If Hillary is the 2016 Democratic Nominee, I will vote, but leave the For President Ballot Checkbox Blank.

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

43 posts / 0 new

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, I will still vote in the general election on local issues and candidates, but will leave the ballot checkbox for president blank.

I am tried of being played by the Democratic Party. Both Clinton and Obama campaigned as Populist reformers, but when in power they instituted the most damaging Neoliberal policies the Republican elite has been pushing for decades. Clinton's populism was based on John F. Kennedy and Obama on Martin Luther King. Surely, these candidates are progressives if they model their politics on these two great Progressives. Clinton and Obama divided the progressives between their economic policies and the Progressive Democrats that elected them to protect against such Neoliberal policies. We reaped the whirlwind from Clinton's financial deregulation of Wall Street. Clinton so demoralized his political base the Republicans for the first time in decades took over both the House and Senate in 1999 congressional with Newt Gringrich as leader.

And Hillary Clinton is part of the same Neoliberal Al From right-wing fractions. If you want to know the depths of the deception that the Clintons engaged in just read this article From & Friends: Failing upward at the Democratic Leadership Council with Al From that reviews the history of Clinton's fake progressivism--it was a total act to trick progressives into voting for him. Remember, this was after eight years of Reagan and four years of the George H. Bush administrations that Clinton appeared on the scene wooing a Democratic base that was sick of Reaganism. Bill Clinton just repackaged Reagan into New Deal language (New Covenant), and the Kennedy mystique.

The Populist Obama has wasted seven years with few progressive policies (Obamacare is Republican Richard Nixon's old plan), no reform of the reactionary Right Wing Federalist's court systems, no reversal of economic deregulation on Wall Street. And Obama also told his Democratic base to stand down after winning office. In the article "Bad History," Paul Street writes:

It was not really a “political mistake” for Obama to fail to mobilize and empower rank and file progressive citizens and movements. As Jon Schwarz explained on The Intercept last June:

“It’s unlikely that Obama’s demobilization of his supporters was actually a ‘mistake.’ As [early Obama strategist Marshall] Ganz put it in 2010, Obama saw his supporters ‘like a tiger you can’t control’; Ganz speculated that the president’s real goal was simply to ‘keep the machine on for the next election.’ In other words, Obama was acting in accordance with what I like to call ‘The Iron Law of Institutions’ — that is, the people in charge of institutions (as Obama was in charge of the Democratic party and his ‘movement’ in 2009) care first and foremost about their own power within the institution, rather than the power of the institution itself….So while the Democratic party itself would have been much more powerful overall if Obama had kept his grassroots mobilized and involved, Obama himself and his most important donors and supporters would have been less powerful within the Democratic party. So Obama let the enthusiasm and activism surrounding his candidacy dissipate, all his supporters stayed home in 2010 and Obama’s party suffered a catastrophic collapse….But from Obama’s perspective, so what? As Boies Penrose, an early 20th-century Republican senator from Pennsylvania, said when he was told that his slate of anti-reform candidates would lose and destroy the GOP: ‘Yes, but I’ll preside over the ruins.’”

If Hillary becomes president, she will do the same thing as Obama and tell her supporters to stand down. It is all that dirty Wall Street money that gives her away. She cannot be trusted.

Hillary Clinton has high negative ratings both nationally as well as within the party itself. She rates 51% “unfavorable” nationally as of February 7, 2016, worse than the 32% negative opinion registered in September 2011 and the 45% registered a year ago. CBS News found last October that 14% of Democratic voters declared they wouldn’t vote for her, with another 27% expressing strong “reservations” about her...

This is an unbelievable betrayal of Obama's demoralized political constituency .The progressives have kept the faith--jailed, beaten, gassed, stunned, and spied upon--it is the Democratic leadership that has neutralized their electoral wins and is the source of party division.

The DLC in all of it's disguises has to pay the price for lying to progressives for decades and the only way to do that is not fall for the same stalking horse scam that Bill Clinton, Obama pulled, and now Hillary Clinton is trying to pull off.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Ha Hah Ha! Hard line progressives say that now but come voting day next November and the prospect of a republican president will drive us to fervently vote for Hillary against some clown like Cruz, Trump or Rubio.

It would take an iron set of cajones to abdicate one's vote in the 2016 election just to make a point about how much of a horrible candidate Hillary is and how her presidency will set us down the road to hell... as much as I think Hillary is a war monger, I shudder to think of a Cruz, Trump, Rubio or even Kasich presidency.

Hillary will probably get us involved in hotter and larger proxy warfare but the Republican nut jobs will just flat out get us nuked.

zmb's picture
zmb
Joined:
Aug. 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Well zmb, you know what they say about ass-umptions.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Good on you! You have every right to do that. I personally would never vote for Hillary, but I also would never tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. It goes against my philosophy. Interestingly enough, someone once asked Chomsky if, and for whom, he voted for as president over the years. His response was he rarely voted for the president. He did vote down-ticket candidates and issues (i.e. state and local), because he felt those had the real impact on the lives of working class people. However, he has given a nod to Bernie Sanders this year, while harshly criticizing all other candidates for being to the far right and wholly owned by corporate interests.

marriott79's picture
marriott79
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote marriott79:

...Interestingly enough, someone once asked Chomsky if, and for whom, he voted for as president over the years. His response was he rarely voted for the president. He did vote down-ticket candidates and issues (i.e. state and local), because he felt those had the real impact on the lives of working class people. However, he has given a nod to Bernie Sanders this year, while harshly criticizing all other candidates for being to the far right and wholly owned by corporate interests.

Hmm, I didn't know that about Chomsky. I know how he feels. Thank you for that information.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, it was in his book "Understanding Power", which is a compilation of talks he gave in the late 80s and 90s.

marriott79's picture
marriott79
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I’m with you Anti. “Played by the Democrats” is about the size of it. Like you, I’ve had my fill of DINOs like Clinton and Obama. I’m tired of being guilt-tripped and browbeaten into voting for them. This time I’m back to voting as I damn please, and the hell with it.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 10:42 am

Lest we forget, here is a quick thumbnail summary of how Obama and his corporate Democrats failed as progressives.

The Democratic Primary Is A Fight Over Wall Street And Obama's Legacy

...Obama began his presidency by essentially telling movement progressives to shut up and quit making trouble for his corporate-friendly agenda. Former Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs derided and insulted "the professional left" in press conferences. When liberal organizations advocated for a public option during Obamacare talks, former White House Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel pressured them to stop by threatening their funding sources. Obama economic adviser Christina Romer was sidelined after demonstrating that the economic stimulus package needed to be much larger than what National Economic Council Chair Larry Summers would accept. Obama has deported more people than any other president -- nearly 25 percent more than even President George W. Bush. He supported Medicare and Social Security cuts for years.

