2020 Presidential Election

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Martina

One? One? Google for God's sake. Seriously???? And this post got thanked by sane people???

How about her strong support of the Iraq War?

.

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics.

yes, etc etc etc...let's depreciate each other and listen to the clapping from fox news fans...seriously?...can we all get on the same page and just agree to disagree?? I repped her comment becuz i get super bummed listening to the whining of bernie burners and any one else getting off on the "lock her up" chant.. can we just move on with 2019 issues and get over a woman running for president?? O.m.g. get over 2016!!!!@@

[charley]

Originally Posted by Martina

One? One? Google for God's sake. Seriously???? And this post got thanked by sane people???
...

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics.

Well, umm.... I don't equate lack of knowledge (information) about a candidate and sanity. They have nothing to do with each other.

Now, thank you for providing all this knowledge about Hillary, which I confess, I really didn't know much about. As I have said more than once, I was so busy prior to retirement, I was not prepared to understand how Trump won (how Hillary lost). It's all been a learning curve of information and subsequent understanding. So again, thank you.

Insofar as winners go, I remember seeing on TV a woman who had voted for Trump say that she had held her nose at the thought of voting for Trump, but did it anyways. Yeah, I think there are Republicans who "know" that Trump was/is an a**hole. Personally, I think most politicians are corrupt, even evil. Ya know, as Lord Acton, expressed in an opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

So, one is usually faced with a dilemma when placing anyone in a powerful position. Insofar as the States are concerned, I have understood one thing, that this powerful person is also in charge of appointing judges, besides legislation.

Since Trump has been in power, he has appointed the following:

As of March 7, 2019, the United States Senate has confirmed 89 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 34 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 53 judges for the United States District Courts, and 0 judges for the United States Court of International Trade - for a total of 178 judges appointed by a Republican government. Personally, I don't believe at all as the Chief Justice made a statement to the effect that they are impartial - rubbish!

There are currently 60 nominations to Article III courts awaiting Senate action, including 8 for the Courts of Appeals, 50 for the District Courts, and 2 for the Court of International Trade.

So, that is where the power lies.

As you are all aware, Manafort got a lesser sentence than even his defense attorney suggested, and this by a Reagan-appointed judge.

So even if Hillary smelt, the point of the election for those who did not support Trump, was to ensure that the Dems won.

[Martina]

Yes, Biden is a mainstream Dem who supported most of this stuff. However, he has been a consistent supporter of unions, whose destruction has been the linchpin of neo-liberal domestic politics. Reviving unions is also they key to returning this country to someplace workers can afford to live. The Clinton's undermined unions at every turn and from the beginning.

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

...in the interest of keeping it 2020 and not relitigating 2016:

[Martina]

Well the election is over and Trump won, thanks to mainstream Dems having their heads lodged firmly up their asses.

The point of that little thing I posted is that almost any Democratic candidate is likely to do much better this time around. It was semi-encouraging.

I will say that those who fear the left have less to worry about this time. I have read that the Bernie voters who went Trump are a group that no longer exists in terms of voting behavior. Duh.

I voted Clinton. But fuck every fucking asshole who tells third party voters not to vote their conscience after fielding a candidate like Clinton. She would have won if her campaign had not been so smug, stupid, and incompetent. I will vote for any Democrat who is nominated as I imagine most Trump haters will.

But those Clintonites excoriating third party voters then and now don't have a leg to stand on. Your horrendous candidate lost. And not because of Berners. Because she lost Obama voters and urban African Americans and because she didn't reach the suburban white women she spent so much money courting. Not a fucking thing to do with voters who never have and never will vote Dem. They honestly never expected to get them, so those post game arguments are ignorant. What she figured wrong was the base and how fucking sick to death they are of mainstream Dems not having a clue about their lives and priorities.

Listen, I have hated with a burning hot hatred both Clinton's for two decades. I hate Bill more. I am not sexist, and I don't feel one morsel of regret for hating most of what she stands for. She is a power hungry politician who doesn't give a fuck about poor and working people. She never has.

Yes, Biden has stood for most of the same. But the support for unions is redeeming. I believe him re that. He's far from my first choice. Far. But I will vote for him with much less angst than I brought to voting for Clinton.

[Martina]

All this stuff about her being a woman candidate. I don't give a damn what gender a candidate is. I never have. The Brits had Margaret Thatcher. Gender doesn't guarantee shit. I won't feel a thing when the first woman candidate wins the Presidency. I get it that is meaningful. But it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't care. Don't give a tinkers damn. I cared when Obama was elected. I thought I'd never see the day. And I will care when a gay person is elected.

There are lots of women in power. I wouldn't dream of extending them the benefit of the doubt because of gender. Women are the backbone of the Republican Party. My family is full of right wing women. I don't understand why every post mentions it. One was like if you want a perfect woman, dig up . . . Or a perfect man, dig up. Who the fuck thinks that way? I guess lots of people. I just don't care.

It's true that even decent men have blind spots. And no apologies for that. But being a decent human being, a brave and strong candidate, and standing up for the American people -- I kind of put that first.

[Martina]

They scapegoated poor people and people of color to get Bill reelected. I think that's evil.

There's a great book called Listen, Liberal, which explains the neo-liberal anti-worker politics that the Clinton's epitomized. It's not about being a yuppie yourself. It's about supporting the professional classes at the expense of workers while blaming the workers for their losses. The fact is that Clinton politics and their consequences destroyed the middle class in ways Reagan could never have envisaged.

It's a truly evil politics, capitalist to the core. Heartless and cynical.

[Martina]

To add to my list, remember NAFTA???????

Republicans wrote that in order to destroy labor unions. It could not pass because Democrats opposed it. Then Clinton was elected, and his first big accomplishment was to pass NAFTA. He wasn't the first Dem to undermine unions, but he took it to a new level. And the Democrats never looked back. They have helped engineer inequality for the sake of the professional elites and corporate interests. And then they blame working people, saying oh you should have gone to Harvard or Yale like I did.

That Listen, Liberal book by Thomas Frank takes you through the Democrats' abandonment of the working class legislation by legislation. No one, no one is more culpable than the Clintons. Boarded up main streets are their legacy. Trump is their legacy.

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by Martina

To add to my list, remember NAFTA???????

Republicans wrote that in order to destroy labor unions. It could not pass because Democrats opposed it. Then Clinton was elected, and his first big accomplishment was to pass NAFTA. He wasn't the first Dem to undermine unions, but he took it to a new level. And the Democrats never looked back. They have helped engineer inequality for the sake of the professional elites and corporate interests. And then they blame working people, saying oh you should have gone to Harvard or Yale like I did.

That Listen, Liberal book by Thomas Frank takes you through the Democrats' abandonment of the working class legislation by legislation. No one, no one is more culpable than the Clintons. Boarded up main streets are their legacy. Trump is their legacy.

I do not argue your point about the book by Thomas Frank, Martina, but I think Thomas Frank, once a 'college republican', wrote a more telling book concerning conservative think tank politics: The Wrecking Crew: How The Conservatives Rule (August 2008). I read this particular book of his because he's got a bone to pick with GOP cronies who basically steered the process for NAFTA. As I recall, right after three horrid terms of Reagonomics, Bush SR was the one to instigate back room talks about NAFTA. His son Bush JR was the one who tried to push it through, but thankfully the Democratic Party denounced it, and refused to vote it in. THEN, on the tails of Bush Jr leaving office, it was Clinton who supposedly got it pushed through, but under the premise of 'bi-partisan' dialogue between two political parties: the notorious GOP; and the Democratic Party led by the Clinton voter base. Like I said, I could be wrong, but this is how I recall the spiraling NAFTA issue. I even excerpted some of The Wrecking Crew book by Thomas, in my senior capstone Labor paper for my bachelor of science degree, which highlighted key elements of NAFTA during the year Obama was elected President of the US, back in 2008.

I am personally OVER the 'blame game' of who did what, etc.

To be thread compliant, I still have not any good idea on who will ultimately lead the Democratic Party out of the depths of GOP hell. There are quite a few contenders in the field, it's early yet, I keep hoping that Texas Democrat Julian Castro will make a stronger showing than what he did a few weeks ago; but I guess since he sits on the Senate Intelligence committee (right?), he and several others have their hands full, with all the connecting-the-dots issues pertaining to the number one psycho sitting in the WH.

I don't know what the next few months will bring, but I think the democratic party has already sounded the "All Hands On Deck" alarm bells and it's going to take every bit of concentration and effort to oust this proverbial cancer from the WH and from the ranks of the GOP.

