Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Navigation Needed


16 comments:

  1. Perspective: I just learned that my dear friend and peer, who was my spiritual guide for 14 years, until March, is now in Hospice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, Alan. You could say Trump and Bernie are approaching the same problem from different ends. But HRC will certainly never attract Trump voters. And like Susan says, she's lost at least half the Democratic voters. How she thinks she's going to win with 25% or less of the electorate beats me. But she's so insulated, she may not actually know how desperate her case is. I've probably said it before, but she's gonna be one surprised mama when she wakes up on November Ninth. And I guarantee, we'll never hear the end of how it was Bernie's fault and ours she didn't win. My house is going to be Hell for the next few years. *sigh*

    No doubt I've said this before too, but there's little to choose between Trump supporters and HRC supporters. Arrogant bullies, for the most part, and none too bright. Which, of course, is what makes them so dangerous. Well, it's all over now bar the shouting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am rather more sanguine about the results of the November election, Cat--but I'm not about to place any bets one way or the other. The Democratic Losership Council types are limping into the last lap of their race, I think. They have given birth to the force that will displace and destroy them--all good Hegelian/Marxist social evolution, that is. They don't know how to deal with the change, any more than the feudal lords understood how to deal with those wretched upstart mercantilists.

      --Alan

      Delete
  3. She's With Them–But We've Got Us: A Movement Bigger Than Sanders [Click] “The DNC and the Clinton campaign joined forces against the 'political revolution' for one simple reason: they knew it could win. And it still can.”

    I like Rose Ann DeMoro’s line—“Heroes aren’t made, they’re cornered.”

    Campaigns End on Election Day. Revolutions Don't. [Click] —Jim Hightower


    --Alan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Image for the news result
    90 percent of unwavering Sanders supporters plan to vote for Clinton in November
    Washington Post‎ - 2 days ago
    The Democratic convention is chaotic. ... the 2016 campaign for months, allowing it to track attitudes among voters over time. ... Ninety percent said they back Hillary Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Well, that's nice for them and for HRC. I'm none too steady on my feet, but I'm in the 10%. And I'm sick of being told I should change. I may be prissier than Susan, but that doesn't mean I'm not just as mad.

      Also, these stats are very liberating. Just as there's little danger of Trump winning Massachusetts, as Alan pointed out, that 90%, if even close to accurate, provides plenty of cover. Have I mentioned that I'm a devout coward, er, risk averse? It's nice to know I can let my conscience be my guide while not facilitating Trump.

      Yeah, yeah. I'm worthless scum. So, what else is new? Just wipe your feet on me on the way out. :P

      Delete
    2. The Washington Post picked those numbers out of thin air. Don't you remember during the primary how slanted their *reporting* was? I think it's more like 75% of Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary. The "Mainstream Media" has been trying to direct this election the way they want it to go. Did you see that CNN, while DWS was being booed off the stage, muted the sound and reported that she was receiving CHEERS? Yeah, if you spell cheer BOO. They keep trying to spread that "Everybody is voting for Hillary" lie to make Bernie supporters give up and vote for her. It's a steering tactic, nothing more, and - guess what - it doesn't work on most of us.

      Delete
    3. Puddle, I should have clarified that I know you are not trying to manipulate or influence!

      Delete
  5. That stat was from Pew, which I don't count as anyone's media.

    I absolutely am not try to change anyone's vote, here, ore elsewhere.

    But I'm a big believer of knowing what's true and what isn't (to the degree we are able). I watched the Romney peeps in 2012 in an agony of unwillingness to know--right down to "unscewing" polls that went against their wishes. To the point that on election night they were damned near suicidal in their disbelief.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked at the graphs in the article, and they look awfully soft to me. Maybe there is something to them, but I am not convinced that it amounts to much, and there are about three months and a half until election day. Maybe two and a half months before voting begins.

      I don't figure I have changed my position one iota since the early days of Bernie's campaign; if the Dems should [have] nominated him, I would [have] vot[ed] for the Democratic candidate. If not, this will probably make the third Presidential contest in a row that I vote for a female candidate, most likely (but not certainly) Jill Stein. My party turned its back on me and walked away a long time ago; I would welcome them back, but it hasn't happened yet.

      As for what is "liberal," "moderate" or "conservative" I have no idea. The words seem to be largely devoid of meaning in a political context. Likewise "centrist." Many Republican members of Congress (and state legislatures, for that matter) who call themselves "conservatives" are functionally anarchists; isn't anarchy supposed to be the opposite of conservatism? And I am basically a New Deal Democrat--does that make me far left, liberal, conservative or reactionary? I like Jim Hightower's observation that the only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos. But the current "Democratic" Party is not a center-left party; it is by my reckoning well to the right of Eisenhower, and has little remaining acquaintance with the middle of the road. The GOP has long since moved off the shoulder and been driving in the ditch.

      I find Jim Hightower's contention in the article I linked above that HRC will as a matter of political expediency move toward the "liberal" wing of the Party interesting, but I also bear in mind Molly Ivins' reminder that you got to dance with them what brung you. And it weren't Joe and Jill Lunchbucket what brung HRC--it was Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and their ilk.

      --Alan

      P.S.: Very close relatives of mine lost their house to a predatory lender--Deutsche Bank by name. Which gave HRC a huge amount of money around the time she helped to make hiding money via Panama much easier.

      Delete
    2. Re "anarchists": I feel very strongly that the liberal-conservative axis and the libertarian-authoritarian axis are at right angles to each other. Conservatives can be either libertarian or authoritarian and the same is true of liberals. There's a lot of truth to the adage that liberals want to regulate business and conservatives want to regulate personal behavior. In both cases, of course, that's if they lean authoritarian.

      I believe I have mentioned at some point that, if given the unrestricted right to choose my political label, I would call myself left-libertarian.

      Delete
  6. Here's a comment from one of Bernie's FB pages. Kind of neat to have it all spelled out so clearly; not tat any Clintonista would believe it, of course.

    Marcus Henderson: Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run, where she lost the nomination to Obama. So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary would've had to put Schultz in charge of the DNC and manipulate it from within.

    In order for this corruption scheme to work, the Clintons would have needed first to, not only get the current DNC chair at the time to step down, but also get them to recommend Schultz for the position. A big request. And the Clintons would have likely needed to promise a powerful favor to that DNC chair, something more prestigious than being head of the Democratic party.

    So who was that person and what did they get in return?

    The previous chair of the DNC prior to Debbie Wasserman Schultz was...

    Tim Kaine.

    Let that sink in for a moment ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that IS an interesting idea--but assumes competence to pull off such a plan. And I am reminded of the reason people have belly buttons--so there will be a place to put the salt when they eat celery in bed. [he ducks]

      --Alan

      Delete
  7. Got an email from Bernie today asking me to continue my monthly contribution, but now to Our Revolution rather than the campaign. I did, of course.

    ReplyDelete