US Elections 2016

[niblick1874]

No one, I gave you the link.

 

Note that the only one in common with Cruz is GS.

 

Clinton was Senator from New York, where Wall St. is, and I'm supposed to be shocked that Wall St. banks are some of her biggest contributors?  Again, you think you're holding some deep dark secret that everyone is ignoring, and again it's something that's so commonly known in the US that it's not worth discussing other than in passing.

 

The Dunning-Kruger is strong with these two...

Here we go again. Everyone knows about it, it's all corrupt but nowhere near as bad as you are making out. What? Are you really trying to tell us that the government will dictate to Clintons backers and not the other way round? Is politics a hobby of yours, because if it is, you are looking at the river while not knowing about the sea.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Himself I guess. Not worth it man. He'll confuse these corps as being under rather than above governments, mere backers of an election drive (LOL). He believes in politics yet he believes all politicians lie and that's just what happens... That's an oxymoron right there. Another is believing in democracy amidst the scene of governments being under corporations. Call that what it is or forever haud yer wheest.

 

 

Look, if you really want to get into it (and see how long a post I can gin up when I really set my mind to it) I could start with an introduction to my dissertation research which incorporates regime theory, planning practice, and democracy, specifically how it relates to the SNP's promotion of the community right to buy and crofters rights.  We could then talk about how various conceptions of capital, social capital, and political economy are challenging the modernist division of politics and economics.

 

Then we could turn and apply that to how regime theory works in the US, and how the Citizens United decision has ushered in a mad grab for campaign funds and a layering of SuperPACs on top of each other.  Then we could get into how activist groups have responded to the Citizen United decision (and the growing influence of corporate donations), particularly with the varied responses of groups like Occupy Wall St. and spin-offs like Occupy Sandy, Moral Mondays, the implosion of the US Green Party, and so forth.  We could further look at how US municipal and state-level politics diverge at points, with large cities (like Seattle) and some states (like Minnesota) following strong interventionist models of governance, while in places like North Carolina the Art Pope empire of the Civitas Institute/John Locke Foundation/associated organizations bankrolled the conservative takeover of state government, which has led to the current HB2 protest and boycotts that are making national headlines.  And then we could move on to the progressive response to that takeover.

 

But I fear all of that would require understanding nuance, which the third sentence of your above post clearly shows is confusing and distressing to you.

 

So I'll leave you with this to think about -- who benefits most from you being convinced that democratic activism is hopeless and there's nothing you can do to effect meaningful change?

 

And as I'm writing this JKB tells me you've posted again, so. . . 

 

I like you generally as a poster but as you've deliberately missed the point and believe in your dream a little too much, then have went into stereotypical attack mode, I don't think we can be friends 

 

It would help if you would stop replacing what I write with your own straw-men, and if you would use the combined attitudes of smug condescension and know-nothingism a bit less.  You and niblick want to keep making sweeping generalizations that evaporate when called upon to engage with evidence, which are really nothing than false appeals to cynicism as wisdom.

 

But to be a bit more specific, the attitudes of, "both established parties are the same, voting just encourages them, democracy is a myth, etc." aren't just harmless banter.  They actually can be quite damaging.

 

In 2000, after the new Democrats led by Bill Clinton used tactics of limited accommodation of neoliberalism mixed with a partial, chastened defense of Keynesian policy, had generally managed to halt the rampage of Reaganism through the country and win back a few gains for social programs, Al Gore represented a deeply flawed, southern moderate, but committed environmentalist candidate for President.  Because of what he felt was a betrayal by the Democrats, Ralph Nader won the nomination for the Green Party an campaigned on the tagline, "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans!"

 

To be fair to ol' Ralph, the Democrats had moved in a more conservative direction for 12 years, and the party that existed in the 1970s was no longer there.  However, what he failed to realize was how toxic the GOP had become.  So, instead of getting a fairly boring, cautious, managerial Democratic presidency with an obsession with climate change, we got government by the Club for Growth, which included the Iraq Invasion, massive expansion of fossil fuel mining, gutting of the limited carbon protections the Clinton administration had put in place, a dramatic fall in fuel economy in new car purchases across the US as regulations were loosened, gutting of public transportation projects, and damn near another war with Iran.  And all it would have taken to avoid all of that was Nader saying, "I'm committed to building the Green Party, but let's do that in the deep 'red' and 'blue' states.  My Florida supporters should vote for Gore."  And we never would have had the GWB admin.

 

So this is what pisses me off -- you say Clinton is in the pocket of Wall St.  Well, duh, there's some great biographical stuff published about the Clinton administration in 1993 being annoyed at how much they were having to kowtow to investment bankers, but eventually doing it at the price of holding off another round of Reaganism.  But to take the next step, and say that just because the Democrats are compromised, flawed, scared, utterly reliant on big donors, and so forth, does not mean that they are somehow equivalent to, say, Ted Cruz, who dances cheek to cheek with the Club for Growth and their goal of basically complete privatization of all government functions and the promotion of the interests of those with the highest incomes.  And when you say that, you empower them.

