RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Even now, Hillary is still less popular than Trump
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12548



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 9:55 am    ::: Even now, Hillary is still less popular than Trump Reply Reply with quote

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/finally-a-poll-trump-will-like-clinton-even-more-unpopular

And if the Dems repeat their blunder by nominating someone like Warren or Harris in 2020, they'll produce the same result.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17871



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 10:51 am    ::: Re: Even now, Hillary is still less popular than Trump Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/finally-a-poll-trump-will-like-clinton-even-more-unpopular

And if the Dems repeat their blunder by nominating someone like Warren or Harris in 2020, they'll produce the same result.


Hmm..what do Clinton, Warren, and Harris all have in common...



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6261



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 11:26 am    ::: Re: Even now, Hillary is still less popular than Trump Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/finally-a-poll-trump-will-like-clinton-even-more-unpopular

And if the Dems repeat their blunder by nominating someone like Warren or Harris in 2020, they'll produce the same result.


Sen. Kamala Harris Is Running For President, Democrat Donors Say

Dem donors buzzing about Kamala Harris

If Kamala Harris wins the nomination the country is going to hear over and over again about the time she refused to seek the death penalty for the killer of an SF policeman, even after Diane Feinstein, among others, called for it at his funeral.

Harris is even more pro illegal immigrant than Clinton became. Being pro illegal immigrant to some degree is considered a winning national formula by both Democrats and Republicans, but Trump should have put some doubt about how to handle that issue (it gets clouded by other issues including job export). Chris Matthews was lamenting on election night that Clinton didn't take some position on illegal immigration that while going for another amnesty, also included strong enforcement of laws stopping the hiring of illegal workers. He felt that the current policy of essentially no enforcement, was what the RNC and DNC both wanted, but that the country felt differently. That probably isn't true though, as only one of 22 candidates made illegal immigration (semi-) enforcement an issue, so the others must not have been hearing much about it. The majority of people must favor, or at least accept, the status quo - no enforcement of illegal hiring.




Last edited by tfan on 07/19/17 7:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56391
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 11:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Warren is too old to run for president.

I would not equate Hillary Clinton with Warren on Harris.



_________________
Beard's secret is always to be slightly on the edge but to pull back from disaster at the last minute.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 4:53 pm    ::: Re: Even now, Hillary is still less popular than Trump Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/finally-a-poll-trump-will-like-clinton-even-more-unpopular

And if the Dems repeat their blunder by nominating someone like Warren or Harris in 2020, they'll produce the same result.


Hmm..what do Clinton, Warren, and Harris all have in common...


Is this the Jeopardy thread?


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12548



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 5:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What is "highly partisan and divisive".


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10391
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 5:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What is

They're not obedient lapdogs of the Koch Bros/Fossil Fuel Oligarchy like the GOP?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6261



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 7:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
What is

They're not obedient lapdogs of the Koch Bros/Fossil Fuel Oligarchy like the GOP?


The rich pumped a massive amount of into the Clinton campaign and they go to "$50,000 a plate" dinners to see Obama, Clinton, Harris, etc. so the Democrats are somebody's lap dog too.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12548



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 8:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
What is

They're not obedient lapdogs of the Koch Bros/Fossil Fuel Oligarchy like the GOP?


The rich pumped a massive amount of into the Clinton campaign and they go to "$50,000 a plate" dinners to see Obama, Clinton, Harris, etc. so the Democrats are somebody's lap dog too.


You mean like the $675,000 Hillary received for three private secret closed-door speeches to Goldman Sachs?

Where she could tell them different things than she was telling the rest of us?


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 2:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
What is

They're not obedient lapdogs of the Koch Bros/Fossil Fuel Oligarchy like the GOP?


lol. I promise you they are the obedient lapdogs of someone you'd hate.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10391
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 9:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yeah folks, I know the deal, but the Koch Oligarchy is worse than the Wall St backers of Clinton, et al., by a country mile. It's not even close.

To claim Clinton is worse is bullshit. Unless, of course, you're a million/billionaire. Do we have any here, at Rebkell?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10984
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 1:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yes. Cool



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 2:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Yeah folks, I know the deal, but the Koch Oligarchy is worse than the Wall St backers of Clinton, et al., by a country mile. It's not even close.

To claim Clinton is worse is bullshit. Unless, of course, you're a million/billionaire. Do we have any here, at Rebkell?


The Kochs are part of the fat-cat Republican Party's business-centric network of shadow players. The type has been there forever. We once HAD a political party that opposed them on our behalf. We don't anymore. So it's not really about looking at the "Koch Oligarchy" (I'm laughing at that one. Come to the coast of California for a less quaint perspective on the entrenched societal oligarchy that wields FAR greater control over your life than the freaking Koch Bros ever will) and saying, yes, the Koch types STILL suck. Republicans are horrible, no shit.

This country is run by two factions that are EXTREMELY sympathetic to each other and COMPLETELY unsympathetic to the needs of the American people. Voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is and was nothing more than PRETENDING, in some old timey mindset, that you're doing the right thing, the only thing a forward thinking person could do, in supporting the Democrat. But inequality exploded under Obama.

That's because Clinton and Obama and all the rest answer to people I know very well. Because I live in the thick of the Democratic Party's ATM machine. California. BELIEVE ME, these people out here CARE about inequality. lol They LOVE IT. You don't see them or know them. I do. They fucking LOVE inequality. It is the banquet of their LIVES. And they are 'liberals.' And they control the Democratic Party.

You guys posted on some silly Klan shit last week. Some crap about how you hope these are the last of ... oh let me just find it...

cthskzfn wrote:
here's hoping this is the last gasp of racist, white male hierarchy in this society.


There was a paragraph here. I deleted it. In its place, let me find the perfect animated gif to sum up my thoughts.



So let's take your not as bad as the Koch's California Democratic Party funding rich liberals. Of which there are more than you probably can imagine. You DO know they LONG AGO formed homeowners associations everywhere in California and control WHO precisely they allow to buy into their neighborhoods, right? You DO know they DON'T let black people buy homes in their neighborhoods? You knew that, right? And you know they're WHITE, right?

And please know they are good liberal Democrats.



So if the Democratic Party is funded and controlled by people who have the power to FOREVER get away with purely naked racial discrimination, which serves the maintaining of the literal embodiment of their own (white) supremacy... then what exactly were you saying about the Koch Bros again? lol.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10984
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 2:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Dearest Jammerbirdi:

You speak with such conviction, on things we mere mortals in The East (South/Midwest/Pacific Northwest/etc.) can only marvel at. It almost reverberates with the overtones of a Limbaughwellian soliloquy. I can only say: Prove It. I mean, I don't totally DOUBT you, but....the Utterly Comprehensive Nature of the problem which you define is a tad infathomable.

