wrap themselves up in every latest statement or headline — and that's reassuring for everyone who wants to stop Donald Trump.”



Everything about this article speaks to how venal and corrupt the Democratic Party has become. There is literally NOTHING in there about what Hillary believes in, what she's done, what she's promised to do, or what she would most likely do as President, and what effect any of that would have on the people she supposedly would be representing. She seems to have one argument: She's a Democrat. And that, by itself, is supposed to be enough.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/280622-clinton-fury-grows-with-sa
nders


--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 11:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Meanwhile, Hillary's latest top donors for April:

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00495861/1073854/sa/11AI

Haim and Cheryl Saban, total $5 million that month. Haim Saban is an Israeli citizen who advocates for Zionism.

Daniel Abraham, $ 2 million that month. Founder of the Daniel Abraham Center for Mideast Peace, and huge donor to Israeli politician Olmert, a former Israeli Primer Minister serving time for corruption.

Alex Soros, son of billionaire George Soros, and major contributor to Jews for Justice and subsequent contributor to progressive causes: $1 million for the month. (And George Soros - dual citizen with Hungary, of Jewish descent, currency manipulator - $7 million so far.)

David Shaw, Jewish computations expert who made his fortune in high-speed trading. $1.5 million that month

Jay and Mary Pritzker, $4.7 million. The Chicago Pritzker family is one of the wealthiest, with its fortune made by Jewish immigrant Jay Pritzker, who founded a law firm and made a number of investments including the Hyatt Hotel Chain. Like Trump, the family continues to make money on the hotel/ real estate business. Penny Pritzker is Obama's current Scy Commerce.

... At the risk of being called an "anti-Semite", do you notice a pattern in Hillary's top/major donors this month?

John Styker, architect. $1.5 million that month.

--------
By comparison, here is a list of millionaire donors ...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-
donors-campaign-money.html


I see millionaire donors to Hillary ... Bush... Rubio... even Rand Paul. Even Trump! Nowhere do I see a millionaire donor to Sanders.

In another article, I read that Trump's run for the Presidency is likely to cost $1 billion. BILLION. I'm sure Hillary's projected costs aren't too different. My god, $2 billion dollars on one political campaign. That money could be spent elsewhere with better effect!

What this research did for me was simply reinforce the idea that politics is completely corrupted. And still, Obama doesn't want young people to become "cynical about politics". What's the message here, Mr President? That anyone can aspire to the highest office as long as they sell themselves to the highest bidders?




--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 9:48 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Does it matter if we get yet another oligarch?

http://graphics.latimes.com/retirement-nomads/#nt=outfit

Too poor to retire and too young to die

At the wise age of 79, Dolores Westfall knows food shopping on an empty stomach is a fool’s errand. On her way to the grocery store last May, she pulled into the Town & Country Family Restaurant to take the edge off her appetite.

After much consideration, she ordered the prime rib special and an iced tea — expensive at $21.36, but the leftovers, wrapped carefully to go, would provide two more lunches.

The problem, she later realized, was that a big insurance bill was coming due. How was she going to pay it? Was she going to tip into insolvency over a plate of prime rib? “I thought I could handle eating and shopping,” she said, “but lunch put me over the top.”

Westfall — 5 feet 1 tall, with a graceful dancer’s body she honed as a tap-dancing teenager — is as stubborn as she is high-spirited. But she finds herself these days in a precarious place: Her savings long gone, and having never done much long-term financial planning, Westfall left her home in California to live in an aging RV she calls Big Foot, driving from one temporary job to the next.



http://www.latimes.com/science/la-na-death-rates-20160129-story.html

Researchers find causes for higher death rates among middle-aged whites

The unexpectedly high mortality (among middle aged whites) — which sets the U.S. apart from other developed nations — has come into focus recently amid a rising toll of drug deaths and suicide.

But the new report from the New York-based Commonwealth Fund suggests that drugs and suicides are only a part of the problem. The full cause of the disturbing trend is likely broader and involves failures in the medical system and profound changes in the economy.

Mortality rates were 60% to 76% higher than they would have been if the trends of the 1980s and 1990s had continued in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Researchers have not found a similar problem among African Americans and Latinos, though a health gap between whites and nonwhites remains. Nor has the problem emerged among working-class residents of Western Europe or other industrialized nations. "The question is: Is it social safety net?" Case said in an interview. "Are working-class people more protected in Europe? Is it universal healthcare?"

... Deaton and Case pointed to a dramatic increase in deaths attributed to drug poisoning, suicide and alcohol-related liver disease ... (but) The Commonwealth Fund researchers (found) ... "Mortality rates for middle-aged whites have stopped declining — or actually increased — across a broad range of health conditions, including most of the leading causes of death" (includimg heart disease).