 

And yes, that pisses me the **** off, and I'm going to be mean to you when you say it.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Ugly American

[Stephen Muddie]

 

And yes, that pisses me the **** off, and I'm going to be mean to you when you say it.

Mate, it's not really my country that are going round the world obliterating any non-conformists to the debt paradigm.

 

I don't care how mean you are, you big meany. 80% of the world know all about you and hate your guts. I care even less about your sham election than I do ours (and I mean the GE, not the diversionary d&c regional diddy parliament - to be clear)

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Mate, it's not really my country that are going round the world obliterating any non-conformists to the debt paradigm.

 

I don't care how mean you are, you big meany. 80% of the world know all about you and hate your guts. I care even less about your sham election than I do ours (and I mean the GE, not the diversionary d&c regional diddy parliament - to be clear)

 

 No, your country went around the world and helpfully subjected a giant portion of it to British imperialism and colonialism.  After you'd extracted sufficient wealth, you left it to us to stride forward and pick up the mantle of colonialism, which we did with aplomb.  In taking stock of all of the awful things we've done to this world, it's fair to say, would have been impossible without the helpful precedents of Spain, Portugal, France, but most of all, dear old Britain.  (Did Graeber neglect to mention that?)  So cheers for that.  

[niblick1874]

Look, if you really want to get into it (and see how long a post I can gin up when I really set my mind to it) I could start with an introduction to my dissertation research which incorporates regime theory, planning practice, and democracy, specifically how it relates to the SNP's promotion of the community right to buy and crofters rights.  We could then talk about how various conceptions of capital, social capital, and political economy are challenging the modernist division of politics and economics.

 

Then we could turn and apply that to how regime theory works in the US, and how the Citizens United decision has ushered in a mad grab for campaign funds and a layering of SuperPACs on top of each other.  Then we could get into how activist groups have responded to the Citizen United decision (and the growing influence of corporate donations), particularly with the varied responses of groups like Occupy Wall St. and spin-offs like Occupy Sandy, Moral Mondays, the implosion of the US Green Party, and so forth.  We could further look at how US municipal and state-level politics diverge at points, with large cities (like Seattle) and some states (like Minnesota) following strong interventionist models of governance, while in places like North Carolina the Art Pope empire of the Civitas Institute/John Locke Foundation/associated organizations bankrolled the conservative takeover of state government, which has led to the current HB2 protest and boycotts that are making national headlines.  And then we could move on to the progressive response to that takeover.

 

But I fear all of that would require understanding nuance, which the third sentence of your above post clearly shows is confusing and distressing to you.

 

So I'll leave you with this to think about -- who benefits most from you being convinced that democratic activism is hopeless and there's nothing you can do to effect meaningful change?

 

And as I'm writing this JKB tells me you've posted again, so. . . 

 

 

It would help if you would stop replacing what I write with your own straw-men, and if you would use the combined attitudes of smug condescension and know-nothingism a bit less.  You and niblick want to keep making sweeping generalizations that evaporate when called upon to engage with evidence, which are really nothing than false appeals to cynicism as wisdom.

 

But to be a bit more specific, the attitudes of, "both established parties are the same, voting just encourages them, democracy is a myth, etc." aren't just harmless banter.  They actually can be quite damaging.

 

In 2000, after the new Democrats led by Bill Clinton used tactics of limited accommodation of neoliberalism mixed with a partial, chastened defense of Keynesian policy, had generally managed to halt the rampage of Reaganism through the country and win back a few gains for social programs, Al Gore represented a deeply flawed, southern moderate, but committed environmentalist candidate for President.  Because of what he felt was a betrayal by the Democrats, Ralph Nader won the nomination for the Green Party an campaigned on the tagline, "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans!"

 

To be fair to ol' Ralph, the Democrats had moved in a more conservative direction for 12 years, and the party that existed in the 1970s was no longer there.  However, what he failed to realize was how toxic the GOP had become.  So, instead of getting a fairly boring, cautious, managerial Democratic presidency with an obsession with climate change, we got government by the Club for Growth, which included the Iraq Invasion, massive expansion of fossil fuel mining, gutting of the limited carbon protections the Clinton administration had put in place, a dramatic fall in fuel economy in new car purchases across the US as regulations were loosened, gutting of public transportation projects, and damn near another war with Iran.  And all it would have taken to avoid all of that was Nader saying, "I'm committed to building the Green Party, but let's do that in the deep 'red' and 'blue' states.  My Florida supporters should vote for Gore."  And we never would have had the GWB admin.

 

So this is what pisses me off -- you say Clinton is in the pocket of Wall St.  Well, duh, there's some great biographical stuff published about the Clinton administration in 1993 being annoyed at how much they were having to kowtow to investment bankers, but eventually doing it at the price of holding off another round of Reaganism.  But to take the next step, and say that just because the Democrats are compromised, flawed, scared, utterly reliant on big donors, and so forth, does not mean that they are somehow equivalent to, say, Ted Cruz, who dances cheek to cheek with the Club for Growth and their goal of basically complete privatization of all government functions and the promotion of the interests of those with the highest incomes.  And when you say that, you empower them.

 

And yes, that pisses me the **** off, and I'm going to be mean to you when you say it.

Your last paragraph makes the rest of that completely irrelevant, which is the point that has been put to you on numerous occasions. They are reliant on those backers because without their approval (not monetary backing) they would not get close to the Whitehouse. Guess how they get their approval. Are you saying that they will not have whoever wins in their back pocket even after your last paragraph? You are saying what I am but refuse to come to the next common sense conclusion. It is corrupt to the core from the bottom to the very top, and I mean the very top.

 

Again, who are you trying to fool here?  

[Stephen Muddie]

Your last paragraph makes the rest of that completely irrelevant, which is the point that has been put to you on numerous occasions. They are reliant on those backers because without their approval (not monetary backing) they would not get close to the Whitehouse. Guess how they get their approval. Are you saying that they will not have whoever wins in their back pocket even after your last paragraph? You are saying what I am but refuse to come to the next common sense conclusion. It is corrupt to the core from the bottom to the very top, and I mean the very top.

 

Again, who are you trying to fool here?  

Just leave him man. He knows he knows he knows and he knows a whole lot more than that. He could go into (fake) this and (fake) that. It's cool. I just wanted him to admit that it's fascism, but he didn't. He knows it is though, and if he doesn't know that, all his "I know"s are looking like bullshit. And regardless of what I do or don't know about the sub-plots, I can smell bullshit from 2,300 miles away. I suppose keeping in regular contact with conscious Americans (writers, musicians, broadcasters and the like) helps me to avoid the telly etc

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[Stephen Muddie]

 No, your country went around the world and helpfully subjected a giant portion of it to British imperialism and colonialism.  After you'd extracted sufficient wealth, you left it to us to stride forward and pick up the mantle of colonialism, which we did with aplomb.  In taking stock of all of the awful things we've done to this world, it's fair to say, would have been impossible without the helpful precedents of Spain, Portugal, France, but most of all, dear old Britain.  (Did Graeber neglect to mention that?)  So cheers for that.

You are a willy-waver my friend. I keep mine for duh ladies, bit whatsit mate...

 

Over 50 countries since WW2 1000 military bases Monsanto War on Terror Heroin production up 100% every year in Afghan for 13 years running PIC (most incarcerated on the globe) KERCHING - freedumbsville next stop MIC 20 trillion dollars in debt That's all I really need to say. Except it isn't, is it? It's still too simple?

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[Watt-Zeefuik]

You are a willy-waver my friend. I keep mine for duh ladies, bit whatsit mate...

 

Over 50 countries since WW2 1000 military bases Monsanto War on Terror Heroin production up 100% every year in Afghan for 13 years running PIC MIC That's all I really need to say. Except it isn't, is it? It's still too simple?

Again with the straw men.  What in my posts has given you the remotest implication that I'm happy with US foreign policy as it stands?

[niblick1874]

 No, your country went around the world and helpfully subjected a giant portion of it to British imperialism and colonialism.  After you'd extracted sufficient wealth, you left it to us to stride forward and pick up the mantle of colonialism, which we did with aplomb.  In taking stock of all of the awful things we've done to this world, it's fair to say, would have been impossible without the helpful precedents of Spain, Portugal, France, but most of all, dear old Britain.  (Did Graeber neglect to mention that?)  So cheers for that.

But they did it first. A big boy did it and ran away, they started it.

 

Is that how to fix it? Why sink to that? Do you think what you typed there will hide or distract from what is going on now, or does it make it ok because it has been done before? Then it was this country and that country, now it's the world. Pock your head above the parapet and have a look.   

[Stephen Muddie]

Again with the straw men.  What in my posts has given you the remotest implication that I'm happy with US foreign policy as it stands?

Reverse fallacy argument going on (thats in my own words - try it). Not once did I invite you to attack Britain's past with anything I've said. I'm inclined to join in with colonialist bashing TBF. There's more than just foreign policy there UA. You knew that though. ps the quote you replied to was edited, not in time though. A bit more on the Motherland there.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Your last paragraph makes the rest of that completely irrelevant, which is the point that has been put to you on numerous occasions. They are reliant on those backers because without their approval (not monetary backing) they would not get close to the Whitehouse. Guess how they get their approval. Are you saying that they will not have whoever wins in their back pocket even after your last paragraph? You are saying what I am but refuse to come to the next common sense conclusion. It is corrupt to the core from the bottom to the very top, and I mean the very top.

 

Again, who are you trying to fool here?  

 

It matters whom you allow to be your backer.  I don't know what else to tell you than that the state and the governments that comprise its formal portion is a fundamentally constructed, contingent, contested phenomenon, neither an all-powerful entity nor a hapless stooge of a particular puppetmaster.

 

Note that all of those backers have conflicting interests, and the politician and the bureaucrat are the ones who mediate the dispute over state resources.

 

But that doesn't make for very good internet argument fodder, now does it?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Reverse fallacy argument going on (thats in my own words - try it). Not once did I invite you to attack Britain's past with anything I've said. There's more than just foreign policy there UA. You knew that though.

You said "it's not my country being a meanie" (roughly).  I loled.  The notion that any UK citizen should, by virtue of foreign policy rectitude, feel any superiority over any other country is laughable.  In terms of international malefactors, the European colonial powers got usurped by the US and the USSR in the 20th century, but that hardly excuses the actual establishment of colonialism that the US simply inherited and exploited.

[Stephen Muddie]

You said "it's not my country being a meanie" (roughly).  I loled.  The notion that any UK citizen should, by virtue of foreign policy rectitude, feel any superiority over any other country is laughable.  In terms of international malefactors, the European colonial powers got usurped by the US and the USSR in the 20th century, but that hardly excuses the actual establishment of colonialism that the US simply inherited and exploited.

Ok, well I think "being a meanie" is just more than a little disingenuous when you are talking about ending the lives of millions of people. I'm a bit freaked out actually. To you this is a my country vs yours thing now... It's like all aspects of this nightmare now. If I criticise you am I saying I'M great? If I criticise myself am I saying YOU'RE great? No and No. Do not think for a second I am not ashamed of UK involvement in this bullshit. But this thread is not about UK, it's about USA

 

Going to have to leave this thread here. **** history -go start a thread on that - I'm talking about now, today. you're even using the wrong terminology. It's not colonialism. It's global fascism. I'm disappointed that you're going on about colonialism (in the first place it's disappointing that you're deflecting away from the definition of fascism and Current Homeland & Foreign policies to this end, but pretty normal) without first thinking of the definition of that... In a metaphorical way it could be called that, fine. If I had to describe it, I'd stick with global fascism allied perhaps with financial imperialism. It's not like the old days where you invade countries and call them your name. It's more you destabilise, bomb, install puppet regimes, sponsor threats etc. Then again it's not America anyway, least not as we know it cap'n. I think nationalism is the worst love a man could ever have. No country is loyal to you, a human being on limited time.

 

I've got your type fully sussed out. EVERYTHING is about superiority/inferiority and nothing to with factual discussion. Only you can tell me why I'm saying "here is better" by saying "look at that mess over there". Unbelievable, yet very, very normal.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[JamboX2]

You said "it's not my country being a meanie" (roughly). I loled. The notion that any UK citizen should, by virtue of foreign policy rectitude, feel any superiority over any other country is laughable. In terms of international malefactors, the European colonial powers got usurped by the US and the USSR in the 20th century, but that hardly excuses the actual establishment of colonialism that the US simply inherited and exploited.

America didn't have a choice. By 1945 the European powers were exhausted. Germany was shattered. France on life support and Britain was a nation that was struggling to come to terms with having become a second rate power over night which was bankrupt and exhausted by depression and a 6 year global war.

 

In those conditions the European powers had to give up their empires. Reluctantly and slowly I grant you but the British effectively left India due to costs, left Palestine and abandoned Greece all in the late 1940s because she was nackered.

 

In that vacuum the UN proved itself too weak between the differing aims of the UNSC and so the USA had to step in. A nation that was arguably world war twos only winner.

 

America had to take on the global leadership role and run with it. If they hadn't then I dare not think where we'd be now.

 

However, in time that morphed into the current assumptions of power.

[niblick1874]

Again with the straw men.  What in my posts has given you the remotest implication that I'm happy with US foreign policy as it stands?

Clinton had nothing to do with foreign policy did she? Did she? Or was it them big bad globalists again telling her what to do?  

[Stephen Muddie]

Clinton had nothing to do with foreign policy did she? Did she? Or was it them big bad globalists again telling her what to do?  

She is a big player in what most of the world eat. That's those who haven't chased them out at virtual gunpoint right enough

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

Is someone suggesting that America likes to play policeman to the world?

 

Oh yes, this one did...

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_2x3JWWzvY

[Stephen Muddie]

[Stephen Muddie]

You've actually succeeded in bothering me more than any KBer has today (ie. not at all) just by posting that AO/Vietnam video KOTCC (just noticed your sig - truth)

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Okay, I need to get back to work and quit writing so much here, so I'm gonna try to do some quick hits here.
 
First off -- upon reflection, I did engage in a bit of academic dick-swinging above, and I regret that.  I was trying to get across the point that I think democratization is a complicated thing and I'm not ascribing some magical quality to it.  But it came out pedantic.  My apologies. 
 
Now.
 

Ok, well I think "being a meanie" is just more than a little disingenuous when you are talking about ending the lives of millions of people. I'm a bit freaked out actually. To you this is a my country vs yours thing now... It's like all aspects of this nightmare now. If I criticise you am I saying I'M great? If I criticise myself am I saying YOU'RE great? No and No. Do not think for a second I am not ashamed of UK involvement in this bullshit. But this thread is not about UK, it's about USA

 
Well, that is exactly the point I was trying to make, and I frankly don't think it was terribly unclear.  The USA is to blame for an awful lot of things that need correcting, and that's what we're on about here.  This election is an important part of that but nowhere near sufficient in corralling US imperialist impulses.  All that said, it was a one-off comment simply lampooning your "it's not my country . . . " comment, which you are now arguing against.  So I'll leave it that once you've stopped looking for insult material we appear to agree on this matter, and move on.
 

Going to have to leave this thread here. **** history -go start a thread on that - I'm talking about now, today. you're even using the wrong terminology. It's not colonialism. It's global fascism. I'm disappointed that you're going on about colonialism (in the first place it's disappointing that you're deflecting away from the definition of fascism and Current Homeland & Foreign policies to this end, but pretty normal) without first thinking of the definition of that... In a metaphorical way it could be called that, fine. If I had to describe it, I'd stick with global fascism allied perhaps with financial imperialism. It's not like the old days where you invade countries and call them your name. It's more you destabilise, bomb, install puppet regimes, sponsor threats etc. Then again it's not America anyway, least not as we know it cap'n. I think nationalism is the worst love a man could ever have. No country is loyal to you, a human being on limited time.

 
No one has come up with a definition of fascism that everyone is satisfied with, but I think most people would cite some sort of racist nationalism as being central to it.  As such, I think "global fascism" in any sense other than domination by the nation of one "race" would be anything but non-sequitur.
 
If colonialism sounds too polite to you, I submit that as a UK resident you haven't been exposed to the rather scathing critiques of the program of colonialism, because the UK as a whole hasn't come to terms with its problems.  Note that the US is fully implicated in this project as well, so this isn't any kind of superiority.
 
Saying it's not fascism isn't a defence of it in any shape or form, it's simply not wanting to conflate one evil with another.
 

I've got your type fully sussed out. EVERYTHING is about superiority/inferiority and nothing to with factual discussion. Only you can tell me why I'm saying "here is better" by saying "look at that mess over there". Unbelievable, yet very, very normal.

Just to make the point one more time, at no point, anywhere, at all, in any comment, did I make the assertion that "here is better."  I refuted your such assertion.  I suggest you re-read the posts in question.

 

Clinton had nothing to do with foreign policy did she? Did she? Or was it them big bad globalists again telling her what to do?  

 

Clinton's foreign policy votes, particularly on the Iraq war, are exactly why I did not support her in 2008, and instead supported Obama, who had been (and has continued to be) far more circumspect in regards to American foreign power than Clinton had been.  I saw evidence of growth in her time as Secretary of State, and think she would be a good enough leader.  More importantly, however, would be for us to get considerable change at the Congressional level, where this stuff is really hammered out, but too many of my fellow countryfolk are busy fighting over the White House to notice that the election for the other co-equal branch of government is even more important, just far less sexy and attention-getting.

 

My vote for Clinton in the primary and what I presume will be a vote for her in the general were not out of some triumphant excitement about her foreign policy, but rather that as a whole she is the best available option.  My excitement for the Senate candidacy of Deborah Ross is much greater.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

America didn't have a choice. By 1945 the European powers were exhausted. Germany was shattered. France on life support and Britain was a nation that was struggling to come to terms with having become a second rate power over night which was bankrupt and exhausted by depression and a 6 year global war.

 

In those conditions the European powers had to give up their empires. Reluctantly and slowly I grant you but the British effectively left India due to costs, left Palestine and abandoned Greece all in the late 1940s because she was nackered.

 

In that vacuum the UN proved itself too weak between the differing aims of the UNSC and so the USA had to step in. A nation that was arguably world war twos only winner.

 

America had to take on the global leadership role and run with it. If they hadn't then I dare not think where we'd be now.

 

However, in time that morphed into the current assumptions of power.

 

I think "didn't have a choice" goes too far in apologetics, and ignores the role of the US in perpetuating conditions in, say, the middle east, Latin America, and Africa, to name a few.  We absolutely had a choice to not prop up Mobutu or Papa Doc or Pinochet or the Shah or any other tinpot dictator we set up to do our bidding around the world.

 

One can make the argument that not enforcing stability as such around the world would have led to chaos, but I'm not sure we did anything but forestall the chaos, and indeed make it worse for the postponement.

[Stephen Muddie]

[Watt-Zeefuik]

To make a greater point -- the 2016 election is important, but it's not going to fix the structural issues with the US.

 

This, on the other hand, is how you do it:

 

In France:

 

http://commondreams.org/news/2016/04/11/all-night-protests-sweep-france-100000-join-pro-democracy-movement

 

In North Carolina

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/2015-moral-monday-movement-north-carolina-our-selma/

 

In DC:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/hundreds-flock-to-us-capitol-to-protest-money-in-politics/2016/04/11/1fe11158-001c-11e6-8bb1-f124a43f84dc_story.html

 

Simply protesting doesn't do anything, of course, but protest can be the start of broader mobilization.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

(Also, you can democratize ownership of critical community institutions.  Like, you know, football clubs.  )

[Sidelight]

She is a big player in what most of the world eat. That's those who haven't chased them out at virtual gunpoint right enough

Steal the vote, cancel the vote in plain view.

Not even an illusionary glance to democracy -

Another globalist puppet installation.

The globalist overseers have decided that there is a new form of government where they decide/appoint presidents and prime ministers.

Yet you are a freak face revolutionary for merely stating the obvious. Freak!

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Can someone clue me in on the "globalist" thing?  Not familiar with this one -- may be an Atlantic divide thing.

 

Is this a "world government" thing?  A free trade thing?  What are we accusing people of here?

[niblick1874]

Can someone clue me in on the "globalist" thing?  Not familiar with this one -- may be an Atlantic divide thing.

 

Is this a "world government" thing?  A free trade thing?  What are we accusing people of here?

Facetious? Is that all you've got.

Edited April 13, 2016 by niblick1874

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Facetious? Is that all you've got.

I'm serious -- "globalist" isn't a term, good or bad, that I'm familiar with.  Capitalist, fascist, colonialist, socialist, communist, authoritarian, neoliberal, neoconservative, interventionalist, multilateralist, isolationist -- those are the terms I'm familiar with in this scenario and trying to figure out how it relates.

 

I honestly don't know what "globalist" is supposed to mean.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

In the US, there's a particular paranoia about the UN and "world government" that gets brought up every now and again, which is kinda funny considering how much the US dominates the UN.  There's also an entirely different line of criticism about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the World Trade Organization and other "free trade" deals that has an entirely different (and IMO far more valid) criticism.

 

So I'm trying to figure out if "globalist" is one of those or something else entirely.

[JamboX2]

Can someone clue me in on the "globalist" thing? Not familiar with this one -- may be an Atlantic divide thing.

 

Is this a "world government" thing? A free trade thing? What are we accusing people of here?

Internationalism and globalism would be a good way to view it. Viewing the world as not entirely foreign but an extension of your own world view and embracing the idea we are all one in the same.

 

Equally applicable to trade, ie free trade vs tariffs.

 

Not necessarily "one world government".

[JamboX2]

I think "didn't have a choice" goes too far in apologetics, and ignores the role of the US in perpetuating conditions in, say, the middle east, Latin America, and Africa, to name a few. We absolutely had a choice to not prop up Mobutu or Papa Doc or Pinochet or the Shah or any other tinpot dictator we set up to do our bidding around the world.

 

One can make the argument that not enforcing stability as such around the world would have led to chaos, but I'm not sure we did anything but forestall the chaos, and indeed make it worse for the postponement.

The Shah is a great one, a CIA backed MI6 coup of a moderate socialist government in Iran over nationalised oil fields. We put the Shah in and piss off the lefties and liberals in Iran. 25 years later these same people back a religious cleric to assume power.

 

Blowback.

 

I tend to agree with you, however, my point was more focused at the immediate post-war environment. Sadly, the strong arming and backing of every hard men that followed was not healthy or entirely justified.

[TheTeamForMe]

Clinton, Trump or whoever else gets it doesn't really matter. Their term(s) will consist of flattening the Middle East with 'precision' bombing, killing innocents in the process and the ones they don't kill will blow themselves up in European high streets killing more innocents. Meanwhile, El Presidente will be told where to bomb freedom into next by his/her bosses who will no doubt make a fortune in the process. The election in a ******* charade disguised as democracy.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Internationalism and globalism would be a good way to view it. Viewing the world as not entirely foreign but an extension of your own world view and embracing the idea we are all one in the same.

 

Equally applicable to trade, ie free trade vs tariffs.

 

Not necessarily "one world government".

 

Ah, thanks.  That's helpful.

 

Like Bush saying all the Iraqi people needed to have like overnight liberal democracy was "freedom?"

[Watt-Zeefuik]

The Shah is a great one, a CIA backed MI6 coup of a moderate socialist government in Iran over nationalised oil fields. We put the Shah in and piss off the lefties and liberals in Iran. 25 years later these same people back a religious cleric to assume power.

 

Blowback.

 

I tend to agree with you, however, my point was more focused at the immediate post-war environment. Sadly, the strong arming and backing of every hard men that followed was not healthy or entirely justified.

 

Well, Ambrose Bierce said that war was God's way of teaching Americans geography.  Now we're all experts in the mid-east, eh?

[Rab]

(deleted due to offensive language)

 

What on earth is this supposed to mean and what did you intend by posting it? Is it supposed to be funny?

[maroonlegions]

"It's set up that way."  Again, who is setting it up this way?  

 

"The Market" dictates.  You do realize that The Market isn't a person or an AI or even an organization, right?  It's the expression of the collected interests of consumers, producers, and investors, with it heavily skewed towards those with the most wealth.  So when you say "the market" dictates, you're perpetuating a myth constructed by those who want to present it at a value-neutral thing that isn't anywhere, when in fact it's a heavy expression of the kinds of people that Mossack Fonseca calls clients.  So if you want to help put an end to this BS, you can stop reifying the categories that entrenched interests use to mask their power grabs.

 

FiveThirtyEight has done some good work on the "rigged system" meme: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/

 

One of the most enraging things in US politics was the assertion of Nader and his supporters in 2000 that there was no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  The difference, if nothing else at all, was the Iraq War, which has spent $1.7 trillion, killed a million people, and destabilized an entire region on a trumped-up excuse for appropriation of Iraqi oil reserves.

 

 

Corruption and manipulation of the US electoral system is not necessarily  merely only  reserved to  myth and also not without plausibility, take sleazy Clinton ,she is a fecking  psychotic and serial liar like the Bushes before her.

 

There is a clear manifestation of global corruption and manipulations  taking place within voting systems and some senior  political party individuals.

 

The buck has to stop with them, follow the money and you find the corruption and manipulations..

 

The voting system is a means to an end i feel, its aim is to pacify the public and to give the impression that a change of any political party or government  actually brings about any real  change.   

 

Anonymous Blows The Lid Off Hillary Clinton

The hacktivist collective known as Anonymous calls out Hillary Clinton for her various crimes, lies, and corrupt dealings. It is time Mrs. Clinton be held accountable for her crimes against the Untied States and humanity. From?

ANONHQ.COM

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Amazing stuff happening behind the scenes in the GOP right now.  Cruz, whose ability to organize on-the-ground supporters is what has gotten him this far, is in the process of trying to game the delegate selection game.

 

I don't fully understand the process, but from what I get of it the delegates are pledged to support the candidate that the voters chose on the first two ballots.  After that, they can pick whom they want.  Since it's almost dead-certain (not quite mathematically impossible but getting close) that no one will win a majority on the first ballot, and a win on the second is unlikely, Cruz supporters are getting elected as Trump-supporting delegates.  They will, of course, vote Trump in the first two rounds, but after that they could give the nomination to Cruz.

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article72205802.html

 

At this point the Washington GOP establishment is having to figure out whom they hate less: Trump or Cruz.  Trump is feared because of his unpopularity beyond a subset of the GOP base, but Cruz is absolutely despised, particularly in the Senate, where he's stabbed just about every one of his GOP colleagues in the back at some point during his tenure.   That's why they keep hoping that Paul Ryan or someone will come along and save them somehow.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

After the win in New York, the Democratic side is basically over.  Clinton is the nominee.  I think even Hibs wouldn't be able to blow the lead she has now, and Clinton is most definitely not Hibs.

 

It's also now officially mathematically impossible for Cruz to get a majority of delegates.  As with most things that hit mathematical certainty, this has been a foregone conclusion for a month now, but he did really, really badly in New York, coming in third behind Kasich.

 

Trump probably still won't get a majority of delegates, but he did have a very, very good night in his home state, increasingly the likelihood that he could win the nomination outright in the primaries.

[aussieh]

After the win in New York, the Democratic side is basically over. Clinton is the nominee. I think even Hibs wouldn't be able to blow the lead she has now, and Clinton is most definitely not Hibs.

 

It's also now officially mathematically impossible for Cruz to get a majority of delegates. As with most things that hit mathematical certainty, this has been a foregone conclusion for a month now, but he did really, really badly in New York, coming in third behind Kasich.

 

Trump probably still won't get a majority of delegates, but he did have a very, very good night in his home state, increasingly the likelihood that he could win the nomination outright in the primaries.

Can Trump still stand if the Republicans reject him?

[Maple Leaf]

Can Trump still stand if the Republicans reject him?

 

If Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination, for whatever reason, I wouldn't be surprised to see him run as an Independent. 

 

And that would upset the Republican brass immensely.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Can Trump still stand if the Republicans reject him?

 

Yes -- it's a bit trickier, as you have to get signatures to get ballot access to every state, but if he decided to do it he has the organization, money, and following to pull it off without much problem.

 

He's promised not to do so as long as the GOP "treats him fairly."  Of course, he can invent some way that he's not treated fairly and do it any way (he's already complaining about a rigged process).  That said, if he runs as an independent, a second Clinton presidency goes from a fairly likely outcome to a dead certain one.

[IMac]

Yes -- it's a bit trickier, as you have to get signatures to get ballot access to every state, but if he decided to do it he has the organization, money, and following to pull it off without much problem.

 

He's promised not to do so as long as the GOP "treats him fairly." Of course, he can invent some way that he's not treated fairly and do it any way (he's already complaining about a rigged process). That said, if he runs as an independent, a second Clinton presidency goes from a fairly likely outcome to a dead certain one.

Actually he can't. In a number of states such as ohio u can't run as an independent if you have contested a primary for a party. Edited April 21, 2016 by IMac

[Boris]

Actually he can't. In a number of states such as ohio u can't run as an independent if you have contested a primary for a party.

Could he not just run in the other states? Ohio only has 18 electoral college points/votes. Not the worst one to lose.

[aussieh]

Yes -- it's a bit trickier, as you have to get signatures to get ballot access to every state, but if he decided to do it he has the organization, money, and following to pull it off without much problem.

 

He's promised not to do so as long as the GOP "treats him fairly." Of course, he can invent some way that he's not treated fairly and do it any way (he's already complaining about a rigged process). That said, if he runs as an independent, a second Clinton presidency goes from a fairly likely outcome to a dead certain one.

If he won as an independent, would that not render the president powerless.

Surely both Republicans and Democrats would veto his every move.

[maroonlegions]

Good on these two men.

 

What a choice the yanks have for a president, liar  and manipulative hypocrite Clinton or  racist,homophobic Trump.. 

 

 

Ben And Jerry Arrested At The Capitol For Protesting Corruption In Politics

?The history of our country is that nothing happens until people start putting their bodies on the line and risk getting?

ANONHQ.COM

 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

No smoke without fire eh..  Corruption is rife , its manifesting more openly by the direct action called greed and that action when serve or out of control gets harder to control and kept hidden.. follow the money to the source of the corruption;

 

 

 

 

"As Oxfam warns that global wealth inequality is spiraling out of control, we ask why the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are missing from the business magazine?s definitive annual guide?with some startling revelations".

 

?Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.?  

 

Secrets Of The Elite: Why Forbes?s Rich List Doesn?t Include The Wealthiest Families On The Planet: http://bit.ly/1oxku3A

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

Well , well, some will say he is just bitter or deluded but one thing for sure and  that is  a fact is that he is an individual who once ran for the presidency  of the US.

 

Video interviews  and links to more info below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Streamed live on Apr 15, 2016;

 

Debbie speaks with Richard Charnin on the issue of the election fraud occurring in the 2016 Democratic primary. Links up shortly.
Petition to encourage Sanders to act: 
https://www.change.org/p/bernie-sande...

Richard's Blog:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/...

Form to submit if you have been PURGED or had registration flipped:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19BwJ...

New York Polls won't all be open at 6:00 a.m.:
http://caucus99percent.com/content/wt...

Election Fraud Blog with Summary of Stories/Videos/Evidence of issues noted to date:
https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/

 

..Ron Paul Bombshell: All US Elections Are Rigged

The system is "rotten to the core".

 

YOURNEWSWIRE.COM|BY SEAN ADL-TABATABAI

 

 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Actually he can't. In a number of states such as ohio u can't run as an independent if you have contested a primary for a party.

Do you have a source for that?  I can believe it, but I've never heard of such a rule and can't find one online.  Would be curious to see which states that's an issue for.

 

I do see reports that he'd face ballot deadlines in lots of states as early as June, so he'd probably have to see which way the wind was blowing before then and kick of a ballot signature drive.

[niblick1874]

Can someone clue me in on the "globalist" thing?  Not familiar with this one -- may be an Atlantic divide thing.

 

Is this a "world government" thing?  A free trade thing?  What are we accusing people of here?

 

Do you know anything about the TPP, what's in it, who's behind it and how it came to pass? Add the TTIP and what do you have? This is not theory, it's fact. I'll bet you think it's a trade agreement don't you. 

Have no doubt, whoever gets elected will have no intention of doing anything about it. If they did they would get nowhere near the Whitehouse. 

Stop splashing about in puddles and go swim in the sea.

[aussieh]

Do you know anything about the TPP, what's in it, who's behind it and how it came to pass? Add the TTIP and what do you have? This is not theory, it's fact. I'll bet you think it's a trade agreement don't you.

Have no doubt, whoever gets elected will have no intention of doing anything about it. If they did they would get nowhere near the Whitehouse.

Stop splashing about in puddles and go swim in the sea.

Trump said he'd stop The TPP. Edited April 21, 2016 by aussieh