Re: No diff on Presidential occupant? I've long maintained that theory: they are mere figureheads, puppets in the hands of corporate lords. Elections are Red Herring charades, meant to instill a sense of 'control' amongst the populace: "I get to pick!" Unfortunately, this past Red Herring was swallowed up by Jaws.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 4:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yes. lol. Could it actually be the unfathomable case that you precious politically engaged Rebkellians don't know politics in America as well as you think you do? You mock folks with the classic progressive charge of voting against their own best interests. How do you know that you aren't just like them? Just the dupes of the other party.

Republican politics is irrelevant at this point. You don't understand anything (figuratively speaking) about the politics of this country or your own party if you don't try to begin to understand California. Which I've only been saying here for the last ten years or more. Illegal immigration? You don't anything about illegal immigration. It's an abstract concept. Illegal immigration is inside of me and it has been for 30 years. Have I had a callous on my finger in 30 years? In my gut, do I know that I never have to lift a finger in an act of manual labor again as long as I live? This stuff is inside of me. I breath differently than you do because of illegal immigration. Eat different. Live in a different economic system and realty from you all because of illegal immigration.

Do I know what REAL white supremacy is in a way that you likely can't imagine? I would suggest that I do. I live in the protective bubble of true actual white supremacy. Others have taken care of making this world the way that it is for me. All I had to do was show up white in California and act like I belonged. White supremacy took care of the rest.

You know. When I talk to the folks back home (as we'll call them) about Trump and politics and lib'rals, there's a certain level of arrogance that they have, you all know what I'm talking about, in people who didn't even go to college but who have bought hook line and sinker the propaganda of the right and now Trump.

There's so much arrogance here, too. (Meaning you guys) Seriously. You're smarter. But you don't know this stuff. And you can't hardly believe it's even true so it has a tendency to shoot right over your heads. You ask me to prove it? I'll shoot some more stuff at you, some links and sources, but I'm never going to be able to prove anything to any of you. It would be as impossible as getting through to the people who have been brainwashed by right wing media for the last two decades. You HAVE to believe that you have a true and actual understanding of what's happening in this country. You'd bash me over the head with a potted plant before you'd give up the things you believe about politics in America.

Give me a minute on sourcing my claims but in the meantime I will repeat what must be the most foreign concept to so many of you and I would suggest the most important takeaway from my perspective. The liberals who fund and control the Democratic Party in America LOVE economic and every other kind of inequality. Exclusivity is really the most important thing in the world to them. They HAVE that now, though. lol. They know how to maintain it and it's really not something that's being threatened in this country. The reason their wealth power and influence is not under any even remote threat is because they have taken away the Democratic Party from those who might use it to fight something like economic inequality. Meaning what was once the traditional constituency of the Democratic Party, labor, the working and middle classes.

So I would ask you to tell me who is worse, Dems or Repubs, but if you don't believe any of what I'm asserting here then I guess your answer would be a forgone conclusion.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56391
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 4:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
So I would ask you to ell me who is worse, Dems or Repubs, but if you don't believe any of what I'm asserting here then I guess your answer would be a forgone conclusion.


You know my answer: They are identical. Elect an entire congress of Democrats and a Democrat president and things would be exactly as they are now.



_________________
Beard's secret is always to be slightly on the edge but to pull back from disaster at the last minute.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 4:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
So I would ask you to ell me who is worse, Dems or Repubs, but if you don't believe any of what I'm asserting here then I guess your answer would be a forgone conclusion.


You know my answer: They are identical. Elect an entire congress of Democrats and a Democrat president and things would be exactly as they are now.


You've been saying it for years and I have to admit that I now fully agree with you. Oh the legislation passed would look different. But as long as the Democratic Party answers to those who now bankroll it, nothing in terms of effectively overhauling the fundementals of this economic system which so rewards those with money while continually ravaging the less affluent would ever come to pass.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12548



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 6:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Expanding income and wealth inequality is the single biggest social issue in this country.

I don't see that the trajectory on that skyrocketing gap was significantly different whether Reagan or a Bush or Clinton or Obama were in the White House.

The money has been flowing to the same tiny slice of people regardless of which party has been in power.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6953
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/17 8:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Expanding income and wealth inequality is the single biggest social issue in this country.

I don't see that the trajectory on that skyrocketing gap was significantly different whether Reagan or a Bush or Clinton or Obama were in the White House.

The money has been flowing to the same tiny slice of people regardless of which party has been in power.

Yes. It is all part of the neo-lib movement. The Democrats abandoned the New Deal policies and traded social progressiveness for economic progressiveness. Basically, income inequality has been skyrocketing since the Dems allowed the Republicans to gut unions, lower taxes on the highest earners, and not scale things like minimum wage and overtime exemptions to inflation. In other words as much as we lambast Reagan for the disaster that was trickle-down economics, the policies instituted by the Democrats bought into the same hokum too. But we feel good about the Dems because at least they push for equal rights.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10984
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 11:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Yes. lol. Could it actually be the unfathomable case that you precious politically engaged Rebkellians don't know politics in America as well as you think you do? You mock folks with the classic progressive charge of voting against their own best interests. How do you know that you aren't just like them? Just the dupes of the other party.

Yes. Anything is POSSIBLE. But....I don't see anyone here ('cept one maybe??) who speaks in irrefutable, unequivocal terms about What Is Truth In Politics. I see our dialogue here as more about sharing perspectives and ruminating over the various elements of a VERY complicated equation (and I don't mean the $100 theft thread, either....LOL! Razz)

jammerbirdi wrote:
Republican politics is irrelevant at this point. You don't understand anything (figuratively speaking) about the politics of this country or your own party if you don't try to begin to understand California.....I breath differently than you do because of illegal immigration. Eat different. Live in a different economic system and realty from you all because of illegal immigration.

Do I know what REAL white supremacy is in a way that you likely can't imagine? I would suggest that I do. I live in the protective bubble of true actual white supremacy. Others have taken care of making this world the way that it is for me. All I had to do was show up white in California and act like I belonged. White supremacy took care of the rest.

There's so much arrogance here, too. (Meaning you guys) Seriously. You're smarter. But you don't know this stuff. And you can't hardly believe it's even true so it has a tendency to shoot right over your heads.....You'd bash me over the head with a potted plant before you'd give up the things you believe about politics in America.