The states showing the worst trends have high rates of poverty as well as some of the highest rates of smoking and obesity in the country. They also historically have had among the weakest healthcare systems, with high rates of people lacking insurance and poor access to medical care.

"We are witnessing regression that has little precedent in the industrialized world over the past half century," the authors concluded.



http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/29/clinton-camp-says-shes-bee
n-forced-left-enough-already


Clinton Camp says She's Been Forced to the Left Enough Already




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 22, 2016 12:22 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Speaking of a corrupt party: Hillary, Debbie and Roberta


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-republic
an-party.html


Hillary Clinton Targets Republicans Turned Off by Donald Trump

WILLIAMSON, W.Va. — Hillary Clinton’s campaign is trying to seize on the turmoil Donald J. Trump’s ascent has caused within the Republican Party, hoping to gain the support of Republican voters and party leaders including former elected officials and retired generals disillusioned by their party’s standard-bearer.

The campaign expects to assemble a “Republicans for Hillary” group, and Mrs. Clinton has, from her days in the Senate and as secretary of state, cultivated strong relationships with prominent Republicans and their top staff members. Mark Salter, a top adviser to Senator John McCain, this week expressed his support for Mrs. Clinton on Twitter minutes after Mr. Trump clinched his party’s nomination. Mrs. Clinton has also enjoyed a strong relationship with former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a Republican, who described her as “a superb representative of the United States all over the world.”



http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/opinions/mr-president-fire-wasserman-sch
ultz-jonathan-tasini/index.html


Mr. President, we need a new DNC chair

The President of the United States has a phone call to make.
He needs to call Debbie Wasserman Schultz and request that for the good of Democratic Party unity and to best Donald Trump in November, she step aside.

It is clear that the Democratic Party is headed for a tumultuous convention, one in which advocates for two very different visions of what the party should stand for will wrestle to try to shape its platform -- not to mention nominate our standard bearer. In this process, we will need to look up to the podium to see a leader who can rise above the fray to inspire confidence on both sides. Wasserman Schultz does not meet that standard.

As an individual, Wasserman Schultz has every right to support a candidate. However, the position of Democratic National Committee chair requires resolute neutrality, both in perception and in practice. Yet at major milestones in the primary race, Wasserman Schultz's actions have been anything but neutral -- to the extreme detriment of the party.

Let's start with the debate schedule. You would think that, given the Republicans' chaotic scrum of sniping candidates, the DNC chair would gleefully schedule a large number of debates to reach the widest audience with essentially free promotion of a slate of thoughtful candidates. Instead, Wasserman Schultz, without seeking broad input from her vice chairs, limited the number of debates to six. Even though three were later added, by contrast, the party had 15 primary debates in 2004 and 25 debates in 2008.

There was an obvious appetite among voters to hear from the Democratic candidates. Despite being held on the night of a crucial Major League Baseball playoff game, the first debate, on CNN, averaged 15.8 million total viewers, the sixth-biggest nonsports cable telecast in history, with the 25-54 demographic averaging 5 million viewers -- the most ever for a Democratic debate.

So why have so few debates? It's important to note that, when the campaign began, no one had assumed the race would boil down to a head-to-head matchup between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. So, by putting her finger on the scale and scheduling fewer debates, Wasserman Schultz was trying to limit the exposure of anyone opposing Clinton, her favored candidate.

Then, in December, the party's data files were breached, and a staffer of the Sanders campaign accessed Clinton campaign data files. The Sanders campaign immediately terminated the staffer and reiterated to the DNC that its data vendor's firewall security was deeply flawed. Rather than bring the two campaigns together for a review of security, Wasserman Schultz immediately blocked the Sanders campaign's access to its own data, crippling efforts to reach voters at a key moment in the race.

And now, the DNC chair has again poisoned the well. Immediately after the Nevada state convention, Wasserman Schultz went on national television, accusing the Sanders campaign of fomenting "violence" at the event. There was no violence; rather, there was a wild outbreak of people exercising their First Amendment rights by shouting and waving signs. An unbiased chair would have asked for a full report of the convention events -- which would have included looking at the core issue of whether 64 of Sanders' delegates were improperly denied their vote -- before making this kind of slanderous statement.

Taken together, these incidents underscore the bottom line that Wasserman Schultz has squandered the most important asset a DNC chair must have: trust. She has abused the trust of the campaigns and is a significant contributor to the feeling among many Sanders supporters -- whom we need in November to defeat Trump -- that the DNC has not played fair. And because a leader reflects on her colleagues, her behavior has also tarred other very good DNC activists and leaders.

Not to mention: Wasserman Schultz has also been a failure leading Democrats in elections. With the exception of the White House, Democrats are now weaker at every level during her tenure. Republicans control the House of Representatives, with the biggest GOP caucus since 1947 when Harry Truman was President; we've lost a dozen U.S. Senate seats, and Republicans now control 67 state legislative chambers, with 24 states under full Republican control.