Again, I am putting all my weight behind a candidate who has the best interests of our country in terms of Economy, Labor, National Debt etc, their stand on reigning in the white collar crimes committed by big super-pac behaviors of Wall Street and the Banking industry, and bigger yet, I want a president who will back up Voting Rights issues and a contender who brings on board a team of vital political senators and representatives who can make sure voting rights, women's issues and affordable healthcare is available to everyone in our country. To me, after watching weeks of news about how the current WH resident and his team of crooked politicians and Supreme Court justices are upending and defanging time immemorial laws on the books that protect citizens of all stripes and marginalized members of society too, I seriously hope the general public is paying attention to every single detail presented via media outlets because each day we see a variety of a certain 'truth' which is hardly truthful at all, IMHO.

<<<<<<<~~~ I'm part of the democracy that abides by the mindset of:

Of The People, By The People, and For The People (that's what democracy is to me).

[Martina]

Generations devastated by mass incarceration is their legacy. That alone is an evil whose dimensions can't ever be grasped. And as a previous post pointed out, Biden played a role in that.

An irony is that while Bill Clinton kinda sorta regrets that, Biden was still playing it up as an accomplishment until very recently. Another irony is the recent reforms were facilitated by Jared Kushner.

[Martina]

That's exactly what I said re NAFTA, Katzchen. Republicans wrote it, and Dems blocked it till Clinton. What do you mean Bush Jr.? Do you mean W.? Clinton preceeded him in office. W. wasn't even Governor in 1993. I don't understand.

And Listen, Liberal isn't ABOUT Conservatives. It's about the Dems. So saying Thos Frank wrote a better book about Conservatives is kinda not the point.

It's also not about the blame game. It's about seeing what the hell has happened to this country and what we can do to help ourselves. It's not all about opposing Trump although we must. It's about charting a course that will address inequality.

[Kätzchen]

You might want to re-read my post. I know Thomas is an academic. I brought up his OTHER book, because his other book, The Wrecking Crew, makes salient points about how conservatives rule (hint: it's even in the Wrecking Crew title).

I also said that I did not belabor your point about Thomas' other book because I know he is an relevant academic writer, hence why I used his other book as cited in my academic work.

We have no argument between us. Except possibly this one: I am over badgering of the Clinton clan. I've stated that in many posts I have made over the past few years, and as recently in Anya's Presidential thread. And now, here. AND, I never said Thomas had GOP cronies. I said: "...he's got a bone to pick with GOP Cronies..." (see my prior post, please).



In the future, I will not be engaging with you on the boards. Thanks for the prior dialogue. Take good care and best wishes to you, Martina.

Best,
K.

[Martina]

People might be confused. I deleted a post of mine before I saw this response. I did reread your post, Katzchen, and realized you may have just not been responding directly to my points, which is fine, but it confused me. It doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Kätzchen

You might want to re-read my post. I know Thomas is an academic. I brought up his OTHER book, because his other book, The Wrecking Crew, makes salient points about how conservatives rule (hint: it's even in the Wrecking Crew title).

I also said that I did not belabor your point about Thomas' other book because I know he is an relevant academic writer, hence why I used his other book as cited in my academic work.

We have no argument between us. Except possibly this one: I am over badgering of the Clinton clan. I've stated that in many posts I have made over the past few years, and as recently in Anya's Presidential thread. And now, here. AND, I never said Thomas had GOP cronies. I said: "...he's got a bone to pick with GOP Cronies..." (see my prior post, please).



In the future, I will not be engaging with you on the boards. Thanks for the prior dialogue. Take good care and best wishes to you, Martina.

Best,
K.

[C0LLETTE]

Nothing personal and no angry vitriol included about your ability to understand anything at all. However I suggest you read my post again without the name "Hillary" setting off blinding fireworks.

"Please give me one good reason why Hillary was the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time. When did that happen? Who made that happen? You all really believe there was ever only one nominee less Satanic than Hillary?"

The point was: Was she really " ... the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time."

You draw a long list of policies you disagree with. Fine. My point is that I'm not sure any of those were the major reasons she was "disliked". I suspect that most of the folks ( except political junkies and cognizanti ) couldn't name 2 of her policies . They just didn't like her: her tone, her attitude, the sound of her voice, her pantsuits...and then they got the mocking blasts from the Right ( and the Left ) that confirmed their dislike.

No question that she has lots of faults but maybe you should Google "sexism".

[C0LLETTE]

Martina:
" You don't like left wing populists? Who the fuck cares? Bernie had to give an extra speech in Iowa today because there were so many people who couldn't get into the venue. There are lots of us, and we don't give a good God damn what you think.

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics."

If you believe the latter, though I'm not sure on what basis, perhaps you should not read my posts or respond to them. That way no one feels attacked or insulted.

[Martina]

I think a lot of Americans know the Dems are owned by corporate interests. Someone said the Republicans serve the top 1% and the Democrats serve the top 10%. Most Conservative Americans have been bamboozled by the Republicans. But the rest of us are not idiots. We know the Dems don't represent our interests.

Your original post assumed people were served issues like Benghazi and the emails and cared about that. No one outside of the Fox News bubble gave a shit about that.

If people did respond to her personality, it was because they picked up on the hypocrisy so in evidence. And the arrogance.

[Martina]

This started with you quoting me and name-calling. Maybe you should take your own advice. I sure as hell would not be debating you without that post where you quoted me and called people who disliked Hillary "cowering wimps"

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Martina:
" You don't like left wing populists? Who the fuck cares? Bernie had to give an extra speech in Iowa today because there were so many people who couldn't get into the venue. There are lots of us, and we don't give a good God damn what you think.

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics."

If you believe the latter, though I'm not sure on what basis, perhaps you should not read my posts or respond to them. That way no one feels attacked or insulted.

[C0LLETTE]

You win. Good-bye.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Okay.

I have had it with saint fucking Bernie.

In 2016 huge focus was placed by journalists on Clinton’s past, and focused on the negative only. Clinton was considered the front runner, so Sanders did not get the same focus regarding his voting record and past actions.

Sanders voted 5x against the Brady Bill, he voted to allow firearms on Amtrak trains, he voted to create what is now the “Charleston loophole” that allowed Dylan Roof to purchase the weapon that killed 9 people in a church. He voted repeatedly against holding gun manufacturers liable for the destruction caused by their products; which is strange, because he supported similar protection measures for other industries like food manufacturers.

He relentlessly attacked Clinton over the 1994 Crime Bill, which is partially responsible for the mass incarceration crisis facing our country, when she wasn’t even in Congress at the time, and HE VOTED FOR IT. He voted to tank Senator Ted Kennedy’s compressive immigration bill in 2007.

Until 2009 he said the states should decide same-sex marriage, in the 70’s he wrote a disturbing essay about rape fantasies, there was sexual harassment in his campaign by staffers, which were payed off because he was “too busy” to handle it himself.

I want a President who is not an old white man with a past history that is going to be trashed by the repugnants, while the freaking Democrats stand about wringing their hands and cry “ but Trump is BAD!

I can see Trump being President again, because we cannot find some middle ground, and his Trolls love him.

God bless America

[Martina]

Sanders voted against the 1994 crime bill as a compromise. He and others liberals traded their votes for the Violence Against Women Act and a ten year ban on assault rifles, which were included in it. He fully understood the implications of the bill and before and after voted against others like it. He's a politician. He has made deals.

And it was around the crime bill that Hillary herself introduced use of the term super-predator, based on discredited research, a term used as a weapon against African American youth. She did that to pander to racist white centrists, something the Clintons specialized in.

Bernie Sanders brought the subject of economic inequality into the public discourse when nobody would even use the word. It's an amazing gift, a huge accomplishment in and of itself. He has real integrity and has been consistently pro- worker. There is no one like him in the Senate. No one with his years of experience who has fought for working people. As far as I am concerned, he is a saint, the nearest thing we have in American politics anyway.

I will add that Gillibrand has received an A rating from the NRA, and Bernie has never gotten above a C-. His last pro-gun vote was 2009. So.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Martina

Sanders voted against the 1994 crime bill as a compromise. He and others liberals traded their votes for the Violence Against Women Act and a ten year ban on assault rifles, which were included in it. He fully understood the implications of the bill and before and after voted against others like it. He's a politician. He has made deals.

And it was around the crime bill that Hillary herself introduced use of the term super-predator, based on discredited research, a term used as a weapon against African American youth. She did that to pander to the racist white centrists, something the Clintons specialized in.

Bernie Sanders brought the subject of economic inequality into the public discourse when nobody would even use the word. It's an amazing gift, a huge accomplishment in and of itself. He has real integrity and has been consistently pro- worker. There is no one like him in the Senate. No one with his years of experience who has fought for working people. As far as I am concerned, he is a saint, the nearest thing we have in American politics anyway.

You missed my point.

Bernie voted FOR the Crime Bill. Hillary was raked over the coals for the Crime Bill by BERNIE when she wasn’t even in Congress!!