While it's true that he faced scorched-earth opposition from Republicans, it was Obama who pressed for an entitlement-slashing "Grand Bargain" during the nearly catastrophic debt ceiling talks of 2011. This maneuvering on critical support for the elderly is what prompted Sanders in 2011 to advocate for a primary challenger to Obama -- a comment Clinton is now wielding against him as evidence of supposed liberal apostasy.

"I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president, who believe that, with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president," Sanders said in 2011.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Please don’t get me wrong— I do understand the ethical conflict the progressive voter faces if offered a choice between H. Clinton and Trump or Cruz. It’s the kind of situational test of one’s character and ethical core that can turn the hair on your head gray— HRC’s elitist, hawkish, interventionist, pro-bankster and clueless associations with war criminals certainly can’t be denied, and one would have to be blind as a, well, yeti crab not to notice and say, “Wake me when it’s over— I can’t do this!”

Add to that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s progressive side, the social issues side —pro-choice, pro-child, pro-LGBT, and racial justice side, for example—which one also would have to be blind not to notice. That factor only complicates the ethical dilemma, by asking the true progressive to abandon his or her social-issue values to the care of a right-wing Republican President. That abandonment, by not voting, puts the progressive in the uncomfortable ethical position of appearing to have had a one-sided bias of political values, where women, minorities, children and the elderly would have to delay any hopes for security, equal opportunity and rights, by having been asked by non-voting progressives to show obeisance to their “superiors,” that is, political issues such as finance, military, foreign policy, the economy and trade, etc. In a way, this challenge asks progressives to discriminate against vulnerable Americans, as if only progressive economics and anti-war policies serve justice, and anything else is worth the sacrifice.

It’s a terrible position to be in. No doubt. It’s a kind of Sophie’s Choice, a terrible moral and emotional dilemma that almost demands passivity— to refuse to make any choice at all. Or it demands a sort of futile rebellious vote, that of choosing the “non-viable” Green candidate, or a write-in, which doesn’t actually release us from the ethical conflict posed by abandoning social-issue values to the care of a right-wing Republican president.

I guess that’s how the “lesser of two evils” ethic arrives, as a plausible, reasonable choice for a progressive. Yes, it’s a choice that begs for pragmatism above idealism, and you’re sick and tired of having to be practical, always having to put aside your idealism, our “perfect offering.”

But I’m with Leonard Cohen— “ring the bells that still can ring”:


Ring the bells that still can ring

Forget your perfect offering

There is a crack, a crack in everything

That's how the light gets in...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Antifascist:

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, I will still vote in the general election on local issues and candidates, but will leave the ballot checkbox for president blank.

I am tried of being played by the Democratic Party. Both Clinton and Obama campaigned as Populist reformers, but when in power they instituted the most damaging Neoliberal policies the Republican elite has been pushing for decades. Clinton's populism was based on John F. Kennedy and Obama on Martin Luther King. Surely, these candidates are progressives if they model their politics on these two great Progressives. Clinton and Obama divided the progressives between their economic policies and the Progressive Democrats that elected them to protect against such Neoliberal policies. We reaped the whirlwind from Clinton's financial deregulation of Wall Street. Clinton so demoralized his political base the Republicans for the first time in decades took over both the House and Senate in 1999 congressional with Newt Gringrich as leader.

And Hillary Clinton is part of the same Neoliberal Al From right-wing fractions. If you want to know the depths of the deception that the Clintons engaged in just read this article From & Friends: Failing upward at the Democratic Leadership Council with Al From that reviews the history of Clinton's fake progressivism--it was a total act to trick progressives into voting for him. Remember, this was after eight years of Reagan and four years of the George H. Bush administrations that Clinton appeared on the scene wooing a Democratic base that was sick of Reaganism. Bill Clinton just repackaged Reagan into New Deal language (New Covenant), and the Kennedy mystique.

The Populist Obama has wasted seven years with few progressive policies (Obamacare is Republican Richard Nixon's old plan), no reform of the reactionary Right Wing Federalist's court systems, no reversal of economic deregulation on Wall Street. And Obama also told his Democratic base to stand down after winning office. In the article "Bad History," Paul Street writes:

It was not really a “political mistake” for Obama to fail to mobilize and empower rank and file progressive citizens and movements. As Jon Schwarz explained on The Intercept last June:

“It’s unlikely that Obama’s demobilization of his supporters was actually a ‘mistake.’ As [early Obama strategist Marshall] Ganz put it in 2010, Obama saw his supporters ‘like a tiger you can’t control’; Ganz speculated that the president’s real goal was simply to ‘keep the machine on for the next election.’ In other words, Obama was acting in accordance with what I like to call ‘The Iron Law of Institutions’ — that is, the people in charge of institutions (as Obama was in charge of the Democratic party and his ‘movement’ in 2009) care first and foremost about their own power within the institution, rather than the power of the institution itself….So while the Democratic party itself would have been much more powerful overall if Obama had kept his grassroots mobilized and involved, Obama himself and his most important donors and supporters would have been less powerful within the Democratic party. So Obama let the enthusiasm and activism surrounding his candidacy dissipate, all his supporters stayed home in 2010 and Obama’s party suffered a catastrophic collapse….But from Obama’s perspective, so what? As Boies Penrose, an early 20th-century Republican senator from Pennsylvania, said when he was told that his slate of anti-reform candidates would lose and destroy the GOP: ‘Yes, but I’ll preside over the ruins.’”

If Hillary becomes president, she will do the same thing as Obama and tell her supporters to stand down. It is all that dirty Wall Street money that gives her away. She cannot be trusted.

Hillary Clinton has high negative ratings both nationally as well as within the party itself. She rates 51% “unfavorable” nationally as of February 7, 2016, worse than the 32% negative opinion registered in September 2011 and the 45% registered a year ago. CBS News found last October that 14% of Democratic voters declared they wouldn’t vote for her, with another 27% expressing strong “reservations” about her...

This is an unbelievable betrayal of Obama's demoralized political constituency .The progressives have kept the faith--jailed, beaten, gassed, stunned, and spied upon--it is the Democratic leadership that has neutralized their electoral wins and is the source of party division.

The DLC in all of it's disguises has to pay the price for lying to progressives for decades and the only way to do that is not fall for the same stalking horse scam that Bill Clinton, Obama pulled, and now Hillary Clinton is trying to pull off.

I won't refuse to vote for President, I will vote 3rd Party. If we cannot successfully take back the Democratic Party from the Banksters ans the War Mongers, then building a viable 3rd Party is the only hope this country has in the long term.

Let's nominate Bernie though, so that none of us have to make that choice.

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am
Quote Zenzoe:

Please don’t get me wrong— I do understand the ethical conflict the progressive voter faces if offered a choice between H. Clinton and Trump or Cruz. It’s the kind of situational test of one’s character and ethical core that can turn the hair on your head gray— HRC’s elitist, hawkish, interventionist, pro-bankster and clueless associations with war criminals certainly can’t be denied, and one would have to be blind as a, well, yeti crab not to notice and say, “Wake me when it’s over— I can’t do this!”

Add to that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s progressive side, the social issues side —pro-choice, pro-child, pro-LGBT, and racial justice side, for example—which one also would have to be blind not to notice. That factor only complicates the ethical dilemma, by asking the true progressive to abandon his or her social-issue values to the care of a right-wing Republican President. That abandonment, by not voting, puts the progressive in the uncomfortable ethical position of appearing to have had a one-sided bias of political values, where women, minorities, children and the elderly would have to delay any hopes for security, equal opportunity and rights, by having been asked by non-voting progressives to show obeisance to their “superiors,” that is, political issues such as finance, military, foreign policy, the economy and trade, etc. In a way, this challenge asks progressives to discriminate against vulnerable Americans, as if only progressive economics and anti-war policies serve justice, and anything else is worth the sacrifice.

It’s a terrible position to be in. No doubt. It’s a kind of Sophie’s Choice, a terrible moral and emotional dilemma that almost demands passivity— to refuse to make any choice at all. Or it demands a sort of futile rebellious vote, that of choosing the “non-viable” Green candidate, or a write-in, which doesn’t actually release us from the ethical conflict posed by abandoning social-issue values to the care of a right-wing Republican president.

I guess that’s how the “lesser of two evils” ethic arrives, as a plausible, reasonable choice for a progressive. Yes, it’s a choice that begs for pragmatism above idealism, and you’re sick and tired of having to be practical, always having to put aside your idealism, our “perfect offering.”

But I’m with Leonard Cohen— “ring the bells that still can ring”:


Ring the bells that still can ring

Forget your perfect offering

There is a crack, a crack in everything

That's how the light gets in...

How the h can you call her pro-Bankster and pro-interventionist in one paragraph, and pro-child and pro-racial justice in the next? Children died and will die in the Wars she supported and started, and in the ones that she will start. Racial Justice? The terrorist thugs she put in power in Libya drove all of the Black Africans out of that country. Correction, they drove all of the Black Africans that they did not kill out of that country. I guess Black Lives only matter if they live in the US. Furthermore, the kids that were forced to drink poison water in Flint, Michigan are not the victims of "Republican Policies". They are victims of the Bankster Policies that both parties support. Detroit and Flint are bankrupt because all of the wealth is being sucked out of the working class and middle class and transferred to the Banksters. They poisoned those people so that they could afford to pay off their debt to the Banksters. How can someone be both pro-Bankster and pro-Racial Justice?

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am

(response to stoptpp @ #11, actually)

Quote stoptpp:
How the h can you call her pro-Bankster and pro-interventionist in one paragraph, and pro-child and pro-racial justice in the next? Children died and will die in the Wars she supported and started, and in the ones that she will start. Racial Justice? The terrorist thugs she put in power in Libya drove all of the Black Africans out of that country. Correction, they drove all of the Black Africans that they did not kill out of that country.


I see your point, and I don’t disagree. I would also add her husband’s role in Haiti’s troubles, as well as her own role as Secy of State in Haiti’s corrupt politics (if this is fair, sound reporting). The examples could go on forever— for one, I strongly disagree with her position on Israel.

Quote stoptpp:

I guess Black Lives only matter if they live in the US.

Unfair. It would be equally unfair if I said of your position, “I guess Black lives only matter if they live abroad.

We can make some accommodation for paradox in this discussion, or so I would hope. It is possible to hold seemingly contradictory facts in one’s head, and not be wrong, not be violating one’s moral conscience, not be committing cognitive dissonance.

Do I have to count the ways —been there, done that— in which H. Clinton has supported Black’s lives, women’s reproductive freedom and workplace equity, children’s health, etc., etc.? (none of which denies your point about her antics abroad. She’s a crazed, walking contradiction, what can I say?). Certainly, that so many Blacks support her must mean something, unless you’re going to engage in the kind of patronizing advice to Blacks that so many Bernie supporters have engaged in. (Note: I’m a Bernie supporter myself, right now)

Stop Bernie-Splaining to Black Voters

Now that Iowa and New Hampshire are vanishing in the rearview mirror, the Democratic contests shift more West and South — beginning with Nevada and South Carolina, states that have significantly more Hispanic or black voters, respectively, who at this point disproportionately favor Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders.

This support for Clinton, particular among African-American voters, is for some perplexing and for others irritating.

I cannot tell you the number of people who have commented to me on social media that they don’t understand this support. “Don’t black folks understand that Bernie best represents their interests?” the argument generally goes. But from there, it can lead to a comparison between Sanders and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; to an assertion that Sanders is the Barack Obama that we really wanted and needed; to an exasperated “black people are voting against their interests” stance…

Quote stoptpp:
Furthermore, the kids that were forced to drink poison water in Flint, Michigan are not the victims of "Republican Policies". They are victims of the Bankster Policies that both parties support. Detroit and Flint are bankrupt because all of the wealth is being sucked out of the working class and middle class and transferred to the Banksters. They poisoned those people so that they could afford to pay off their debt to the Banksters. How can someone be both pro-Bankster and pro-Racial Justice?

Essentially, I agree, if you’re talking about conservative policies— free trade agreements, leading to manufacturing losses to cities, reduced tax revenues, anti-”big government” attitudes, and failures to treat small towns and cities equally (revenue sharing, etc.) I found this article instructive, actually:

Former treasurer of Michigan [during Democratic administration]: The Flint water crisis was 'decades in the making'

...Michigan's combination of deindustrialization and lack of public support for cities created the conditions that allowed Snyder's poor decisions to have such a terrible outcome.

There is no question that Michigan has the some of the poorest, most decrepit cities in the United States. Flint regularly has among the highest homicide rates in the nation. Detroit, which has lost two-thirds of its population since the 1950s, is an international symbol of decay. This is not simply a matter of neglect; it's a matter of policy.

Time and again, Michiganders have said no to measures that could have put their cities in a state of financial solvency. In 1958, Flint suburbanites voted against joining the city, even though General Motors favored the plan. In the 1970s, legislators voted down Gov. William Milliken's bill to distribute industrial and commercial taxes equally among cities in metro Detroit…

Some of those problems were undoubtedly the result of White racism, not only within government, but also suburbanite racism. It’s a complex story, so let’s not reduce it to “bankster policies.”

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Some of those problems were undoubtedly the result of White racism, not only within government, but also suburbanite racism. It’s a complex story, so let’s not reduce it to “bankster policies.”

Yes it is reducible to Bankster politics. Hillary Clinton claims, in contrast to Bernie Sanders position, that Glass-Steagall is not necessary because Dodd-Frank gives the President all the tools he or she needs to prevent the Banks from threatening our economy and our nation. She also claims that it is unacceptable to imply that President Obama is not a Progressive. Well, if the current President is a Progressive, and if the President already has all the tools he needs to stop the Banks from hurting our people or destroying our country, then, why are States and Cities going bankrupt and poisoning their citizens in order to pay off their debt to the Banks? Yes, you are right, if this happened to White people first then more people would be fighting against this stuff, harder and more visibly than they are, but, if the next President does not implement Glass-Steagall and break up the Banks, then, trust and believe, the exact same thing will soon be happening to white people too. Rick Snyder is a criminal, and is most probably a racist as well, but he did not do what he did as part of some sort of a racist crusade. He was put in power to collect the debt for the Banksters by any means necessary, and that is exactly what he tried to do. To stop that from happening in the future, you need a President that will restore Glass-Steagall and break up the Banks. Hillary Clinton will never be that type of President.

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am

I think the simplest way to look at this is to use Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Things like jobs, affordable housing, healthcare, healthy food, clean drinking water, etc. are at the bottom. They're they most basic foundation. Things like racial equality, gay rights, etc. are important, but they're further up the pyramid. i.e. If you're starving, homeless, or dying, you probably won't be worried about whether you can marry someone of the same gender tomorrow.

The problem the Democratic establishment has is that they're selling off the foundation via free trade and their coziness with Wall Street and transnational corporations, while pointing to issues further up the pyramid and saying "hey, vote for me because I'm good on these issues here."

The reason conserva-Dems can support things like gay marriage etc. is because it costs them nothing to do so. In fact, there are gay people at all income levels, so who knows, a few liberal billionaires may even throw some money their way. My point is that being liberal at the top end of the pyramid is fine, but it's not going to solve the problems at the bottom of the pyramid. (No disrespect to gay people intended. I'm just using it as one example.)

You simply can't do that. It doesn't work. That's the whole point of the pyramid metaphore. Or, if you prefer the bible, it's like building your house (future) on a foundation of sand. If you want equality, you have to first start with ensuring people's basic needs are supplied, so they're not divided and fighting amongst themselves for table scraps.

The people running the Democratic Party and DNC are essentially conservatives who are liberal on social issues. Vote for whomever you wish, but I would keep that concept in mind. I can't see how we can build a progressive future without a solid foundation that protects these key issues and establishes them as a right for all people. The only candidates talking this way are Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.

marriott79's picture
marriott79
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why not write in Bernie Sanders or whoever you want? In most states you can write in a candidate. No need to leave it blank.

ShellyT's picture
ShellyT
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There is no ethical problem with not voting for the Democrat. It doesn't help the Republican get elected. If you are not participating for whatever reason, you are not participating, so you can't be electing anyone. You have opted out. It's what I might do this year if Hillary is the nominee. I have no intention of voting for her.

ShellyT's picture
ShellyT
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thinking you have to vote for one undesirable candidate because the other is so much worse is exactly how the Hegelian Dialectic works. You end up sanctioning the two-party duopoly. You actually end up supporting bankster/corporate whore candidates.

I think Thom is dead wrong on this issue as it sends a message to the corrupt Democratic leadership that we will support ANYBODY they push forth, and this voting for the lesser of two evils just encourages more corruption and cronyism from the democratic party which is exactly what we all despise about the republican party.

Antifascist I agree and we need to send a message to Thom and Thom needs to send a message to the high power dems he rubs shoulders with that we will NOT vote for Hillary, period, end of story.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote marriott79:

I think the simplest way to look at this is to use Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Things like jobs, affordable housing, healthcare, healthy food, clean drinking water, etc. are at the bottom. They're they most basic foundation. Things like racial equality, gay rights, etc. are important, but they're further up the pyramid. i.e. If you're starving, homeless, or dying, you probably won't be worried about whether you can marry someone of the same gender tomorrow.

Simple is right. That paragraph demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the complex interrelatedness of the issues of basic human needs and the rights of specific social groups.

For example, what do you think the life consequences are for women who lose the ability to control their reproduction? Do you imagine that has any relationship to hunger, to being adequately housed? Do you have any insight into the downward spiral of poverty that ensues, where women do not have access to birth control and abortion? Apparently not.

Women are half the population, and you think it’s okay to risk reproductive freedom by a self-indulgent choice for an impossible dream in the voting booth, which results in not electing a pro-choice, Democrat? Anyone for nationwide poverty, desperation and hunger? Write in Jill Stein!

Another example, Racism. Here’s a book for you: The Color of Hunger. You can look inside, get a taste of the connection between racism and hunger.

You cannot disconnect basic human needs from human rights, Marriott. It's all related, inextricably.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Women are half the population, and you think it’s okay to risk reproductive freedom by a self-indulgent choice for an impossible dream in the voting booth, which results in not electing a pro-choice, Democrat? Anyone for nationwide poverty, desperation and hunger? Write in Jill Stein!

We won't have to write her in. She is going to be on the ballot.

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am
Quote Zenzoe:

[

Women are half the population, and you think it’s okay to risk reproductive freedom by a self-indulgent choice for an impossible dream in the voting booth, which results in not electing a pro-choice, Democrat? Anyone for nationwide poverty, desperation and hunger? Write in Jill Stein!

Let me get this straight. The richest 300 people in the world have as much wealth between them as the bottom 3 billion put together http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-richest-300-people-on-earth-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-poorest-3-billion/, and you say that if we refuse to elect a pro-Choice, pro-Wall Street shill, that we will be the one's responsible for poverty, desperation, and hunger? We don't need to stop the 1% of 1% 0f 1% from sucking up all of the world's wealth, we just need to preserve Abortion Rights. That'll lift the whole world out of poverty.