A number of strong leaders stand ready to replace Wasserman Schultz without disruption. I believe that any of the current vice chairs -- R.T. Rybak, Maria Elena Durazo, Donna Brazile or Raymond Buckley -- could be steadfastly fair and serve in the interim to chair the convention, alone or as co-chairs. And theirs would be a short service since, by tradition, the party's nominee can install a DNC chair of his or her choosing.
We can't wait to make this change. We need a strong and fair DNC leader who will put the party in the best position to defeat Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

Mr. President, make the call.



http://www.salon.com/2016/05/20/i_watched_hillary_clintons_forces_swip
e_nevada_this_is_what_the_medias_not_telling_you
/

I watched Hillary Clinton’s forces swipe Nevada: This is what the media’s not telling you

It wasn’t long before things took a turn. At 9:30, a full half hour before registration closed, Lange read the results of ballots that had been passed out to early arriving conventioneers regarding temporary rules for the convention, rules which would discount the results of the county convention (the second tier of the caucus process, where Bernie had won more delegates), rules which would require that all votes at the convention be decided by voice alone, and which ruled that the decision of the chairperson would be final. These temporary rules had passed with flying colors, which did not sit well with the Bernie delegates, many of whom had not been given ballots. Suddenly half the people of the room were on their feet, shouting “No!!!!” My son and I jumped to our feet as well, added our voices to the chorus. It felt good, all those voices of resistance vibrating through my body. I started to feel less like a cloud. I felt myself drop back into my body, surrounded by all these bodies yelling “No!”, feeling alive inside my skin.

Then people began to chant “Recount” and my son and I joined this call, too, throats aching, adrenaline coursing. Lange took the temporary rules to a voice vote. A hearty round of “Aye”s rose up from the Hillary side of the room, but when it was time for the “Nay” vote, the response was so loud, I felt it shake my every cell, felt it alter my heartbeat. The room was explosive with “Nay”s, roaring with it, and yet Lange decided in favor of the “Aye”s, which only set off more yelling. I thought about my dad, how once when I was a kid, I wanted to do something and my sister didn’t, and he said “If someone says no, you need to listen.” Lange definitely didn’t listen to all the “no”s in the room.

From reports from my husband and other conventioneers, and from my own firsthand experience as my son and I wandered in and out of the hall as the day progressed, it appeared that Lange didn’t listen to much of anything the Bernie delegates had to say; she appeared not to count the votes from that side of the room; she ejected dozens of Bernie delegates who didn’t have a chance to defend their eligibility, and who, if they were allowed to stay, would have given Bernie more delegates than Hillary; she didn’t allow for a “minority report”; she cut off microphones when people challenged her.

When I read news stories about what happened that day, I don’t recognize much of what is being reported—while there was plenty of chaos, I witnessed no violence (nor did my husband or anyone else I knew at the convention). Bernie supporters were not trying to change the rules, as some journalists reported: they were justifiably outraged when the chairperson changed the rules without a majority vote, and then more outraged when, later, after a motion for a delegate recount, she shut the whole convention down with a pound of the gavel and threatened arrest to anyone who stayed in the room. So many of the news reports of the convention feel like gaslighting in that regard—stories trying to make it sound as if the Bernie delegates were a bunch of crazy nutjobs, when all they wanted was to be heard and counted.






SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 22, 2016 8:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Now I understand the anger over Nevada. No wonder Bernie supporters are pissed.

How undemocratic the "Democratic" Party has become!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 22, 2016 9:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I heard an interesting live stream yesterday from the Left Forum. One of the speakers was Chris Hedges, who is always worth listening to even if I don't always agree with him.

This professor detailed the surveillances that he and other were under; and not only that he detailed the twists and turns that his lawsuit underwent as the Obama administration ("Democrat") forcefully imposed its will on the courts in favor of more surveillance and indefinite detention without trial.

Hedges had some unkind things to say about Sanders and Sanders' relationship to the Democratic Party. Hedges pointed out that Sanders had supported Bill Clinton (even after NAFTA), and after a list of other examples, described Bernie Sanders' relationship with the Democratic Party as follows (paraphrased):

Sanders is the watchdog of the Democratic Party. The arrangement that Sanders has with the Democratic Party is that they don't make a serious attempt to dislodge him from his seat, and he quashes every other independent candidate in VT.

According to Chris Hedges, who had advised Sanders to run as an Independent, Sanders thought he might really have a chance at winning running on the Democratic ticket. That the anger in Sanders' campaign is genuine, because of the undemocratic processes that are being used against him were unexpected, such as the exclusion of Independent and npp voters from the primaries.

According to Chris Hedges, if Sanders really wants to create a political movement, he has to get out from under the ass (my words) of the Democratic Party, repudiate his pledge to support the Democratic candidate (Hillary) and run under a different political party.