Living in "bubbles" is never conducive to ultimate objectivity. And we all have our own bubbles, no? Nonetheless, I certainly can't judge your perspective as anything but YOURS. But. I can offer the counterpoint that I know MANY people who live in California, and they do not *live* your perspective/concerns, as you project them. I don't think they have your level of affluence, tho....and that's obviously a factor. Overall tho, I will gladly concede that your general perspectives are more valid than many, simply because a boy from Alliquippa, whose mama was a sharecropper, and is now living in LA, has a unique experiential base.

jammerbirdi wrote:
The liberals who fund and control the Democratic Party in America LOVE economic and every other kind of inequality. Exclusivity is really the most important thing in the world to them. They HAVE that now, though.....So I would ask you to tell me who is worse, Dems or Repubs, but if you don't believe any of what I'm asserting here then I guess your answer would be a forgone conclusion.


THIS I concur with wholeheartedly. I would also posit that THIS is the status quo under which each of us was born: it is not a New and Strange Thing. And....for each of us who is here--with the time/resources/health/education/etc., to afford electricity and a computer to enjoy--THIS system has "worked" fairly well. No?



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10391
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 11:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My answer is in this thread:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=92186


I've been saying, likely since before pilight was born, that the Dems and Reps are flip sides of the same coin.

And, just as the same coin has different sides, so are there differences in the parties.

The New Deal was enacted by a party of white guys led by a millionaire white guy.

The Dems, since Clinton, have become more like Reps than FDR Dems.

This is why I backed Bernie- he is a New Deal/FDR Democratic politician, regardless of his chosen party label.

That there are rich white liberals who bankroll the Dem. party and would prefer to keep the riff-raff (anyone not in their class) out of their neighborhoods, schools, restaurants, etc etc etc is nothing new. This is America, after all.

I really don't know who here you think you're educating. Wink



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 56391
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 12:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
And, just as the same coin has different sides, so are there differences in the parties.


And like a coin, the differences from one side to the other are just window dressing. You seem to believe the coin is worth more if it's face down than if it's face up.



_________________
Beard's secret is always to be slightly on the edge but to pull back from disaster at the last minute.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10391
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 12:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
And, just as the same coin has different sides, so are there differences in the parties.


And like a coin, the differences from one side to the other are just window dressing. You seem to believe the coin is worth more if it's face down than if it's face up.


Thank you!

Show me why you believe that if the 3 branches of the Federal gov't were currently under Dem control, that:

-Gorsuch would be a SCJ

-Tax cuts for the 1%, disguised as a healthcare bill that would gut Medicaid, increase premiums for seniors, etc., would be a possibility.

-Obama environmental protection laws would be undone.

-The Russia problem would be the same.

To name a few.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
My answer is in this thread:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=92186


I've been saying, likely since before pilight was born, that the Dems and Reps are flip sides of the same coin.

And, just as the same coin has different sides, so are there differences in the parties.

The New Deal was enacted by a party of white guys led by a millionaire white guy.

The Dems, since Clinton, have become more like Reps than FDR Dems.

This is why I backed Bernie- he is a New Deal/FDR Democratic politician, regardless of his chosen party label.

That there are rich white liberals who bankroll the Dem. party and would prefer to keep the riff-raff (anyone not in their class) out of their neighborhoods, schools, restaurants, etc etc etc is nothing new. This is America, after all.

I really don't know who here you think you're educating. Wink


Dude I'm laying it DOWN. Telling it like it is. And get it while it's hot because this shit takes up WAY too much of my time. Very Happy

And it is becoming ever more rare for anyone to put the truth into the faces of fellow progressive lefties like most everyone else here. Please. These are the unspoken truths. And NOT just that the Ds and Rs are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb. (Yes, I came up with Ralph Nadar and Noam Chomsky, too.)

This is different, these are different times. Economic inequality has gone through the roof in America. It has been called the New Gilded Age. Riding the crest of that new Gilded Age are the people who fund and control the Democratic Party. I'm sorry, but all of this IS new. And COMPLETELY under discussed.

Because the devil is in the details, those details are becoming ever more off-limits as the party and the country itself moves towards a focus on social issue and identity politics and away from economic issues of the poor and working classes, and the issues of those in the rust belt, the Trump voters etc. whose concerns are so pushed to the side that EVEN HERE people have taken to expressing the wish that they all eventually should just die off and be gone with their racism and white privilege.

Seriously. YOU, cthskzfn, mock and deride people who voted for Trump as silly stupid white people. It doesn't matter that Trump is a total disaster. Those people ACTUALLY have the Democratic Party's number and are acting accordingly. They were absolutely right to vote for Trump and they will remain right, right up until the day he does something so bad that it destroys the country, which, as bad as he is, isn't likely to happen.

For these people NOT to have voted for Trump, would have been to cast a vote for the very architects of their economic decline and the system that has destroyed their identities and everything this country used to mean to them. And you call them stupid and silly while people here are crying that Hillary lost. lol. They didn't vote for a traditional Republican in the primaries and they rejected the establishment Democrat. Bravo! And they are going to do it AGAIN and again. And that's not a bad thing, it's a GOOD thing.

And for all of that you call them silly and stupid? Even a dog, if you beat it and starve it, will eventually wise up.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6953
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 1:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
And for all of that you call them silly and stupid? Even a dog, if you beat it and starve it, will eventually wise up.

I think the "stupid" comments are based on the idea that Trump conned them. He ran as anti-establishment and populist, he promised he wasn't going to touch medicare/medicaid/social security, that his health care plan would insure more people with better insurance at lower costs. He promised to "drain the swamp".

But then he gets into office and fills his cabinet with establishment players. He supports tax cuts on the rich. He looks to cut medicaid. His budget cuts programs and services that are designed to actually help working class Americans. He ran as an "outsider" but he is still a billionaire who seems to be helping out other billionaires first and foremost.

So congrats to them on voting anti-establishment. What they got was establishment policies enacted by a ineffectual, potentially criminal, narcissist who is a national embarrassment and who has diminished our clout and leadership on the international stage. Perhaps an arguement could have been made for accepting the dumpster fire if he hadn't proved himself to be just one more of those gilded monstrosities looking out only for himself and his own wealth.

And that all of this was clear before he was elected. It was clear he was a con at that time, a vacuous demagogue in love with his own mental image of himself.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6261



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 2:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trump first mentioned the phrase "drain the swamp" on October 17, 2016, just a few weeks before the election.

It was " a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again" and was entirely about lobbying:

Reinstate a five-year ban to prevent executive branch officials from lobbying after they leave office and prevent an executive action from lifting it.

Introduce a similar five-year ban on former members of Congress from lobbying after ending government service.

Expand the definition of lobbyists and close loopholes that allow former government officials to label themselves as consultants and advisers.