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am

I believe that you're just fool enough to follow your conscience in furtherance of your ideals. Just one thing about ideals though. They're something unattainable but worth fighting for and in a fight the wise soldier doesn't holster his weapon and let his army, no matter how bad the leadership is, be defeated. Remember for every wild-eyed progressive on this side of the battlefield there's a wild-eyed obstructionist on the other side who, given the chance, will be happy to put one fascist boot on your neck and the other on mine. I'm progressive too but it's difficult to move ahead when you're lying dead in the mud, and believe me, if those guys get a hold of the courts (not just SCOTUS) there will be a massacre. So either pull up your boots, hold your nose & vote for someone who might keep the real enemy out of the White House this year, or shut up & stop encouraging others to desert just to make a point.

IM Jussayin
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2016 8:06 pm
Quote IM Jussayin:

I believe that you're just fool enough to follow your conscience in furtherance of your ideals. Just one thing about ideals though. They're something unattainable but worth fighting for and in a fight the wise soldier doesn't holster his weapon and let his army, no matter how bad the leadership is, be defeated. Remember for every wild-eyed progressive on this side of the battlefield there's a wild-eyed obstructionist on the other side who, given the chance, will be happy to put one fascist boot on your neck and the other on mine. I'm progressive too but it's difficult to move ahead when you're lying dead in the mud, and believe me, if those guys get a hold of the courts (not just SCOTUS) there will be a massacre. So either pull up your boots, hold your nose & vote for someone who might keep the real enemy out of the White House this year, or shut up & stop encouraging others to desert just to make a point.

from WikiLeaks https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/ :

A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war
by Julian Assange

Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.

I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.

Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.

Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States.

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am

Quote stoptpp:

Quote Zenzoe:

[

Women are half the population, and you think it’s okay to risk reproductive freedom by a self-indulgent choice for an impossible dream in the voting booth, which results in not electing a pro-choice, Democrat? Anyone for nationwide poverty, desperation and hunger? Write in Jill Stein!

Let me get this straight. The richest 300 people in the world have as much wealth between them as the bottom 3 billion put together http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-richest-300-people-on-earth-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-poorest-3-billion/, and you say that if we refuse to elect a pro-Choice, pro-Wall Street shill, that we will be the one's responsible for poverty, desperation, and hunger? We don't need to stop the 1% of 1% 0f 1% from sucking up all of the world's wealth, we just need to preserve Abortion Rights. That'll lift the whole world out of poverty.

First, stoptpp, I don’t underestimate your concerns. I place a great deal of importance on the inequities of wealth and class. I don’t argue at all with your feelings about Wall Street and corporate rule.

Here’s the thing, though: Women of reproductive age face the acute and highly personal issue of not being able to control one’s reproductive destiny in far more desperate and intimate ways than they do the oppressions of “free” market capitalism. That is to say, for example, having to work at MacDonald’s at $7.50 an hour is painful enough, but a single mother with three children who discovers she’s pregnant again —(1) because she didn’t have access to birth control and (2) that she can’t address the problem because she had no means of obtaining an abortion— experiences desperation on a scale that goes way beyond that of job insecurity and/or inadequate employment opportunities. In fact, add the lack of reproductive control to those economic realities, and you have an exacerbation of all the ills of capitalism, at least for women.

But let me get THIS straight, stoptpp. You think that your self-indulgent vote for Mr. or Ms. Perfect, or your choice to leave the Presidential Checkbox blank, that choice not to vote for a viable Democrat, will NOT result in putting a right-wing, authoritarian, elitist one-percenter in the White House?

Dream away.

The way I see it, your non-vote is tantamount to a vote for exactly what you despise— the 1%, because that’s what you’ll get. Either way, you might as well just accept that your non-vote brings us no closer to economic democracy.

Seems to me a more practical agenda would be, if we cannot get Bernie the nomination, to get behind Hillary. I do think she’s getting an earful of criticism about her Wall Street connections and all the rest, criticism she’s been able to ignore until now. That has to be weighing on her conscience, especially since she’s got quite a lot of familiarity with left-wing sentiments in her background. Once she’s in the White House, we put the pressure on. This time, like crazy.

Just don’t abandon us to Trump or Cruz. I beg you.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote IM Jussayin:

believe me, if those guys get a hold of the courts (not just SCOTUS) there will be a massacre. So either pull up your boots, hold your nose & vote for someone who might keep the real enemy out of the White House this year, or shut up & stop encouraging others to desert just to make a point.

BTW, if Hillary becomes President, then SCOTUS won't be the highest legal authority in the United States, the TPP Corporate Tribunals will be. And, just to be clear, she won't be the one who appointed them. They'll be the ones who appointed her!

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am
Quote Zenzoe:

Quote stoptpp:

Quote Zenzoe:

[

Women are half the population, and you think it’s okay to risk reproductive freedom by a self-indulgent choice for an impossible dream in the voting booth, which results in not electing a pro-choice, Democrat? Anyone for nationwide poverty, desperation and hunger? Write in Jill Stein!

Let me get this straight. The richest 300 people in the world have as much wealth between them as the bottom 3 billion put together http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-richest-300-people-on-earth-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-poorest-3-billion/, and you say that if we refuse to elect a pro-Choice, pro-Wall Street shill, that we will be the one's responsible for poverty, desperation, and hunger? We don't need to stop the 1% of 1% of 1% from sucking up all of the world's wealth, we just need to preserve Abortion Rights. That'll lift the whole world out of poverty.

First, stoptpp, I don’t underestimate your concerns. I place a great deal of importance on the inequities of wealth and class. I don’t argue at all with your feelings about Wall Street and corporate rule.

Here’s the thing, though: Women of reproductive age face the acute and highly personal issue of not being able to control one’s reproductive destiny in far more desperate and intimate ways than they do the oppressions of “free” market capitalism. That is to say, for example, having to work at MacDonald’s at $7.50 an hour is painful enough, but a single mother with three children who discovers she’s pregnant again —(1) because she didn’t have access to birth control and (2) that she can’t address the problem because she had no means of obtaining an abortion— experiences desperation on a scale that goes way beyond that of job insecurity and/or inadequate employment opportunities. In fact, add the lack of reproductive control to those economic realities, and you have an exacerbation of all the ills of capitalism, at least for women.

But let me get THIS straight, stoptpp. You think that your self-indulgent vote for Mr. or Ms. Perfect, or your choice to leave the Presidential Checkbox blank, that choice not to vote for a viable Democrat, will NOT result in putting a right-wing, authoritarian, elitist one-percenter in the White House?

Dream away.

The way I see it, your non-vote is tantamount to a vote for exactly what you despise— the 1%, because that’s what you’ll get. Either way, you might as well just accept that your non-vote brings us no closer to economic democracy.

Seems to me a more practical agenda would be, if we cannot get Bernie the nomination, to get behind Hillary. I do think she’s getting an earful of criticism about her Wall Street connections and all the rest, criticism she’s been able to ignore until now. That has to be weighing on her conscience, especially since she’s got quite a lot of familiarity with left-wing sentiments in her background. Once she’s in the White House, we put the pressure on. This time, like crazy.

Just don’t abandon us to Trump or Cruz. I beg you.

First, I am not talking about leaving the Presidential Check Box Blank. I am talking about voting 3rd Party. We have had more than 2 Parties in the past, and, if we cannot take the Democratic Party back from the 1%of1%of1%, then, we are going to need more than 2 Parties again.

Second, 300 people owning more wealth between them than 3 billion people put together is not a typical issue of wealth and class. It is an existential threat to the human race. That kind of concentration of wealth has never existed before in all of History. It is not substainable. Instead of declaring war on that system, Hillary intends to declare wars for it. I can't vote for someone like that no matter what their position on wedge issues might be. We are dealing with things a whole lot bigger than wedge issues.

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am

And this is my thinking behind this thread also.

Bernie’s man behind the scenes: Tad Devine is the Karl Rove to Sanders’ 2016 populist uprising

[excerpt...]

Tad Devine: “We don’t have the cadre of people that you might find in Brooklyn, but listen, we understood that the Democratic institutional players decided that Hillary Clinton would be their nominee. We understood that Bernie wasn’t going to compete on that score, so we stop trying to make up ground there. We are going to [take] it straight to the voters, let them decide who the nominee should be, and then hope the institutional players come on later.”

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Quote marriott79:

I think the simplest way to look at this is to use Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Things like jobs, affordable housing, healthcare, healthy food, clean drinking water, etc. are at the bottom. They're they most basic foundation. Things like racial equality, gay rights, etc. are important, but they're further up the pyramid. i.e. If you're starving, homeless, or dying, you probably won't be worried about whether you can marry someone of the same gender tomorrow.

Simple is right. That paragraph demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the complex interrelatedness of the issues of basic human needs and the rights of specific social groups.

For example, what do you think the life consequences are for women who lose the ability to control their reproduction? Do you imagine that has any relationship to hunger, to being adequately housed? Do you have any insight into the downward spiral of poverty that ensues, where women do not have access to birth control and abortion? Apparently not.

Women are half the population, and you think it’s okay to risk reproductive freedom by a self-indulgent choice for an impossible dream in the voting booth, which results in not electing a pro-choice, Democrat? Anyone for nationwide poverty, desperation and hunger? Write in Jill Stein!

Another example, Racism. Here’s a book for you: The Color of Hunger. You can look inside, get a taste of the connection between racism and hunger.

You cannot disconnect basic human needs from human rights, Marriott. It's all related, inextricably.

You either have zero understanding of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, or you didn't read my entire post from top to bottom. You're putting words in my mouth and jumping to conclusions. Get off your damn soap box for a moment.

I never said women's rights or black rights aren't important. I said that you cannot truly support them without also supporting the foundations of life: clean drinking water, clean air, shelter, access to affordable health care, uncontaminated food, etc. In order for the system to function, in order for people to get along and not fight amongst themselves, you need to support everything, not just pick and choose a few issues here and there. It's all intertwined. But the Democratic establishment is just giving lip service to the issues, from the bottom of the pyramid to the top -- mostly the top. Yeah, we're going to fix inequality while people are unemployed and drinking lead-contaminated water. Hell, they won't even discuss election theft.

As Bernie discussed with Killer Mike, racism and wedge issues are largely driven by fear and desperation. When people see their jobs, housing, and standard of living slipping away, they go looking for a culprit. This is where racists like the Republican Party step in and say "see, it's those black or brown people who are taking your jobs." But it's not just the Republican Party that are to blame. Democrats like Bill Clinton and Obama have been instrumental in dismantling social programs and marginalizing unions too.

Sadly, this holistic concept seems to be beyond your comprehension. If you have an ax to grind, I suggest you take it up with the Democratic Party, not me.

marriott79's picture
marriott79
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote stoptpp:

BTW, if Hillary becomes President, then SCOTUS won't be the highest legal authority in the United States, the TPP Corporate Tribunals will be. And, just to be clear, she won't be the one who appointed them. They'll be the ones who appointed her!

Exactly! But don't confuse Zenzoe with logic. If "progressive" Hillary becomes president and then [inevitably] fails to deliver on her promises, Zenzoe and the rest of the Democratic fan club will blame it on Republican obstructionism.

And, if Hillary fails to rally the base and thus fails to become president, Zenzoe will blame it on the mean and sexist Bernie Bros... or is it Obama Boys? Either way, Zenzoe, Art, and mdhess have a convenient excuse for the Democratic Party's failings.

Just ignore Hillary's voting record and corporate affiliations.

marriott79's picture
marriott79
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote marriott79:

Exactly! But don't confuse Zenzoe with logic. If "progressive" Hillary becomes president and then [inevitably] fails to deliver on her promises, Zenzoe and the rest of the Democratic fan club will blame it on Republican obstructionism.

And, if Hillary fails to rally the base and thus fails to become president, Zenzoe will blame it on the mean and sexist Bernie Bros... or is it Obama Boys? Either way, Zenzoe, Art, and mdhess have a convenient excuse for the Democratic Party's failings.

Just ignore Hillary's voting record and corporate affiliations.

Nail hit directly on it's head.

hollygolightly's picture
hollygolightly
Joined:
Jul. 28, 2015 6:49 am

I have neither the time nor the inclination to trade insults with the Bernie-or-die faction here —or bother engaging in a futile attempt to defend myself against personal ad hominems— but I will ask what y’all will do, when Bernie throws his support behind Hillary, after losing the nomination?

Quote Bernie Sanders:

“...sometimes in these campaigns, things get a little bit out of hand. I happen to respect the secretary very much, I hope it's mutual. And on our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/gracious-moment-new-hampshire-dem-debate

Quote Forward Progressives:

The War Between Bernie Sanders And Hillary Clinton Supporters Must Stop

I have been writing for Forward Progressives for almost three years now. In that time, one thing that has jumped out at me most is how many people are so bound by ideology to their pet cause or favorite candidate, that they are incapable of even considering or tolerating beliefs other than their own.

All over Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the Internet, I’ve seen both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters who blatantly refuse to vote for the opposite Democratic candidate, and promise to sit out the 2016 election if they don’t get exactly what they want. That’s not only politically immature, but it shows a lack of understanding about the issues America will face over the next decade. It also tosses the progress we’ve already made in several key areas completely by the wayside.

Let me be very clear on what I am about to say. It’s OK to be Ready for Hillary, and it’s OK to #FeelTheBern. I have zero animosity toward people who have decided to support Hillary Clinton, including some of my fellow liberals who like her. Even some of the left-libertarian Bernie Sanders conspiracy nuts aren’t so bad, just as long as you don’t try to talk to them about vaccinations or genetic technology.

What is infuriating is that while Bernie and Hillary represent different factions of the left, they’re both vying to be the nominee to run against the GOP nominee who could very well be Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, or even Marco Rubio.

The Republican Party is splintered badly right now, and the establishment is frantic over the possibility that Cruz or Trump could be their nominee. On the other side, Democrats have three candidates who are all far better choices than anything the GOP has to offer. As a very passionate Bernie Sanders supporter, I would gladly support Hillary Clinton or even Martin O’Malley – should they be the nominee instead – because there’s just too much at stake to throw away all the progress we’ve worked toward.

This is not the time for liberals to be fighting with each other over ideological purity, and anyone who says that they won’t vote if Bernie or Hillary isn’t the nominee is forfeiting our future to the Republican Party. Let’s do what we need to do in the primaries for the candidate we support, then worry about stopping the Republican path of destruction come November. We absolutely must be on the same page to move this country forward.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

I have neither the time nor the inclination to trade insults with the Bernie-or-die faction here —or bother engaging in a futile attempt to defend myself against personal ad hominems

Maybe you just don't have an answer. You seem to have an ax to grind, though. We're discussing the shortcomings of a candidate and a party, while you're arguing with the voters about their voting behavior.

Quote Zenzoe:

but I will ask what y’all will do, when Bernie throws his support behind Hillary, after losing the nomination?

Have you even bothered to read the posts on here? Each person has made it quite clear what he or she will do.

So, what exactly will you do when Hillary becomes president and delivers absolutetly nothing she promised, or worse things like the TPP? How are you going to ensure she's "the next FDR", as Thom puts it? What's your brilliant plan for that?

Or, is your strategy just to turn out to vote every two to four years to ensure a Republican never gets into office?

marriott79's picture
marriott79
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

[quote=Zenzoe]

I will ask what y’all will do, when Bernie throws his support behind Hillary, after losing the nomination?

[quote]

When Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends wife is nominated, Sandersclause has absolutely no option but to support her.

Non lemmings have a choice.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

Well, marriott, I really don’t have a lot of extra time today for this— I’m getting ready for a trip out of town (I’ll be away for about a week). Still, even if I had the time, I wouldn’t have much desire to engage with folks who think I’m not “logical.” Why should I bother with people who do not respect me?

Whatever, not that logic can ever be reasonably applied to the topic of politics, especially political campaigns and elections —politics is an art, especially on our level— I do believe I can fairly point to the ILLogic of the Bernie-or-die position: What it does is try to stand on a FALSE DILEMMA, that is, engage in black & white thinking: “Only two ideological ideas exist— true, authentic progressive and neo-conservative," with nothing else to consider, no shades of gray, no nuance, no blends, no alternative ideas allowed. It’s not only illogical, it’s authoritarian and dangerous, IMHO. Try not forgetting what such extremism can lead to, in revolutionary politics.

And, while I understand that from your perspective you feel you’ve been forced into a false choice as well —the two-party duopoly— I’m not going to argue with you right at this moment. No time, tah tah, gotta go...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

[excerpt...]
Whatever, not that logic can ever be reasonably applied to the topic of politics, especially political campaigns and elections —politics is an art, especially on our level— I do believe I can fairly point to the ILLogic of the Bernie-or-die position: What it does is try to stand on a FALSE DILEMMA, that is, engage in black & white thinking: “Only two ideological ideas exist— true, authentic progressive and neo-conservative," with nothing else to consider, no shades of gray, no nuance, no blends, no alternative ideas allowed. It’s not only illogical, it’s authoritarian and dangerous, IMHO. Try not forgetting what such extremism can lead to, in revolutionary politics.

This is not an problem of ideological intransigence, it is a problem of history of Democratic presidents like Bill Clinton and Obama acting as stalking horses by campaigning as progressives and then turn around and rule like Republicans. I reviewed this duplicitous history in post #8. The Democratic leadership keeps pulling the same bait and switch scam.

Manny Schewitz can only write an article like The War Between Bernie Sanders And Hillary Clinton Supporters Must Stop by ignoring history. Obama has as many Republicans as a Republican administration (Democrats Win 2012 Election so that Obama can burrow more reactionary Republicans into key offices.) Obama views NeoLiberal Margaret Thatcher as a hero! ("With the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty"-Obama)

Bill Clinton passed some of the most damaging Republican policies that we are reaping today like the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in Banking, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that has resulted in consolidation of the news media so that now Sanders is blacked out of the news. Cable companies were allowed to monopolize internet services and now Americans pay the highest prices of internet access with the slowest speeds. Not to mention NAFTA that sent hundreds of thousands of jobs to Mexico. All this came from DINOs winning elections by campaigning as progressives and then turn around and rule as Republicans. Bill Clinton used the language of FDR (New Covenant) and appealed to the mystique of JFK and then joked after 78 days in office,

Clinton vented to his advisers: "'Where are all the Democrats?' Clinton bellowed. 'I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans,' he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. 'We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?'"

Now Hillary is trying to pull the same bait and switch game. Look! Top Hillary Clinton Advisers and Fundraisers Lobbied Against Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Hillary is a DINO and we cannot spend another four years wasting time after wasting eight years with Bill Clinton, eight years with Obama, eight years with W. Bush and four years with H. Bush, and another eight years with Reagan. Progressive are 36 years behind! NO MORE DINOs! NO MORE DLC SCAMS!

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Whatever, not that logic can ever be reasonably applied to the topic of politics, especially political campaigns and elections —politics is an art, especially on our level— I do believe I can fairly point to the ILLogic of the Bernie-or-die position: What it does is try to stand on a FALSE DILEMMA, that is, engage in black & white thinking: “Only two ideological ideas exist— true, authentic progressive and neo-conservative," with nothing else to consider, no shades of gray, no nuance, no blends, no alternative ideas allowed.

There is plenty of space in between being a true authentic progressive and being a neo-conservative. Hillary Clinton, however, does not occupy that space. She is a full out 100% NeoCon.

stoptpp's picture
stoptpp
Joined:
Jan. 23, 2015 12:11 am

[quote=Zenzoe]

— but I will ask what y’all will do, when Bernie throws his support behind Hillary, after losing the nomination?

I have the good fortune of not living in OH, FL, PA, IA, CO, NH, or other swing state. Therefore, if duplicitous Hillary is nominated, in November it will be my privilege to vote Green to protest the thoroughly corrupted Democratic Party.

sstetson's picture
sstetson
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I can't agree with you more. In fact, at 3 this morning, I made a post that seems to be very similar to your own.

https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2016/02/i-will-never-cast-vote-hillar...

And on that note, I'm sick of listening to Thom play partisan politics with his callers that are obviously not wanting Hillary to take the nomination, but when Thom corrects them and basically goads them into agreeing to 'be nice' to Hillary and support her, it's like nails on a chalkboard for me every time. I've lost quite a bit of respect for Thom, unfortunately. I've listened to him for nearly 10 years and it's really bad this time around.

Op Ed Daily's picture
Op Ed Daily
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2015 5:12 am

Oh my, we are doomed...

Politically-Challenged: George Mason University

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Thomas Frank: Sanders Rises as Americans Reject Establishment Democrats

[excerpt...]

...Frank writes in an essay at The Guardian ahead of the release of his new book critiquing the Democratic Party, “Listen, Liberal.”

“What Democrats had to turn away from, reformers of all stripes said in those days, was the supposedly obsolete legacy of the New Deal, with its fixation on working-class people. What had to be embraced, the party’s reformers agreed, was the emerging post-industrial economy and in particular the winners of this new order: the highly educated professionals who populated its clean and innovative knowledge industries.”

The figure that brought triumphant closure to that last internecine war was President Bill Clinton, who installed a new kind of Democratic administration in Washington. Rather than paying homage to the politics of Franklin Roosevelt, Clinton passed trade deals that defied and even injured the labor movement, once his party’s leading constituency; he signed off on a measure that basically ended the federal welfare program; and he performed singular favors for the financial industry, the New Deal’s great nemesis. […]

That Clintonian consensus, which slouches on in the bank bailouts and trade deals of recent years, is what deserves to be on the table in 2016, under the bright lights of public scrutiny at last. As we slide ever deeper into the abyss of inequality, it is beginning to dawn on us that sinking the New Deal consensus wasn’t the best idea after all.

Unfortunately, focusing on the money being mustered behind Hillary Clinton by various lobbyists and Wall Street figures misses this point. The problem with establishment Democrats is not that they have been bribed by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the rest; it’s that many years ago they determined to supplant the GOP as the party of Wall Street – and also to bid for the favor the tech industry, and big pharma, and the telecoms, and the affluent professionals who toil in such places.

Consider the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street, which drew so much public outrage in the early days of the Obama administration … or the revolving door between Washington and Silicon Valley, which has been turning briskly in recent years without much public notice at all. Or the deal the pharmaceutical companies got as a result of the Obamacare negotiations. Or the startlingly different ways in which Obama’s Treasury Department treated beleaguered bankers and underwater homeowners. Or the amazing double standard his Justice Department seems to have erected for dishonest mortgage financiers and dishonest mortgage borrowers. Or the way office-holding Democrats of nearly every rank throw money at the people they call “innovators” while telling working-class Americans that little can be done about their ruined lives.

The reason Democrats treat these professionals so respectfully in everything from trade deals to urban bike paths is because that is simply who the Democrats are today. Read through the party’s favorite works of political theory from the last few decades and you repeatedly encounter the same message: the highly credentialled experts and innovators at the top of the nation’s hierarchy of achievement belong there by virtue of their brilliance. That these people also happen to be colleagues and classmates of leading Democrats only reinforces the party’s identification with them. Liberals love to mock the One Percent and their self-serving ideology, but they themselves serve the needs of the top 10% just as blindly.

In truth, our affluent, establishment Democrats can no more be budged from their core dogmas – that education is the solution to all problems, that professionals deserve to lead, that the downfall of the working class is the inevitable price we pay for globalization – than creationists can be wooed away from the tenets of “intelligent design”. The dogmas are simply too essential to their identity. Changing what the Democratic party stands for may ultimately require nothing less than what a certain Vermonter is calling a “political revolution”.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Reply to #39: Excellent article Anti.

I've learned from years of participation and observation that corporate Democrats are part of the problem. A big part. And I'm just not voting for them anymore.

If people don't vote for Bernie, then apparently they need this country to slide deeper into that banana republic shit hole and suffer a whole lot more pain for this political revolution to take place. Until then, banana republic shit hole is all we get.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 10:42 am

Reply to #40.

Yes, putting it bluntly, a banna republic shit hole. LOL!

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yep. Until the electorate snaps out of their infotainment-induced hypnosis, opens their eyes and gets real about our collective predicament, and what we have to do about it, that's where we'll be. Until then, the political revolution remains a pipe dream and a privatized, polluted, banana republic shit hole is what this country bloody well deserves.

Once the oligarchs are done eating our lunch, we're next on the menu.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 10:42 am

Here is a frightening article authored by Yves Smith that runs the blog "Naked Capitalism." I have been a reader of her blog for the last five years and it is an excellent source for opposing social and economic theories critical of Neoliberal ideology. Smith knows her readers well and even I am surprised that some progressives are actually considering voting for Trump as an act of sabotage--or as one reader wrote of the Hillary or Trump dilemma, "...If the only way to escape a trap is to gnaw off my leg, I’d like to think I’d have the guts to do it.” I think voting for Trump would be more like chewing off both arms and legs to escape a trap. I would never vote for Trump, but I understand the logic as Smith presents it in her article.

Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary: Even on Wall Street, a powerful Sanders contingent so hates what Clinton stands for—the status quo—they’ll pull the lever for almost anyone else. By Yves Smith, June 01, 2016

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The "Better Deal" Platform

Democrats like Chuck Schumer say they're serious about putting the interests of working people first.

They say their new Better Deal Agenda puts the interests of working Americans first.

But are they doing enough to help out America's labor unions?

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system