I agree.

The Democratic Party is there to co-opt any movement towards the left, and smother it in Party process. As long as people look to the Democratic Party to fulfill their yearnings for a better society, they'll be constantly thwarted.

I've been looking for a video of the forum, if I find one I'll post a link because there was a lot more detail there than I can remember or post.

This prolly belongs in the Sanders thread as well, so I guess I'll cross-post there.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 22, 2016 6:00 PM

REAVERFAN





I no longer predict a Bernie victory. I predict a Hillary victory, since all the neocons love her to pieces, and she loves war; the bloodier and more expensive the better!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 23, 2016 12:32 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Hillary can only happen when people let themselves be duped by her appeals to tribalism (a 'd' has to win no matter how false that 'd' is), by her appeals to identity politics (I'm a woman so you can assume I know and will stand for your interests), and by appeals to vote with 'community leaders' (they endorse me so let them do your thinking for you).

I still maintain we've never had a true test of the power of the vote. What WOULD happen if people voted-in someone who didn't support the oligarchy? A coup? An assassination? Would the government actually reflect the will of the people?

I would love to think that this would be the year a people's representative would get into office. but I don't think it'll happen.

So, war with Russia is a possibility. Wonderful.





Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 23, 2016 9:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I didn't realize that Kagan was a Hillary advisor. *shudder*

But I HAVE said that I thought Hillary had sprung a number of surprises on Obama - Ukraine (via State Dept employees Nuland and Pyatt) being one, Libya being another, the Libya-to-Syria gun-running (via State Dept Ambassador Stevens) being another.

Yanno, although there are a lot of things I don't like about Sanders, I've written several letters to the editor criticizing Hillary and supporting Sanders. Most of my letters to the editor tend to gather a lot of "likes", believe it or not, but not these. No "likes".

But no rebuttals either.

Who are the Hillary-voters? Women, gays, Zionists, and people of color who for some unarguable reason can't see themselves voting for an old white straight guy, even tho they're shooting themselves in the head by voting for that neocon-in-drag. People who vote tribally. People who can't logically argue for their decision.

In any case, I think people need to "think the unthinkable" and decide what they're going to do when facing a choice between Trump and Hillary. Because right now, the only thing that would derail Hillary is an indictment by the FBI, which isn't going to happen (even tho it should).

I've already made my decision- I'm voting for Sanders in the primary but Trump in the general election. The only thing that Trump (as President) has any real control over is foreign policy, like trade deals, peace deals, and starting wars. I KNOW Hillary is a war-starter. Trump is an unknown. Given the choice, I'd rather vote for an uncertain future than certain disaster.

What would make me vote for Hillary? An opposing candidate who would have all of Hillary's negatives ... a war-mongering international bankster ... and then some.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 23, 2016 7:14 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.

That's a nice story that appeals to Americans' vanity, but it is not true. On 9 May 1945 (Moscow time), Germany surrendered, meaning that if the Soviets were to honour the Yalta agreement, they would need to enter war with Japan by 9 August 1945. The Japanese were caught completely by surprise when the Soviets declared war an hour before midnight on 8 August 1945, and invaded simultaneously on three fronts just after midnight on 9 August. The Russians waited until the last day so that Japan would run low on fuel, food and ammo. Japan did as predicted, using up its fuel, food and ammo.

The million Russians rolled up the Japanese Army like it was a carpet. Americans were too afraid to invade and, to justify being chickens keeping as far away from Japan as possible and only lobbing bombs at it, the Americans gave grossly inflated predictions about American deaths. Fortunately for America, Russians didn’t believe the American predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29


you too funny.
Russians rolling up a carpet of Japanese ARMY on the home islands.
yeah, right
of course there were no deaths at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan. The Marines were just such wussies, right? Led by their pansy officers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 31, 2016 10:43 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, I got a google account and followed the breadcrumb trail just to read this article:

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/31/hillary_clinton_isnt_darth_vader_shes_
general_leia_hard_at_work_because_she_has_to_be
/
Hillary Clinton isn’t Darth Vader — she’s General Leia, hard at work because she has to be
New York's Rebecca Traister reevaluates her opinion on the presumptive Democratic nominee because she was wrong

What did the author find that was so convincing that she revised her opinion about Hillary? Well - apparently that she's great one-on-one but overly rehearsed in public.


Whaa ... ?

I'm supposed to change my opinion of Hillary and forgive her for Libya, Ukraine, and Syria because she's like General Leia?
Mai got. Is this what passes for analysis? For thought? For reason and proportion? Is this the best reason to vote for her that Hillary's got going?




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:47 - 236 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:10 - 590 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts
No matter what happens...
Wed, October 30, 2024 23:43 - 21 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Wed, October 30, 2024 20:41 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL