Not the same. Your assertion did not pass the smell test, and there was no support for it anywhere. It’s not coincidence when I’ve lived in the Rust Belt my entire fucking life and I know exactly what’s happening here. I’m also trying to correct something I see as incredibly dangerous, and so dangerous it got Donald Trump elected and God help us all.
2 Likes
I dont blame you. You, like me, did what you could.
Join the club.
Very few people are saying that’s the only reason. It’s just one of many, sadly; including sexism and apathy.
True, but again some methods are counterproductive.
I wouldnt be so sure about that; humans are really good at repeating our mistakes.
I agree with that part.
Looking for honesty amongst the masses when most people cannot even ‘keep it 100’ with themselves when they are alone is an exercise in futility. Personal myths are all that some people have.
You’re not making me feel worse; that’s not possible.
But you don’t seem to be making yourself feel ‘better’ either.
Do whatever you need to do to cope; just don’t take stuff so personally.
Lots of folks are in ‘wounded animal’ mode right now.
4 Likes
why were the Democrat candidates prevented from participating in other debates during the primary
They weren’t prevented, they dropped out.
Chaffee and Webb dropped out in late October (so they only made the first debate). O’Malley dropped out Feb 1 (so he made the next three debates).
That left just Sanders and Clinton for the other five.
4 Likes
The DNC controls nobody’s vote and he got more positive media coverage than Clinton.
Come back when you have something besides inane conspiracy theories and handwaving.
2 Likes
Sure, see some links below. In Brazil we had a really hard struggle to get rid of the Bolivarians before they created a Venezuela-like famine in Brazil (but not before they created 12 million of unemployed families). That government was impeached because millions of people went to the streets several times between 2013 and 2016, and ALL the corrupt leaders of the former rulng party are either in jail or being prosecuted for stealing BILLIONS of dollars. Greenwald lives in Rio and his boyfriend is part of the corrupt party, so he simply turned off his ethics and went to smear Brazil.
The links below are from our local press, translated via Google.
There are many more, but there is a limit to post links here.
I agree with much of what you said there.
But not with this. In a corporatist culture, corporations can count upon governments to rubber-stamp their activities. But governments are also responsible for lending their authority to corporate charters in the first place. Countries do have the authority to say “no” and dissolve corporations, or deny their incorporation in the first place. Of course, the norm which has been cultivated is that this does not happen, and people do not expect it to. But that is not to say that governments are incapable of doing so,
Yes, also people need to bear in mind the difference between international and global actors. Not all people are really represented by a nation-state. Globalism only equals corporatism in neo-liberal vernacular. But there is also the globalism of social non-statists.
2 Likes
Whether they dropped out or not, all candidates were prevented from taking part in more than 6 debates. That’s what I was trying to say. Sorry for not being more clear.
1 Like
I lived in the rust belt for the largest part of my life and worked throughout the region. I now live in Texas, and I find the state to noticeably less sexist and racist than the regions of Michigan, Indiana, and Pennsylvania I am very familiar with. I left went the market crashed or expecting to feel this way, and no Texas is not perfect and I don’t always vote Democrat. I’ll also say that LGBT comments in Texas have been worse and more casual than in the rust belt.
You can feel anyway you want, but exit polls still show the white people that voted for Obama (and Kerry and Gore and Bill Clinton) got converted to some degree by Trump. I’m willing to reverse this statement after the data stabilizes a bit more and proves it wrong, but considering I’m at close to a dozen people in my life (including family) from around the country cranking up their racism with a Trump victory I am not going to just let white people from the rust belt explain away what is at best turning a blind eye to the situation.
2 Likes
No, this is important.
Enough people just vote for whomever is already in the lead that this matters. If it was silly and didn’t matter, the DNC and DNC allied news outlets would have stopped after the hundredth or thousandth complaint asking to show the delegate count alone. It was important, to them to show who the “trendier” candidate was. And for those of us demanding a change of the guard, it is important that we change it before the next primaries.
5 Likes
Whether they dropped out or not, all candidates were prevented from taking part in more than 6 debates.
Initially the DNC scheduled six. Sanders and Clinton requested, and got, three additional debates.
Nine debates.
How many times do you need to see them recite the same speeches?
(edit: changed ten to nine)
2 Likes
Enough people just vote for whomever is already in the lead that this matters
So now the conspiracy is the primary system itself, which has existed for decades ?
And I suspect Clinton might have some valid complaints about the way the media treated her, too.
1 Like
The first article you posted misquotes Greenwald.
From that article:
One of these activists, the American Glenn Greenwald, went so far as to publish a report stating that Temer could not take the presidency because “he has been for eight years prevented from running for public office.” That is, the journalist treated as final conviction what is only the opinion of the Regional Electoral Prosecutor of São Paulo, regarding a fine of $ 80 thousand imposed on Temer for making electoral donations above the ceiling.
The article was published May 29; the most recent Greenwald article about Rousseff preceding it was this one.
Greenwald’s actual quote from that article is, “he faces an eight-year ban on running for any office,” which is a fairly standard way of describing the punishment that will be imposed if someone is convicted. So, the only criticism from the first article about Greenwald, that he “treated as final conviction what is only [an] opinion,” is plainly false.
Unless there’s a serious mistranslation issue, I don’t see how the second article you quoted says anything like what you’re claiming it does. There’s a paragraph about Greenwald, but it doesn’t refute him, it just says:
There are also a number of loose manifestations of opinion. Among the most popular of the government bloggers is the interview given by the American journalist Glenn Greenwald to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. Greenwald, who lives in Brazil and is married to the author of the Guardian article, is also an award-winning and respected journalist who specializes in the difficult relationship between civil rights and digital technologies. In social networks, he is a persistent critic of the impeachment solution. To CNN, he said that “plutocrats now see a chance to get rid of the PT by undemocratic means.” He cites, as context, the extensive involvement of countless MPs, starting with the mayor with corruption scandals. But even when questioned directly by Amanpour, he avoided the term “coup.”
That doesn’t seem particularly critical of Greenwald at all. At worst, it dismisses his criticism as “a loose manifestation of opinion.” It certainly doesn’t point out any place where he’s wrong.
Are these the two strongest links you can come up with to support your claims that he is a “sworn enemy of Brazil” and that he has a “deep contempt of democracy?” Because I’m not seeing it.
9 Likes
That’s one way to look at the Harvard study. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media
Odd how anytime anyone disagrees with you they are on a conspiracy bent. Good tactic that. It’s exactly the kind of baseless dismissiveness that many of us saw and are very tired of. It’s lazy and intellectually dishonest.
6 Likes
And the other way to look at it is right in the title of that article. He got more positive coverage than Clinton. Clinton got a lot more coverage but the tone was overwhelmingly negative. RIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGEDDDDD!
You still have shown zero evidence of the silly conspiracy theory you keep pushing. Maybe you should reconsider your position.
1 Like
International banking groups are killing us.
Calling Hillary corrupt is not antisemitism. I get that the repost of the anti-Hillary image with the star had it’s origins somewhere dark, but it was a red star, if I recall. I did not make the connection until it was pointed out to me. It is not unreasonable to think that the others who saw it did not make the connection either. I would expect someone to have found much worse.
1 Like
There were a multitude of reasons why people voted for Trump. Reducing it just down to a retaliation for neoliberalism and corruption is intellectually lazy. Hell, Trump argued for the majority of neoliberal positions.
Some people supported Trump because he’s unapologetically audacious which is distinctly different from other politicians. He’s not polite and he is unafraid to call out others even on his own “team.” If you’re fed up with Congress not doing anything, someone who can bully his way forward might seem attractive.
A fair number of people really did vote against Obamacare. All people know is premiums are going up without understanding why. Even educated liberals mistakenly think the main problem is insurance companies rather than price increases by healthcare providers and a dramatic increase in procedures per capita.
Shutting off illegal immigration, real or imaginary, is a big deal to others. Sure some of this is racism and xenophobia, but Trump did a good job casting Democrats as comparatively pro-open borders.
Trump’s argument that free trade isn’t fair trade certainly played well in the Rust Belt. This is the one place that Trump argued against neoliberalism. Frankly, he seemed at times to argue for Mercantilism which is seductive to most people.
The war and Muslim issue can’t be understated. We’ve been at war for a ridiculously long time. We haven’t decisively won a war in a long time. Between Iraq and Libya, Clinton was cast as an ineffective hawk. The Iran deal has been maligned badly and the idea of bringing in potential terrorists into this country (which they associate with Muslims as a whole), scares people.
Then there is the Supreme Court and abortion/gay marriage. This was the issue for Evangelicals who could hold their nose for everything else Trump stood for. A vote for Trump is a vote to end abortion and gay marriage and prevent any more liberal interpretations of the Constitution for decades to come.
Gun control is still a huge wedge issue. There are very few pro-gun control single issue voters, but there are a lot of anti-gun control ones.
Never underestimate the voters who simply voted against Hillary though. Thirty years of hate towards the woman is a ridiculously hard thing to erase. Even I wasn’t looking forward to four more years of bs Clinton scandals. The emails thing was successfully elevated to the level of treason in some people’s minds. Her Foundation has been slandered badly. Misogyny is certainly there too.
I hate the “What if Bernie?” guessing games because we can’t really know. That said, I think Bernie would have swayed a lot of Trump voters since Bernie also pushed a form of populism. The question is if he could have also turned out those people and everyone else who voted for Clinton.
I donated to Bernie when he first started running and ended up voting for Clinton because Bernie had one stump speech which he used over and over and over and I never heard anything else. It drove me nuts because I wanted to support the guy.
There were certainly things Trump could have attacked him on. He’s Jewish (and let’s not pretend antisemitism doesn’t exist just because people support Israel), seemingly non-religious, a socialist and looks a lot older than even Trump.
So I’m not going to play that game. Instead the question becomes, how the hell do we move forward?
6 Likes
Saying that angry, left behind voters voted Trump or voted Brexit is a symptom. The body politic is in deep trouble, it’s gravely ill, and still the illness has to be dealt with, NOT cherished. Nausea and vomiting, convulsions, mood swings, fury outbursts are NOT cures, they mean disease and DEATH. Let me tell you a story about Venezuela. There were two Venezuelas back then in 1998, too. There were angry voters, there were tired voters, people who wanted change, who were tired of a social democratic and at times liberal elite. They chose our next President wisely as angry voters are wont to do, listened critically and chose a man who was able to tolerate dissent and autonomy in his own ranks, who surrounded himself with the best collaborators, and they built a pluralistic political movement which effected political reform in a spirit of fairness and respect of civil rights for all… NO! That’s NOT what happened. Now, many of these voters are going HUNGRY, and with them many who saw their error before them, and their children and old people with them. Because voting is a responsibility, a responsible act, and you shouldn’t be voting angry or drunk or even enthusiastically and forgetting that YOU are responsible. Acts have consequences, and these can be, well… impersonally merciless! all the way down to ruin for your nation and yourself and your children and grandchildren, and for people who didn’t vote for what you voted.
1 Like
Fucking today our President Donald J Trump posted he would ban muslims using a known hate group’s “poll” of muslims as evidence.
TODAY
12 Likes
Nah… he doesn’t hate anyone… it’s the left that are the real haters… /s
9 Likes
It’s OK, because the people in the south were raised better than that /s
8 Likes