Lifetime ban on senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections and politics.


Any criticism of Trump's campaign promise should focus on policies with regard to lobbying and lobbyists.


When we had "more clout and leadership" on the world stage, we let ISIS form and terrorize and murder in a region that spanned two countries. And we allowed a huge trade deficit to build up.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6953
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 3:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:

When we had "more clout and leadership" on the world stage, we let ISIS form and terrorize and murder in a region that spanned two countries. And we allowed a huge trade deficit to build up.

So? We've messed up in the past. That has nothing to do with losing clout. The key would be to keep our ties and make better choices. Losing our place in the world is the worst outcome of them all. Anyone who believes in American isolationism or nationalism is living in a world not our own. The world will continue to only get smaller as we advance. Acting like it isn't is a good way to fail and is a rejection of an inevitable reality.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10391
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 4:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
My answer is in this thread:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=92186


I've been saying, likely since before pilight was born, that the Dems and Reps are flip sides of the same coin.

And, just as the same coin has different sides, so are there differences in the parties.

The New Deal was enacted by a party of white guys led by a millionaire white guy.

The Dems, since Clinton, have become more like Reps than FDR Dems.

This is why I backed Bernie- he is a New Deal/FDR Democratic politician, regardless of his chosen party label.

That there are rich white liberals who bankroll the Dem. party and would prefer to keep the riff-raff (anyone not in their class) out of their neighborhoods, schools, restaurants, etc etc etc is nothing new. This is America, after all.

I really don't know who here you think you're educating. Wink


Dude I'm laying it DOWN. Telling it like it is. And get it while it's hot because this shit takes up WAY too much of my time. Very Happy

And it is becoming ever more rare for anyone to put the truth into the faces of fellow progressive lefties like most everyone else here. Please. These are the unspoken truths. And NOT just that the Ds and Rs are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb. (Yes, I came up with Ralph Nadar and Noam Chomsky, too.)

This is different, these are different times. Economic inequality has gone through the roof in America. It has been called the New Gilded Age. Riding the crest of that new Gilded Age are the people who fund and control the Democratic Party. I'm sorry, but all of this IS new. And COMPLETELY under discussed.

Because the devil is in the details, those details are becoming ever more off-limits as the party and the country itself moves towards a focus on social issue and identity politics and away from economic issues of the poor and working classes, and the issues of those in the rust belt, the Trump voters etc. whose concerns are so pushed to the side that EVEN HERE people have taken to expressing the wish that they all eventually should just die off and be gone with their racism and white privilege.

Seriously. YOU, cthskzfn, mock and deride people who voted for Trump as silly stupid white people. It doesn't matter that Trump is a total disaster. Those people ACTUALLY have the Democratic Party's number and are acting accordingly. They were absolutely right to vote for Trump and they will remain right, right up until the day he does something so bad that it destroys the country, which, as bad as he is, isn't likely to happen.

For these people NOT to have voted for Trump, would have been to cast a vote for the very architects of their economic decline and the system that has destroyed their identities and everything this country used to mean to them. And you call them stupid and silly while people here are crying that Hillary lost. lol. They didn't vote for a traditional Republican in the primaries and they rejected the establishment Democrat. Bravo! And they are going to do it AGAIN and again. And that's not a bad thing, it's a GOOD thing.

And for all of that you call them silly and stupid? Even a dog, if you beat it and starve it, will eventually wise up.



Yeah, lay down the truth, dude. Laughing

I'll mock them until they die (from lack of healthcare if Trump and the Chumps get their way). Those voters fucked up big time.

To be fair (lol), silly, stupid whites include Hillary Dems. They endorsed the Dem status quo, which is as you state (and is rather obvious). But that status quo benefits the Trump voter more than the Trump/Rep. status quo.

Thinking that a lifelong scumbag, with his personal and "business" history, would EVER be the benevolent savior they desired, is silly and stupid. (I think much of that support is rooted in bigotry). At least Clinton has done some decent things over the course of her lifetime.

To congratulate Trump voters for fucking themselves over seems like a POV born of privilege, i.e., let them "tear it down" while people (they and theirs) die and things (for them) worsen, while you stand back and watch.

Sanders was the actual populist in the running. He was the candidate with "the people" in mind. Trump voters wanting "real change" stood behind the wrong guy. They stood behind a crook, a traitor, a grifter, a pathological liar, and a REALLY SHITTY NEGOTIATOR. The Art of the Deal my fucking ass.

What was your reaction when Morning Jerk & Jill turned on their buddy?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6261



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 4:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:

When we had "more clout and leadership" on the world stage, we let ISIS form and terrorize and murder in a region that spanned two countries. And we allowed a huge trade deficit to build up.

So? We've messed up in the past. That has nothing to do with losing clout. The key would be to keep our ties and make better choices. Losing our place in the world is the worst outcome of them all. Anyone who believes in American isolationism or nationalism is living in a world not our own. The world will continue to only get smaller as we advance. Acting like it isn't is a good way to fail and is a rejection of an inevitable reality.


You started talking about "Losing clout and leadership" and now are talking about "isolationism". They aren't the same thing. You can lose "clout and leadership" and still be a normal country in the United Nations and NATO. If we had the global clout of an average country that would be good. We wouldn't have had the Vietnam war or invaded Iraq on a pack of lies. I bet if we went to Switzerland or Norway, etc. we wouldn't hear a lot of people bemoaning their country's lack of global clout and leadership. That's an almost uniquely US ideal - constantly promoted by the military industrial spy complex. I would bet that the vast majority of countries don't devote an entire presidential debate to "foreign policy", which is a euphemism for "how will we use all our military and spy might?" Globalism - which I see as a euphemism for the western countries giving jobs to the 3rd world or importing the 3rd world to take jobs, is nothing to crow about even if it is couched as "the world getting smaller as we advance". I think we should wait to deride "bringing jobs back" and stopping illegal immigration (and hopefully someday, legal) until we try it. The rich profit from jobs out/workers in, so they will always push that regardless of how it impacts workes.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12548



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 4:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Wow. That's certainly a naive view of things.

And as we act like Norway, who exactly is going to serve as the counterbalance to China's and Russia's and Iran's drive for hegemony? You think they're going to sit back and act like Finland, New Zealand, and Hungary as we fade from the world stage?

Kennedy and Reagan are rolling over in their graves while Trump blows Putin.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6261



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 5:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Wow. That's certainly a naive view of things.

And as we act like Norway, who exactly is going to serve as the counterbalance to China's and Russia's and Iran's drive for hegemony?


NATO and the United Nations, as it should be.

Quote:
You think they're going to sit back and act like Finland, New Zealand, and Hungary as we fade from the world stage?


If only we had faded from the world stage before we helped overthrow the Iranian democracy in favor of a Shah or before we provided $6 billion in military aid to the El Salvadoran government and its death squads. To name just two of our interventionist crimes.

Dealing with rogue nations is the job of a collection of nations. The one thing that is different is that if you have a nation that spends trillions on defense and has chicken hawks constantly banging the drum and all this "thank you for your service" rhetoric - you will be more ready to attack than a group. That could be good in some cases where you could deter an attack. But Hussein went into Kuwait and Russia went into Ukraine with full interventionist policy in effect in the USA. If China were to invade Taiwan, would the US immediately attack? If China were to invade Japan, I think the whole world would be ready to take action.

Quote:
Kennedy and Reagan are rolling over in their graves while Trump blows Putin.


Trump has dropped bombs and assassinated via drone just like Obama. Dubya famously said something positive about Putin and Russia took Crimea from Ukraine while Obama was in power.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 6:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:

To congratulate Trump voters for fucking themselves over seems like a POV born of privilege, i.e., let them "tear it down" while people (they and theirs) die and things (for them) worsen, while you stand back and watch.


Oh. They were fucked over LONG before the idea of a Donald Trump presidency EVER was a remote possibility. I would suggest that there is a POV born of privilege on display here when people pass over that fact and fret instead over our national embarrassment and standing on the world stage. lol. Like, while sitting behind a lawyer's and a professor's desk. Rolling Eyes

Let me ask you guys something that I already know the answer to. Certainly you live out in different parts of this country. So you know as well or better than I do of the once thriving towns and cities around YOU that are now just shadows of what they once were, right? If you don't have any right around you then you certainly must know of them from the now two decades of scattered reporting on the subject. It's an accepted part of something that has happened in the country over the last 3 decades.

It's been suggested that Brexit happened because people in smaller towns and villages around the country were losing their identity and the identity of their towns as they had known themselves and their world going back hundreds of years. While back in London, those who had capitalized on globalization enjoyed the fruits of a cosmopolitan life. But out in the sticks the economic and social changes that were being forced upon people were such that they found it all to be unacceptable.

The word that most stuck with me in describing what these people felt they were losing was the word identity.

Now I hate to say this, but this is a group that is prone to ascribing the worst most superficial motivations to people. Thus most of you here I would bet (based on my long experience here with you) would very quickly chalk up Brexit to nothing more than xenophobia and racism and how unhappy these villagers around GB were to find their towns the landing spot for Muslims and Poles, etc.

And so back to our own country, according to type, you continue to quickly make the charge that the people who voted for Trump did so out of racism. That's really the party line, isn't it? The Deplorables? I would suggest that you are wrong.

Here is what you're either not getting or are simply downplaying to a disastrous (if you think Trump is a disaster) degree. All of those towns and small cities and counties around the United States, their economies, the people who lived there and were happy, the people who bought homes there and raised generations of families there, their local cultures, thriving downtowns full of locally owned small businesses, their ability to maintain city and county governments at the level they once were, have a tax base, healthy civic services, keep budgets running... all of that has been decimated in so many places in this country now that much of this nation is a like a ONCE cancer ridden body that is now just a corpse.

These Trump voters, who were very healthily represented in the baby boomer age range, have seen both Americas. They are old enough, like me, to remember an America where all these places around the country were thriving. And now they see this America AND... they now see their places in this America and they can compare it to their place in the America that is no longer there.

And they can compare their identities. Specifically the HIT their identities have taken and that extends to an even greater degree when they look at their children and their children's place in this world.

And OH... let's not forget that all the while, gourmet cooking away on the coasts, is a thriving elite living in an opulence that is completely unimaginable to these people back in flyover country.

What did Lincoln say about a foreign army? Something about it being unimaginable that one would ever slack its thirst with the waters of the Mississippi? Sorry, Abe, but it didn't take a foreign army. America destroyed itself and is in the process of destroying itself from within. These towns and counties and all that has gone by the way with them as they've been ravaged around the country is the TRUE national disgrace.

But it's a POV born of privilege of some sort or another that so many people on the left are NOT outraged and continue to dismiss the fury of those who live out there in that America. You're either dispassionately elite yourselves or you've been brainwashed by an ideology to think that the people who fight the foreign wars but have lost everything back home in terms of their identity and their literal and figurative places in this country are just racially motivated xenophobes.

I honestly can't believe any thinking person would believe that the people out in America, in flyover country, were going to just let this all quietly go by with just a downsized lifestyle adjustment. No. I'm sorry. They are more likely going to continue in their efforts to 'tear it all down.'

Longtime New Yorker subscriber. And I read the NYTimes all day long. In the few short shocking weeks when Trump went from a ridiculous mistake of naive crazy out of touch Republican primary voters who had an 8% chance of winning to Hillary's 92% according to the NYTimes... to being the President Elect... these NY and NYTimes editors and writers were cognizant of the fact that the race was far closer than they'd hoped in the big swing states going into the final weeks. And they went off. lol. And then when Trump WON? lol. They went ballistic.

The New Yorker became unreadable. Pieces by the editor David Remnick and a transplanted Brit John Cassidy were so filled with anger that they looked like something you'd see on an internet message board back when flame wars could singe your eyelashes. The scorn was for not just Trump but for everyone who voted for him.

Here is what I would have said to those people had I cared to and had not been so overwhelmed by the incredibly hostile rhetoric by incredibly talented writers.

So... you were educated at Ivy League schools. Probably hold some honorary degrees. Your children will enjoy or have enjoyed a warm reception at those institutions and in their professional lives. You go to work in an iconic skyscraper in Manhattan. The New Yorker Building. All in a fabulously rich cosmopolitan city. The greatest city in the world.

THAT is your identity. Very Happy

But what if all of that was taken away from you? Mad

What if New York City was an empty shadow of what it is now? What if the iconic New Yorker Building was boarded up and trees were growing out through the broken lower floor windows? What if you were no longer even employable in whatever new economy that had wrought such destruction to your world? What if your kids were no longer going to be accepted at the prestigious universities because the prestigious universities no longer themselves exist?

Think you'd be pissed? Shocked

I think you all get my point. If these great journalists think they are angry now, while they can still go to a Manhattan gala wearing a tux that they did not rent, how angry would they be if all that they had and their lofty identities were all gone.

Do you really think these people out there in flyover country give a shit about Russia? Or whether Trump fires Mueller. Or whether Don Jr. and Eric are actually destined to be America's Quday and Usay. They want New York to feel the pain and outrage they have been swallowing for decades while waiting for it all to get better.

So let's see. You say they are disproportionally going to lose all the gains provided by Obamacare, that Trump and the Republicans are going to predictably decimate health care, Medicare and Medicaid, etc. The silly stupid and white Trump voters are the ones who are going to suffer most under Trump, etc. Why would they have voted for him, etc? They don't feel they have anything to lose is the answer. They mostly probably never expected Donald Trump to be able to deliver on his health care promises.

And I don't know if you've looked at his poll numbers but many of those supporters seem to be already looking past Trump himself. He IS losing support amongst the voters who put him into office. But I am here to tell you that you are all seriously out of touch if you think that these voters are going away from this Trump win with their tails between their legs. They are not going away nor is their anger or their demands for many of the things people who didn't vote for Trump found to be most offensive. You know what I'm talking about.

Anyway. Okay, this was a wasted afternoon for me. So FORGIVE ME if I avoid answering charges that I'm naive or I'm speaking from a POV born of privilege, etc. You can just assume that I disagree with that perspective on my positions and I can save us all a lot of time. Wink

More is coming in the other thread though. Wink


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10984
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 9:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Kennedy and Reagan are rolling over in their graves while Trump blows Putin.


Links, please. Preferably with images. Cool



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6953
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 9:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Kennedy and Reagan are rolling over in their graves while Trump blows Putin.


Links, please. Preferably with images. Cool


Here ya go.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/797823662812524544/LLfGFoFm.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvQzSIfWgAAaryD.jpg



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.


Last edited by justintyme on 07/21/17 9:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10984
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 9:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

(I should have KNOWN!!! Laughing )



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12548



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 9:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Wow. That's certainly a naive view of things.

And as we act like Norway, who exactly is going to serve as the counterbalance to China's and Russia's and Iran's drive for hegemony?


NATO and the United Nations, as it should be.


Wow. And I called your previous quote naive. This sets a new world record for naivete.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6953
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 9:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
(I should have KNOWN!!! Laughing )

Rule 34.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6261



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/21/17 10:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Wow. That's certainly a naive view of things.

And as we act like Norway, who exactly is going to serve as the counterbalance to China's and Russia's and Iran's drive for hegemony?


NATO and the United Nations, as it should be.


Wow. And I called your previous quote naive. This sets a new world record for naivete.


You're in the Beltway, so I won't fault you for seeing the world through one of the Pentagon's windows.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/17 4:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Dearest Jammerbirdi:

You speak with such conviction, on things we mere mortals in The East (South/Midwest/Pacific Northwest/etc.) can only marvel at. It almost reverberates with the overtones of a Limbaughwellian soliloquy. I can only say: Prove It.


So I promised to prove it although I think I may have presciently expressed my reservations that that at all might be possible.

But let's transfer here (in your heads) some of the points or assertions I've made (as they might apply here) in the anthem thread, and probably some from the thread I started on the Thomas Friedman article, How We Are Ruining America

So a very big part of my being appalled at the political naivete which which so many of you here extol the virtues of the Democratic Party and the many issues as they apply to partisan politics is that I contend that you guys do not know California. And I contend also that if you don't know California, what's at the beating heart that funds the Democrats, then you don't the party. You don't know why the party emphasizes certain policies and issues while letting others fall by the wayside. That would mean, necessarily, that you don't know exactly who you have aligned yourself with.

So let me rip away the veneer that is what you see when you think of the Democratic Party, the headliners like Hillary and Obama, and show you OUR party's version of the Koch Bros, etc.

This is today, by the way. Breaking news.

Robin Abcarian for the LA Times.

Quote:
There are so many things about the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment revelations that are distressing and familiar that I hardly know where to start.

But let me try.

Weinstein is a 65-year-old married movie mogul who has been accused of sexually harassing women who work for him or have wanted to work for him over a period of nearly three decades. He is a man who can make and break careers, whose power has sometimes seemed infinite, whose temper is volcanic, and whose deft touch with stories and marketing has resulted in numerous Oscars.

In a blockbuster New York Times story published Thursday, reporters Jodi Kantor and Meghan Twohey interviewed Weinstein employees and actresses who said the producer invited them into his plush hotel rooms on the pretext of discussing work, then would ask for naked massages, make unwanted physical advances or request that they watch him shower.

The harassment was so pervasive and well-known among staff at his companies — Miramax, then the Weinstein Co. — that women would double up for protection when they had to go see him, according to the New York Times. It was also, if Twitter is to be believed, an open secret in Hollywood.

Some of his staff, it was reported, were required to participate in “turndown duty” for him at bedtime or to help get him up in the morning. Weinstein has denied the accusations and told the New York Post that the New York Times is engaged in a vendetta against him.

I have always argued that power, particularly the Hollywood strain, infantilizes. Success in Hollywood frequently reduces fully grown adults to narcissistic babies.

Weinstein’s behavior is also an excellent example of the hypocrisy that is so rampant in Hollywood — and politics, for that matter.


He is a liberal Democrat who publicly champions women’s rights and professional advancement but demeans and exploits them in private.


So what kind of a Democrat is Harvey Weinstein? Uh, he was invited to the Obama White House 13 times. That's what kind of a Democrat Harvey Weinstein is. And this kind as well.

From this tasty Vulture article on ten of the most outrageous things Harvey has ever done.

Quote:
8. “You motherfucker! I’ll rip your balls off!” he screamed at Terry McAuliffe, then-chairman of the Democratic Party, according to Vanity Fair.


Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades

Quote:
Two decades ago, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein invited Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what the young actress expected to be a business breakfast meeting. Instead, he had her sent up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower, she recalled in an interview.

“How do I get out of the room as fast as possible without alienating Harvey Weinstein?” Ms. Judd said she remembers thinking.

In 2014, Mr. Weinstein invited Emily Nestor, who had worked just one day as a temporary employee, to the same hotel and made another offer: If she accepted his sexual advances, he would boost her career, according to accounts she provided to colleagues who sent them to Weinstein Company executives. The following year, once again at the Peninsula, a female assistant said Mr. Weinstein badgered her into giving him a massage while he was naked, leaving her “crying and very distraught,” wrote a colleague, Lauren O’Connor, in a searing memo asserting sexual harassment and other misconduct by their boss.

“There is a toxic environment for women at this company,” Ms. O’Connor said in the letter, addressed to several executives at the company run by Mr. Weinstein.


All I have to say TO YOU GUYS about this Harvey business is this. One, from where I'm sitting and typing this in my kitchen I can see the top of some part of the Peninsula just a block away. And that Harvey must have been, and by all accounts was, a particularly outrageous noxious asshole in every possible way. Because, and this is the part where you guys will step off of what I'm asserting as you always do, the TRUTH about Hollywood is that the sexual aspects of the behavior described in these articles ARE and have been the widespread, legs spread, coin-of-the-realm in Hollywood forever. These studio lots? lol. They exist completely outside of the purview of the laws that govern workplaces in the rest of the US. The protections that YOU take for granted? They don't exist within the gates of the industry/fiefdom owned by the richest and most powerful of Democratic donors.

THEY'VE BOUGHT THAT hands off our shit approach from your Democratic Party. A long long time ago. This is where woman and even children are forced to strike bargains every single day to give up the booty or find the front gates closed to them and their career dreams forever. The casting couch IS Hollywood. And Hollywood IS the Democratic Party.

Quote:
A longtime Democratic donor, he [Weinstein] hosted a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in his Manhattan home last year. He employed Malia Obama, the oldest daughter of former President Barack Obama, as an intern this year, and recently helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in Gloria Steinem’s name. During the Sundance Film Festival in January, when Park City, Utah, held its version of nationwide women’s marches, Mr. Weinstein joined the parade.


But GOD, again, that's only the ONE PART, the Power to Debauch angle, of the way in which the super-wealthy of California are easily as horrifying if not more so, than any of the Republican boogie men you all find so abhorrent.

Gloria Allred's daughter is Harvey's lawyer. Both her and her mom, of course, are BIG Democrats. Her name is Lisa Bloom. Here's what Lisa had to say about Harvey just a few hours ago.

"Harvey has had to learn,” she told the Associated Press. “This is not an easy time for him either. Probably nobody has sympathy for him right now and that’s fine. But this is a guy who has thrown away the old playbook of let’s attack the women, let’s dig up dirt on their past, let’s humiliate them, let’s fight. He’s not doing any of that.”

Vulture: Lisa Bloom



Harvey Weinstein and Hillary Clinton in 2012. Mr. Weinstein held a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton at his Manhattan home last year.

Okay, that's a start. I've been thinking about Howee's challenge for a long time. Couldn't pass up today's news and the opportunity to finally begin to answer the challenge.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4817
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/17 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't think it's useful, accurate or helpful to politicize, racialize or religiousize sexual sin or any other sinful behavior. It's endemic in, and normally distributed throughout, all of humanity ever since Adam and Eve defied god and ate the forbidden fruit.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/17 6:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I don't think it's useful, accurate or helpful to politicize, racialize or religiousize sexual sin or any other sinful behavior. It's endemic in, and normally distributed throughout, all of humanity ever since Adam and Eve defied god and ate the forbidden fruit.


Yeah it’s not like there are any political implications to what sexual situations women might encounter in the pursuit of their careers.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6261



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/17 6:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

She got more votes, so she was more popular then. She also led a solid majority of polls throughout the campaign. The word popular has never applied to Trump, even among Republicans. Trump had been leading in the polls for months in the campaign and sometime in late Fall 2015, they did a poll and more than half of Republicans had an unfavorable view of him.

Edit: Wait, I just responded to a month's old thread thinking it was new.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/17 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yeah I need to find a way to organized the sprawl of this in one thread that’s devoted to this topic. I’ll figure something out.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4817
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/17 7:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
I don't think it's useful, accurate or helpful to politicize, racialize or religiousize sexual sin or any other sinful behavior. It's endemic in, and normally distributed throughout, all of humanity ever since Adam and Eve defied god and ate the forbidden fruit.


Yeah it’s not like there are any political implications to what sexual situations women might encounter in the pursuit of their careers.


I don't see how your comment is responsive to mine, which perhaps was not clearly worded.

I'm saying it's inaccurate and unhelpful to infer some sort of global sinfulness exclusively or predominantly to one tribe -- the other guy's tribe -- just because you can find individual examples of that tribe's members engaging in the sin. By tribes, I mean political parties, races, religions, ethnic groups, and basketball teams.

People do that here and all over in order to diminish the other guy's tribe and, by illogical induction, to puff their chests about their own tribe. "See that, I told you so, the sexual sinner is a Democrat . . . a Republican . . . a Catholic . . . a Muslim . . . an illegal alien . . . a Southerner . . . which I submit as proof that that whole group is inferior to the group I identify with."

Sexual improprieties -- along with other sins such as hypocrisy, lying and cheating -- are not the exclusive or predominant domain of Democrats, Republicans, Catholics, Protestants, whites, blacks, heteros or homos. Sinful behaviors are endemic to the entire human race, always and evermore, regardless of identity group labels.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/17 8:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I’m a lifelong Democrat and I’m talking about Democrats.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4817
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/17 9:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm on a tangent. I agree with much of what you say since you've gotten married.

You didn't say it this way, but I don't find Weinstein's sexual improprieties and hypocrisy causally related to his being a Democrat. Nor do I find Congressman Murphy's affair and abortion conflicts causally related to his being a Republican.

Their actions are causally related only to their being homo sapiens -- creatures of god who ignore him in favor of engorging their sex organs, appetites, bank accounts and reputations.

Sorry to have interrupted the marathon Jammer-Merc debates, an exemplar of the unified solidarity of Democrat political philosophy. He's too old and she's too young, but (thank the Lord of Light) they both oppose wight privilege.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/07/17 1:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I'm on a tangent. I agree with much of what you say since you've gotten married.

You didn't say it this way, but I don't find Weinstein's sexual improprieties and hypocrisy causally related to his being a Democrat. Nor do I find Congressman Murphy's affair and abortion conflicts causally related to his being a Republican.

Their actions are causally related only to their being homo sapiens -- creatures of god who ignore him in favor of engorging their sex organs, appetites, bank accounts and reputations.

Sorry to have interrupted the marathon Jammer-Merc debates, an exemplar of the unified solidarity of Democrat political philosophy. He's too old and she's too young, but (thank the Lord of Light) they both oppose wight privilege.


Weinstein is a huge donor to the Democratic Party. He is cozy with the superstars of our party, the Obamas and the Clintons.

The point that I came into this thread with many months ago was that the heart of the Democratic Party's richest donor base here in California is as morally rotten and reprehensible as anything that exists in this country. Yes, the right wing and conservatives have long attacked Hollywood. But lost in the day-to-day effort to do battle with the other side and deflect their attacks, the vast majority of those who call themselves Democrats in this country been left unfamiliar with the most powerful people in the political party in which they place their loyalties.

