|
OAquinas posted:
No, it's an ED-209 cameo.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:51
|
|
Romney 3.0 
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Maarek posted:Its the most wonderful time of the election cycle, where obsessive party partisans try to convince people that a guy who got a 97% rating from the NAACP is a racist and the lady who said 'more white people will vote for me' in 2008 is the champion of people of color everywhere. Who also started the birth certificate debacle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
When was the last time good news was posted here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
We aren't even in the primary season yet and they're already telling the party's liberals that they're basically traitors if they don't vote for the center-right Mrs. Inevitability candidate. Once she wraps up the nomination and people who have no reason to be excited or give a poo poo about her election are apathetic, they're going to tell you that the primary is when you vote for the people you actually want and you need to get out there and GOTV for Hillary!!!Radish posted:Who also started the birth certificate debacle. It's pretty hard to convince a lot of the people on this forum that she's better than Sanders. His worst issue is, what, Israel? She is to the right of him on everything and IN THEORY the primary is when you vote for those kooky folks who actually want to implement things you like. That's why they have to make up some random bullshit to avoid openly contradicting themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:When was the last time good news was posted here? Anytime evidence of our imminent destruction is posted. The sweet release of death can only be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Wait, was it Josh Romney the  one? If so please let him continue on into politics. Can you imagine the debates?Lotka Volterra posted:Anytime evidence of our imminent destruction is posted. The sweet release of death can only be a good thing. Dehumanize youself and face to bloodshed 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Wait, was it Josh Romney the Debates should be easy for him because he can just have his brother Taggart punch out his opponents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Maarek posted:We aren't even in the primary season yet and they're already telling the party's liberals that they're basically traitors if they don't vote for the center-right Mrs. Inevitability candidate. Once she wraps up the nomination and people who have no reason to be excited or give a poo poo about her election are apathetic, they're going to tell you that the primary is when you vote for the people you actually want and you need to get out there and GOTV for Hillary!!! Yeah the push for her is a real bummer. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
 The face of a man ready for politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:At least one of them is explicitly a Southern Democrat with all of the connotations that has and even Bernie Sanders has a "let's talk about anything but race" theme going on in his campaign. Well, there's some benefit to trying to keep race out of it if you're focusing on economic issues that largely aid the poor and struggling. Minorities are overrepresented in those groups, and allowing race to be brought into the issue can create resentment among poor working whites, who may be swayed by left populist economic policies unless their racism is allowed to get in the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
I seriously don't want to be let down by Hilary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Reposting stuff about Hillary to hear your thoughts: We suggest that feminist enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is reflective of a profound crisis of U.S. liberal feminism, which has long embraced or accepted corporate capitalism, racism, empire, and even heterosexism and transphobia. ------------- All issues of wealth, power, and violence are also women’s and LGBT rights issues. For instance, neoliberal economic policies of austerity and privatization disproportionately hurt women and LGBT individuals, who are often the lowest paid and the first workers to be fired, the most likely to bear the burdens of family maintenance, and the most affected by the involuntary migration, domestic violence, homelessness, and mental illness that are intensified by poverty. Hillary Clinton’s record on such issues is hardly encouraging. Her decades of service on corporate boards and in major policy roles as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State give a clear indication of where she stands. One of Clinton’s first high-profile public positions was at Walmart, where she served on the board from 1986 to 1992. She “remained silent” in board meetings as her company “waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers,” as an ABC review of video recordings later noted. Clinton recounted in her 2003 book that Walmart CEO Sam Walton “taught me a great deal about corporate integrity and success.” Though she later began trying to shed her public identification with the company in order to attract labor support for her Senate and presidential candidacies, Walmart executives have continued to look favorably on her, with Alice Walton donating the maximum amount to the “Ready for Hillary” Super PAC in 2013. Walton’s $25,000 donation was considerably higher than the average annual salary for Walmart’s hourly employees, two-thirds of whom are women. ---------------------------------- After leaving Walmart, Clinton became perhaps the most active First Lady in history. While it would be unfair to hold her responsible for all her husband’s policies, she did play a significant role in shaping and justifying many of them. In her 2003 memoir she boasted of gutting welfare: “By the time Bill and I left the White House, welfare rolls had dropped 60 percent” — and not because poverty had dropped. Women and children, the main recipients of welfare, have been the primary victims. Jeffrey St. Clair at Counterpunch notes that prior to the welfare reform, “more than 70 percent of poor families with children received some kind of cash assistance. By 2010, less than 30 percent got any kind of cash aid and the amount of the benefit had declined by more than 50 percent from pre-reform levels.” http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/23/us/clinton-signs-bill-cutting-welfare-states-in-new-role.html http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/the-worst-thing-bill-clinton-has-done/376797/ Clinton also lobbied Congress to pass her husband’s deeply racist crime bill, which, observes Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow, “escalated the drug war beyond what conservatives had imagined possible,” expanding mass incarceration and the death penalty. -------------- Arguably the two most defining features of Clinton’s tenures as Senator (2001-2009) and Secretary of State (2009-2013) were her promotion of U.S. corporate profit-making and her aggressive assertion of the U.S. government’s right to intervene in foreign countries. Reflecting on this performance as Clinton left her Secretary post in January 2013, Bloomberg Businessweek commented that “Clinton turned the State Department into a machine for promoting U.S. business.” She sought “to install herself as the government’s highest-ranking business lobbyist,” directly negotiating lucrative overseas contracts for U.S. corporations like Boeing, Lockheed, and General Electric. Not surprisingly, “Clinton’s corporate cheerleading has won praise from business groups.” Clinton herself has been very honest about this aim, albeit not when speaking in front of progressives. Her 2011 Foreign Policy essay on “America’s Pacific Century” spoke at length about the objective of “opening new markets for American businesses,” containing no fewer than ten uses of the phrases “open markets,” “open trade,” and permutations thereof. A major focus of this effort is the Trans-Pacific Partnership involving twelve Pacific countries that is now being negotiated secretively by the Obama administration with the assistance of over 600 corporate “advisors.” Like Bill Clinton’s NAFTA, the deal is intended to further empower multinational corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, and the environment in all countries involved. Lower wages and increased rates of displacement, detention, and physical violence for female and LGBT populations are among the likely consequences, given the results of existing “free-trade” agreements. Clinton’s article also elaborated on the role of U.S. military power in advancing these economic goals. The past “growth” of eastern Asia has depended on “the security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military,” and “a more broadly distributed military presence across the region will provide vital advantages” in the future. Clinton thus reaffirmed the bipartisan consensus on the U.S. right to use military force abroad in pursuit of economic interest — echoing, for instance, her husband’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who in 1999 reserved the right to “the unilateral use of military power” in the name of “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” ------------ In the Middle East and Central Asia, Clinton has likewise defended the U.S. right to violate international law and human rights. As Senator she not only voted in favor of the illegal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq — a monstrous crime that has killed hundreds of thousands of people while sowing terror and sectarianism across the region — she was an outspoken advocate of the invasion and a fierce critic of resistance within the United Nations. Since then she has only partially disavowed that position (out of political expediency) while speaking in paternalistic and racist terms about Iraqis. Senator Clinton was an especially staunch supporter — even by the standards of the U.S. Congress — of Israel’s illegal military actions and settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As Barack Obama’s Secretary of State, she presided over the expansion of illegal drone attacks that by conservative estimates have killed many hundreds of civilians, while reaffirming U.S. alliances with vicious dictatorships. As she recounts in her 2014 memoir Hard Choices, “In addition to our work with the Israelis, the Obama Administration also increased America’s own sea and air presence in the Persian Gulf and deepened our ties to the Gulf monarchies.” Clinton herself is widely recognized to have been one of the administration’s most forceful advocates of attacking or expanding military operations in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and of strengthening U.S. ties to dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco and elsewhere. Maybe the women and girls of these countries, including those whose lives have been destroyed by U.S. bombs, can take comfort in knowing that a “feminist” helped craft U.S. policy. Secretary Clinton and her team worked to ensure that any challenges to U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East were met with brute force and/or various forms of collective punishment. On Iran, she often echoes the bipartisan line that “all options must remain on the table” — a flagrant violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition of “the threat or use of force” in international relations — and brags in Hard Choices that her team “successfully campaigned around the world to impose crippling sanctions” on the country. She ensured that Palestine’s UN statehood bid “went nowhere in the Security Council.” Though out of office by the time of Israel’s savage 2014 assault on Gaza, she ardently defended it in interviews. This context helps explain her recent praise for Henry Kissinger, renowned for bombing civilians and supporting regimes that killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of suspected dissidents. She writes in the Washington Post that she “relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state.” ---------------- In another domain of traditional U.S. ownership, Latin America, Clinton also seems to have followed Kissinger’s example. As confirmed in her 2014 book, she effectively supported the 2009 military overthrow of left-of-center Honduran President Manuel Zelaya — a “caricature of a Central American strongman” — by pushing for a “compromise” solution that endorsed his illegal ouster. She has advocated the application of the Colombia model — highly militarized “anti-drug” initiatives coupled with neoliberal economic policies — to other countries in the region, and is full of praise for the devastating militarization of Mexico over the past decade. In Mexico that model has resulted in 80,000 or more deaths since 2006, including the 43 Mexican student activists disappeared (and presumably massacred) in September 2014. In the Caribbean, the U.S. model of choice is Haiti, where Clinton and her husband have relentlessly promoted the sweatshop model of production since the 1990s. WikiLeaks documents show that in 2009 her State Department collaborated with subcontractors for Hanes, Levi’s, and Fruit of the Loom to oppose a minimum wage increase for Haitian workers. After the January 2010 earthquake she helped spearhead the highly militarized U.S. response. Militarization has plentiful benefits, as Clinton understands. It can facilitate corporate investment, such as the “gold rush” that the U.S. ambassador described following the Haiti earthquake. It can keep in check nonviolent dissidents, such as hungry Haitian workers or leftist students in Mexico. And it can help combat the influence of countries like Venezuela which have challenged neoliberalism and U.S. geopolitical control. These goals have long motivated U.S. hostility toward Cuba, and thus Clinton’s recent call for ending the U.S. embargo against Cuba was pragmatic, not principled: “It wasn’t achieving its goals” of overthrowing the government, as she says in her recent book. The goal there, as in Venezuela, is to compel the country to “restore private property and return to a free market economy,” as she demanded of Venezuela in 2010. A reasonable synopsis of Clinton’s record around the world comes from neoconservative policy advisor Robert Kagan, who, like Clinton, played an important role in advocating the 2003 Iraq invasion. “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Kagan told the New York Times last June. Asked what to expect from a Hillary Clinton presidency, Kagan predicted that “[i]f she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, it’s something that might have been called neocon.” But — he added — “clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.” ----------- There's more: https://solidarity-us.org/node/4390
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Blowdryer posted:We suggest that feminist enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is reflective of a profound crisis of U.S. liberal feminism, which has long embraced or accepted corporate capitalism, racism, empire, and even heterosexism and transphobia. Have to say, this is terribly written. In a way that really hamstrings the few worthwhile points the author is trying to make. Instead of just referring to her forceful advocacy in Libya as general Middle Eastern adventurism while throwing a very vague backhand at feminist backers of Hillary, why don't you post her many quotes on the subject (that do a lot better job of highlighting her foreign hawkish tendencies)? Its a polemic, not an article. Bah!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Ballz posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Well this is shocking: the report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi won't be released until next year, 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:When was the last time good news was posted here? 2009, when Lilly Ledbetter was passed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Have to say, this is terribly written. In a way that really hamstrings the few worthwhile points the author is trying to make. Instead of just referring to her forceful advocacy in Libya as general Middle Eastern adventurism while throwing a very vague backhand at feminist backers of Hillary, why don't you post her many quotes on the subject (that do a lot better job of highlighting her foreign hawkish tendencies)? Its a polemic, not an article. Bah! Thanks I had seen it around and wanted to see what everyone thought of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Remember when some guy came in here and started arguing that the world would be a better place if the Nazis won because the Red Scare wouldn't have happened and America would be a communist utopia?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:2009, when Lilly Ledbetter was passed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:
quote:Does anyone doubt that the electorate largely believes that military intervention in Iraq was an enormous mistake, spending ungodly sums of money and losing far too many fine men and women for a raging land of sectarian ingrates, so eager and willing to fight each other or our people who were trying to help them, but falling apart and running in the face of ISIS? At what point are we allowed to get angry at young men in Iraq, given a chance to live in something better, freer, and more prosperous than the barbaric mad despotism they experienced under Saddam Hussein, who threw it all away to join ISIS? oh my god
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:2010, when the PPACA was passed. I was going to say that, but there is a vocal enough minority who might view that as bad news because it wasn't single-payer that I had to go a little further back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:2010, when the PPACA was passed. The forever death of single payer?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I was going to say that, but there is a vocal enough minority who might view that as bad news because it wasn't single-payer that I had to go a little further back. To be fair those posters are never happy, ever, and must logically be huge alcoholics or something to explain how they survive in a world of ever encroaching darkness
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well this is shocking: the report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi won't be released until next year, 2016. Huh, is something going on next year?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Maarek posted:No, there are several primary candidates who would be better presidents than her. yes but none who can get elected
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Remember when some guy came in here and started arguing that the world would be a better place if the Nazis won because the Red Scare wouldn't have happened and America would be a communist utopia? Yes! I believe I called him a stupid fuckhead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:When was the last time good news was posted here? earlier this month, when Rahm defeated a populist for Mayor
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:When was the last time good news was posted here? I posted about they finally are going to prosecute someone for a financial crime yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I posted about they finally are going to prosecute someone for a financial crime yesterday. Not full communism, thousand years of darkness are still on schedule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:When was the last time good news was posted here? The Republican Primary, Rick Perry, and uhh....oops I forgot the third thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Riptor posted:yes but none who can get elected Are there any poll numbers matching Bernie Sanders against various Republican candidates?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:When was the last time good news was posted here? Hillary Clinton calls for "toppling" the 1 percent
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
zoux posted:Huh, is something going on next year? Just a few minor elections, nothing important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I posted about they finally are going to prosecute someone for a financial crime yesterday. Whom is a brown skinned UK man making day trades from his parents basement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/11555228/Flash-Crash-trader-Navinder-Singh-Sarao-pictured-for-first-time.html quote:Appearing in a yellow jumper and white tracksuit bottoms, and unshaven, Mr Singh spoke only to confirm his name, his address and date of birth, and to confirm he would fight extradition. He appeared alone in court, without family or friends. The court was told that Mr Sarao, who was born and raised in the UK, is a graduate of Brunel University in west London and worked in banking before he set himself up as a day trader, setting up a business based at his parents' semi-detached home in Hounslow, west London. Really holding those fat cats accountable 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
You post good news in here prepare to spend the next three pages defending against people trying to explain why it's actually not good news.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Is she saying that she herself is not a one percenter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Obama made a joke that made Republicans mad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Whom is a brown skinned UK man making day trades from his parents basement. Dude made millions of dollars, stop whining. He clearly had access to serious capital to even make that much from the manipulation, you can't do that with $8228.40 and a Metrocard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Have to say, this is terribly written. In a way that really hamstrings the few worthwhile points the author is trying to make. Instead of just referring to her forceful advocacy in Libya as general Middle Eastern adventurism while throwing a very vague backhand at feminist backers of Hillary, why don't you post her many quotes on the subject (that do a lot better job of highlighting her foreign hawkish tendencies)? Its a polemic, not an article. Bah! Just wanted to add: the vague backhand at the feminist supporters is the author trying to point out the problems with the feminism Hillary has practiced / the fact that mainstream America doesnt care. Basically her history/policies ignore the intersectionality dynamics between race/sex/gender/sexuality/class/etc in how discrimination and power structures come about in this country/society. Essentially half assed feminism: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Maarek posted:We aren't even in the primary season yet and they're already telling the party's liberals that they're basically traitors if they don't vote for the center-right Mrs. Inevitability candidate. Once she wraps up the nomination and people who have no reason to be excited or give a poo poo about her election are apathetic, they're going to tell you that the primary is when you vote for the people you actually want and you need to get out there and GOTV for Hillary!!! I don't think anyone's even implying you shouldn't vote for anyone you want in the Primaries. Your Declared choices are currently: Andy Caffrey, Willie Carter, Hillary Clinton, Doug Shreffler, Michael Steinberg, and Robby Wells. Lincoln Chafee,, Jim Webb, and Martin O'Malley are Exploratory Candidates. http://2016.democratic-candidates.org/#Declared-Democratic-Candidates Bernie is currently not Exploratory or Declared. I'm pretty sure she's going to stomp all of them, but there's no reason not to vote for anyone up to and including Lizard People in the Primary, if you feel called to it. Oh, and do, please, tell us which declared candidates would make a better president than Hillary, and why.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:11
|
|
