“Gallons of digital ink have been spilled trying to figure out why Clinton struggles so much with likability. But perhaps the problem isn’t with her at all. Maybe it’s with us.”
Much more ink has been spread to make people hate Hillary Clinton. The Republicans have been doing it for some 20 years. It’s not surprising that some of the mud they have continually flung at her finally stuck.
Surely she’s done exactly that - if she was in the pockets of Wall Street (which was always a matter of speculation), it doesn’t show in the platform she has publicly and loudly supported. Right now the opposition from the left to Clinton policies are to policies they believe she will engage in despite her public statements and her (rather meager) record as a Senator.
If I could vote Democrat or Republican, I might consider it. But I can only vote for Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, Bloc Québécois, Green, Alliance of the North, Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party, The Bridge Party, Canadian Action Party, Christian Heritage Party, Communist, Democratic Advancement Party of Canada, Libertarian, Marxist–Leninist, Marijuana Party, Party for Accountability, Competency and Transparency, Pirate Party, Progressive Canadian Party, Rhinoceros Party (version II), Seniors Party, or the United Party of Canada.
It’s astounding that we still manage to run a relatively peaceable country, eh?
You did read Ms Kolhatkar’s article, no?
Edited to add: and Greenwald’s?
Obama’s platform on bankster corruption was pretty good, too. How’s that working out for us?*
*And I don’t want to hear about the GOP Congress tying his hands either. Congress has no control over whom the Justice Department prosecutes for fraud.
Yes. Fundraising during an election cycle is not the same thing as being in the pockets of Wall Street.
If you vote for the open racist promising a racist regime of persecutions and deportation of non-whites over the Wall Street connected candidate, because you think the latter’s a more serious concern, then you’re judging promises of racist persecution as less of a concern than Wall Street connections and probably do have some unexamined racism going on.
Holy fucksocks, another one?
What does that make for flagrantly obvious sock puppet accounts just today alone; three, four???
I’m seriously starting to lose track…
Most actual Trump voters probably don’t spend a lot of time in self-criticism of their unexamined racism.
I don’t think you’ll find too many of us here on BB who are voting for combover boy over Hillary (or at least many who will admit it).
But I’m seeing more and more (myself included) who will vote for neither.
Technically, no. But:
(tl;dr - “You need to go all the way back to 1896 to find another election in which the country’s economic elites so disproportionately favored one candidate.” - and they ain’t talking about combover boy)
Voting third party (in a swing state) in a contest between two candidates where you like neither because one’s open racist promising a racist regime of persecutions and deportation of non-whites and the other a Wall Street connected candidate amounts to moral equivocation of those options and probably suggests there is some unexamined racism going on. Outside of a swing state, if you want to pretend you’re above political realities, have at it.
Uh, those aren’t my words, though I agree with them.
That, and “not an American”, can’t vote in November.
And: if Trump is elected, do Congress and the Senate magically disappear? Don’t they have a word to say about this kind of stuff? Seriously, if Trump were really able to do these kinds of things, the USA’s problem isn’t just the President, it’s the whole political system and the entire ruling class.
You’ll need to sharpen the tines on your pitchforks.
That’s a fine way to avoid addressing the objection I made to the quote you approve of, and it’s probably for the best. Maybe Trump’s slogan should be “Vote for the guy promising to harm millions - he’s delusional about his powers and Congress should probably stop him, anyway.”
What was it that Jabba said about “those mind tricks don’t work on me??”
I’d recommend you not identify with Jabba the Hutt when someone suggests you might have a racist preconception that keeps you from seeing the issue with moral equivocation over Wall Street connections and an open racist promising a racist regime of persecutions and deportation of non-whites. This isn’t aiding your case.
While neither the Christian God nor some form of divine perfection may be known to walk the earth today, Clinton is nevertheless not the next best thing. Clinton appears to be an anointed high priestess of the evil cult of Mammon.
That said, the idea of a god-king or goddess-queen is intriguing… “Nanna / Ningal 2016”?
Are you suggesting that Obama was already a tool of the banks before he was elected?[quote=“bobzwrz, post:154, topic:85424”]
“You need to go all the way back to 1896 to find another election in which the country’s economic elites so disproportionately favored one candidate.”
[/quote]
Sure, entirely natural. From the article you link:
“Many donors want to maintain their relationships with decision makers, and the more eccentric Trump’s campaign looks, the more problematic it looks, the more they will be driven towards Hillary,” said Biersack, who worked for three decades at the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).
Again, not the same thing as HRC being in anyone’s pocket.
The way it was quoted may have led some people to think that I had said it.
I’m not sure what else I could have said more - to avoid being accused of avoiding addressing it - than “I agree with it”, which I said, and “I’ve said roughly the same thing myself weeks ago”, which I said.
So, are you saying that your country doesn’t have a working, credible system of checks and balances? That the president is, for all intents, a king? Really?
That is literally untrue: Gayle McLaughlin was elected mayor of Richmond, California as a Green Party candidate. There are also a number of city and regional elected officials (along the lines of natural resource commissoners) elected as Greens.
You seem quite happy to vote for Hillary Clinton. That’s you. “Throwing my vote away” would be voting for someone else’s agenda. That’s me.
Fuck Clinton’s platform: she will be less of a racist facist than Donald, but be far more rapid and efficient at killing lots of people around the world. That ain’t my platform, and I would not waste my vote on it. Let me reframe for you: assuming you voted for Kerry in 2004, does that mean you wasted your vote since he literally never won the presidency?
If Trump wins, the GOP will most likely control both houses. I don’t know about you, but I have zero faith that they’d try to rein him in at all.