I say this as a Democrat. We have seen them as mostly benevolent, rich but generous donors who offset the amazing amount of money poured into the system on behalf of the other side by corporate America. That's not who they are, what they are about, and that's not what they're buying with their money. Above all, they are paying for what they have. To keep it all exactly the way it is.

President Kennedy was asked whether our system was balanced toward the elites. And President Kennedy was a brilliant fucking man. He said (something like) this. In that everything in the system is geared toward maintaining the status-quo, the difficulty and expense of getting elected that precludes most from participating, the difficulty of getting a bill through committee and on to the floor, let alone passed and signed into law, that yes, all of that leaves one with no other conclusion than that our system of government benefits the elites.

Above all else, the super rich of California wants to make sure that it is able to keep what it already has. Complete autonomy in its media business empire. Which allows EVERYONE to play Harvey Weinstein. And an ever replenishing supply of dirt poor immigrants coming across the border to work like dogs around them and their families. Grateful, loyal, silent, not making eye contact, etc.

What exactly was the most important creator and driver of wealth in the South before the Civil War? Yeah.

People here are going to knee-jerk and say, YOU'RE NOT COMPARING.... etc.

Yeah, on many levels I am not saying these two things are alike. But on the cost/effect basis I would give the advantage to modern California elites over the slaveowners of the old south.

You really don't know how wealthy these people are and how LITTLE in comparison the immigrant labor they depend on costs them. I'm talking to you, Democrats. They have truffle oil drizzled on their salads at $250 a pop. They buy baubles that look like a little girl's toy that attach to their purses for $1500 at Saks. The Barneys New York here is a big as a good sized hospital. So is the St. Johns. The Neeman Marcus is even bigger. Ferraris and brand new Bentley and Rolls SPORTS coupes are everywhere. lol.

Other than dilapidated tear-downs, there's not a house under 2M for sale right now on the entire Westside. And there never will be! A merely decent 1500 square foot house that needs work will cost you 2.3 million dollars. A nice house? 3-3.5 million. And we are STILL talking about the masses! We're not anywhere near the donors to the Democratic Party level.

When you a) don't have to do anything for yourself because you b) can pay someone what are pennies out of your pocket to do it all for you then c) think about what really means and why it is an impossible thought that anyone should interfere with it in any way.

Today, California became a sanctuary state! Note. Sanctuary cities have been around a long time, but the concept really became part of the modern political lexicon during the last administration when Obama's immigration enforcement process deported (I think) almost ten million Hispanic immigrants.

These people out here don't care of lax border security results in cheap labor spilling out into the rest of the country, where Americans DO scrounge and now must compete for everything from low level labor jobs to construction and even the attention of teachers in a failing public school system. They only care about the lushness of their lives and that nothing ever spoils what they have.

Because California, man. You all have no effing idea. There are less than a hundred thousand homes in each of the states of New York, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas. that are valued at over a million dollars.

In California that number is almost a million. Over 900K.

Think about how many homes here are worth close to a million. Think about how many are worth over 10 million, here compared to New York or Florida or Texas. Over 20 million. It's a sea of affluence.

There was a piece in the New York Times a few weeks or more back. What the Rich Don't Tell You. Go find it. It talks about this seemingly prevailing attitude among the well-to-do back east that has them tearing off the prices of things so their help doesn't see that they, for instance, paid $6 for a loaf of bread.

Shocked

So that article, and the comment section, was a window into the behavior of the affluent in places other than California. And I was STUNNED by what I read. And there attitudes were understandable. They sense real resentments coming from their help.

That's just not the way things are here in the nation's richest state. Here it is ALL about showing how much money you have. It's ALL about dominating the immediate world around you at every opportunity by exploiting YOUR wealth and power over others. And the help actually takes pride and security in the degree of opulence you have achieved. That's how it works in California. lol.

Anyway. I wrote a lot about this last year or even in 2015, I'm not sure. That was a brilliant fucking bit of expose if I don't say so myself. I illuminated something that the rest of the country has no idea of. People look at immigration and if they think of where it's going to at all they think to the fields as the cliche stereotypical migrant farm worker. Small potatoes, folks. Millions of affluent households with need of maid, grounds keeping, etc., almost exclusively paid under the table and off the books is the real employment driver of illegal immigration into California.

Howee asked for proof. Without the slightest delusion that Howee or anyone else will consider anything I provide as proof of anything, I'll do what I can.

LA Times: Malibu Becomes Sanctuary City in Solidarity with its Cooks, Garders, and Others

Quote:
The idea was inspired by one of the town’s many famous residents: actor Martin Sheen. In December, he grabbed the lectern during a City Council meeting and — as if conjuring his inner President Josiah Bartlet from “The West Wing” — urged the city to become a sanctuary city.

Like many sanctuary city resolutions, Malibu’s is largely symbolic. Backers said the move, which passed on a 3-2 council vote, is a chance for Malibu’s privileged to stand up for the city’s vulnerable population.

Malibu is about 92% white and one of L.A. County’s wealthiest cities. Everyone agrees the city has workers who are not authorized to be in the United States, and they tend to serve the food at upscale eateries, clean the beachside mansions, look after children and keep the landscaping looking lush.

Only about 6% of Malibu is Latino, according to the 2010 census.

But residents say a good chunk of the service workforce is Latino.

Lifelong Malibu resident Mikke Pierson, 57, a supporter of the resolution, said it’s hard to imagine a Malibu without the many immigrants who toil there.



Quote:
“Heck … we would be paralyzed and no one’s houses would be cleaned,” the former surf shop owner said.

“Our city depends on a Hispanic population to support our comfortable lifestyle,” Councilwoman Laura Rosenthal read. “Do we not owe them what comfort and protections that are possible in these challenging times?”


Owe them? Or need them? You decide folks. You'd actually have to live here to understand how ridiculous is the thought that any of these affluent people in California would feel they OWE anyone, any thing. Let alone the Mexican help.

And this is JUST Malibu. That guy there is just a former small business owners who clumsily allowed himself to be quoted in a moment of too much candor. Malibu is a sliver. Just a tiny sliver. But obviously they feel arrogantly secure enough to speak the truth.

And that's what it's all about. Martin Sheen and shit. lol.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/07/17 1:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I'm on a tangent. I agree with much of what you say since you've gotten married.


I should have married you.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/07/17 1:18 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I meant to say truffles on their pasta. Rolling Eyes


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19586



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/07/17 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NYTimes: Harvey Weinstein's Media Enablers

Quote:
Let’s hope that those in the know did not include members of the Los Angeles Press Club, which this year gave Mr. Weinstein its “Truthteller Award,” calling him an example of “integrity and social responsibility,” along with Jay-Z.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin