Let’s discuss the issues of third parties and voters
choosing not to participate in elections. I get it. People get frustrated. We
seem to have two kinds of candidates, disappointing and horrible.
It should be obvious that the most horrible are always Republicans.
As I’ve repeatedly emphasized, the Republican
Party is at war with representative democracy, which means they want to
suppress voters and voting rights.
The more people who turn out to vote, the more
Republicans lose.
The Right has made this tactic abundantly clear.
In 1980 Paul Weyrich of the conservative Heritage
Foundation came out and flatly stated, “I don't want everybody to vote.
Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been
from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter
of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace
goes down.”
In 2013 Phyllis Schlafly responded to North Carolina
voter suppression laws with, “The reduction in the number of days allowed for
early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role
in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days
of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before
last year’s election, that “early voting is giving us a solid lead in the
battleground states that will decide this election.”
In 2012 Doug Preisse, the chairman of the Franklin County
Republican Party, whose area includes the city of Columbus, Ohio admitted, “I
guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to
accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter turnout machine.
Also in 2012, Republican House Leader Mike Turzai declared that
a new voter identification law would “We are focused on making sure that we
meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years.. Voter ID, which
is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done”.
Staying home is a vote for Republicans. Discouraging
voting has been their strategy all along.
I understand the principle of voting third party, but that often has the
same effect as voting for Republicans, unless it is in certain local elections
or in a true blue state.
Just as the US needed to side with Russia to stop the
Nazis, I feel the same need to side with Democrats against the Republicans. It
doesn't have to mean we like them, just as siding with the Soviets didn't mean
we approved of Stalin.
Republicans have shown us they are clearly more
dangerous to democracy, voting rights, peace, equal justice under law, public healthcare, and the
environment.
Lazy and apathetic people never contribute to progress.
If Trump isn't enough to motivate them, then nothing will get them off their
asses to vote in primaries and produce better candidates.
But remember, AOC is proof that
corpo-dems can be defeated.
The choices often suck, but shame on us for not being as
active as the authoritarian fringe of our country. If the rest of us were as
passionate as the worst of us, we'd never have seen the rise of Trump or the
invasion of Iraq.
Remember most Democrats voted against invading Iraq. The parties are NOT the same.
Only
Republicans wage war on voter rights. All Republicans gut environmental and
Wall Street regulations, and cut taxes for the rich and corporations. Most
Democrats did not. Only Republicans want to privatize Social Security and prisons, and the VA, along
with every other public service. That should be more than enough motivation to
vote against Republicans.
If not, then what would it take?
Staying home is just what the worst of us wants. The same
applies to third party votes. That's just how it is.
The Right is at war with democracy, the Earth, and
everything we hold dear. We need all the allies we can get. Even if they are
the damn Democrats.
Democracy: Use it or lose it.
Posts
61 comments:
Sent an email to all of our Baraga County Democratic Party membership earlier this P.M. and relayed Speaker Pelosi's voice mail number to see if they want to call her and relay to her their thoughts and opinions on impeachment. I have done so and have had some takers from the membership doing the same. We have a Trumpet MAGAt as our Congressman, so it made no sense to call him. He doesn't listen to our concerns or opinions anyway.
Remember the expression: Perfect is the enemy of good.
We all have our own nuances, this goes for politicians. If you agree with 80% of what they're saying, don't let that 20% get the other guy elected.
What's the phrase that seems to cunningly describe the American electorate? Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line? My political alignment's never going to completely match with everyone available to me to vote for. I have to pick the one closest to my ideals, even if I have to pinch my nose on other priorities. Too many people in 2016, when given the choice between Clinton and Stein and No Vote, made the wrong choice. "Vote my conscious" was a constant refrain I experienced. A person is entitled to their vote, their opinion, and their conscious. The reality of life needs to also be considered. The person with the realistic shot, regardless of how the Primary was perceived, at winning the Presidency was far from perfect... but it was a choice between a person with decades of civil service and a philandering pitch man with decades of what they accused Bill Clinton constantly of x 10.
Democrats wanted to fall in love, Republicans got in line.
Now we suffer through this international embarrassment.
"If you agree with 80% of what [politicians are] saying, don't let that 20% get the other guy elected." ~~ TB3
But if one only agrees with 20% of what corpo-Democrats are saying, their choices are severely limited.
"Too many people in 2016, when given the choice between Clinton and Stein and No Vote, made the wrong choice." ~~ TB3
I know, they mistakenly voted for Clinton...or stayed home.
"The reality of life needs to also be considered." ~~ TB3
Yes, the "reality of life" that our nation, our democracy - our whole political system - has been hijacked by multinational corporations and Wall Street, should be considered and also be resisted.
Instead, the majority buy into the false neoliberal and permanent war narrative which ultimately allows alt-right racist populists like Donald Trump to gain power - and place blame on the wrong reasons.
"But if one only agrees with 20% of what corpo-Democrats are saying, their choices are severely limited." - JG
I can not disagree with this. When you have a bad choice or an abysmal choice as the two likely outcomes, you don't pick secret option number 3 or 4 that have no chance at all of being successful. You may be making a statement, or think that you are, but by making that statement you're helping the abysmal choice.
"I know, they mistakenly voted for Clinton...or stayed home." - JG
:)
"Yes, the "reality of life" that our nation, our democracy - our whole political system - has been hijacked by multinational corporations and Wall Street, should be considered and also be resisted." - JG
Sure. Okay. Noble. I agree with you. I'm not as passionate about it as you, but I agree with you. Vote in these people running on lower tickets, state houses, Congress. When they get into the primary's for President, vote for them. In the mean time, when given the choice between 20% you agree with non-ideal candidate and Donald Trump, you pinch your nose. You have to, or you get Donald Trump. The greater of two evils. These people that want to fight the system, reclaim our Republic for We the People, and have the pendulum swing back to We the People need to be built up.
"Instead, the majority buy into the false neoliberal and permanent war narrative which ultimately allows alt-right racist populists like Donald Trump to gain power - and place blame on the wrong reasons." - JG
Got it. So. 2020. It's Incumbant Trump vs LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE, the point is that despite who LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE is, people need to rally behind them. Because, how does allowing Trump a second term help against the neoliberal and permanent war narrative which allows alt-right racist populists to gain power?
"- and place blame on the wrong reasons." - JG
I'm requoting this because I want to circle back to specifically this. The blame for Trump is not enough people in the right places voted for Clinton. There are several reasons that not enough people voted for Clinton. A significant one was people thought a viable option or viable statement was to either not vote or vote for someone that was neither Trump or Clinton. Now, I agree, participation rates are stupidly low and so many more people opted not to vote at all. Placing the blame on Clinton not getting elected on people who chose not to vote for her is not wrong. It's just nuanced because there are a multitude of reasons why people didn't vote for her. The reality is, in 2016, she was the only actual person capable of winning outside of Trump. Johnson and Stein were only ever going to be spoilers... and I know "Not with that attitude" is the attitude I got during the election season. I'm sure Section 5 of the Voting Right Act getting shut down in 20... 13? 14? didn't help either. 2016 was the first Presidential Election since that unfortunate Supreme Court decision.
Democrats want to fall in love, Republicans fall in line. You want to fight against the multi-nationals, fine. In the meantime the Republicans are packing the courts with their people for a generation.
If you want a viable third party candidate for president, you need to have that third party with enough backing in the entire country. Voting for a third party president whilst the entire country is held by only Democrats or Republicans is self-defeating. Start small and build - get the third party into the cities, then the counties, then the states, and then that third party might just have a shot at the presidency. Until then, a third party vote in the presidential election is just pissing against the wind.
TB3, I have an early day so can't respond to your analysis in the way I'd prefer to right now.
Before I leave, though, allow me to interject with the observation that you still believe that the system works -- and for the most part, based upon your earlier estimate -- 80% of the time.
I also indicated to you my observation that 80% of the system, although it was framed as what the candidates stood for, did not work. Put another way, I could have just as easily said the system is rigged for the benefit of a slim minority.
I believe Occupy Wall Street, along with its spin-offs, used the figure of 1%. The exact percentage isn't the crucial point, though, as much as understanding the system is set-up to serve a select few -- and will continue to unless a profound paradigm shift occurs.
Our disagreement comes down to, ultimately, whether people see the glass as half full or half empty. I see the glass as an illusion.
I appreciate your jumping in to give me a 'I haven't forgotten about you' response.
What I am saying regarding these percentages is not about optimism, but about policy. Of the candidates likely to win the election, go with the one that is closest to your own stance. If they only meet 80%, 70%, 55% of your platform but has a realistic chance of winning you vote for that person. Voting for the person in a fringe party that more closely aligns with you accomplishes worse than nothing when the guy who is actively hostile toward most your ideals (Or embodies what you resist) wins instead. At least in 2016 and 2020
KanaW said what I tried to say with more precision. I would love multiple parties to be viable options in our process, but these parties need to stop shooting for the Presidential Moon and put in the hard work of building up and filling those State Houses, Local Municipalities, and Congressional Seats. Multiple parties would be easier to obtain if we uncapped, or at least increase the cap on, the number of seats in the US House of Representatives, as well.
However, the basic gist of my comment is that we have to pick the lesser of two evils in the short term in order to be better positioned in the long term to fight for our priorities and ideals. Meanwhile, we work with the long term in mind by getting non-Democrats/Non-Republicans elected to Dog Catcher, Sheriff, County Council, Board of Education, State Delegates, etc.
Tim,
Thank you for your service to democracy. I would call the Rep anyway. He needs to have his cage rattled. Someone in the office will have to hear the words, "Trump is a criminal, racist, and liar" spoken into their ears.
KanaW,
You're right. Third parties can only be built up from the roots, not down from the top.
TB3 and JG,
You both make valid points.
Instead of framing it as voting for the lesser evil, I would suggest we call it voting against the greater evil. We have to decide how that is best accomplished, what works and what does not work. Meanwhile, the far Right will continue to gain power as long as we allow the authoritarian fringe, that is the worst of us, to politically engage more actively than the rest of us.
As Yeats wrote, "The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity". There has never been a time in history that this hasn't been true, sadly.
It's an uphill battle against the human herd instinct to follow authoritarian leaders who manipulate fears and anger, molding anxieties into hate for others.
The public has been conditioned far too long by corporate media's "both-siderism", aided by the ideological Left's "there's no difference between the parties". Look what that has brought us.
The Second World War taught us about defeating the greatest evil first, then overcoming the lesser evils.
It's bad enough we need super majorities to defeat Republicans. Giving Trump another term so we can "punish the Democrats" makes little sense to me.
Who are we really punishing?
"Instead of framing it as voting for the lesser evil, I would suggest we call it voting against the greater evil. We have to decide how that is best accomplished, what works and what does not work. Meanwhile, the far Right will continue to gain power as long as we allow the authoritarian fringe, that is the worst of us, to politically engage more actively than the rest of us." - DD
I think I used that exact term, Greater Evil. Trump seeks to hold onto power through division. He knows he has a reliable 30% to back him up. He knows he doesn't need to build a bigger tent if he encourages his opposition to separate themselves into ever smaller tents. That's why he makes no effort whatsoever to reach out to anyone who doesn't already fervently support him. He also knows there's a sizable group of people who call themselves Republican or "Conservative" will plug their nose and vote for him, because he'll achieve their goals or oppose things they are against.
"The public has been conditioned far too long by corporate media's "both-siderism", aided by the ideological Left's "there's no difference between the parties". Look what that has brought us." - DD
Except the fact the 'there's no difference between the parties' is demonstrably false. Just because corporate interests have their tendils in people hailing from both parties, doesn't make the parties the same. Civil rights, Women's Autonomy, Healthcare, Social Safety Net. There'd be no such thing as a "wedge issue" if the parties were the same. It's a shame corporate interests and media biased away from public interest are so entrenched, but it's not exactly a new situation for our Republic.
Which brings me back to my initial point. Perfect is the enemy of good. It's politics. It's cynical. You're not going to find purity. You're not going to fall in love. You will find someone good enough that'll let you take steps to progress forward. The alternative to that good enough someone makes your efforts at progress harder as they reverse what gains have been made.
You want to hold the Democrats accountable? You need to build up the stable of the opposition and you do that through local elections. "From the roots". Unfortunately, this takes time and delayed gratification.
Believe me Dave, I've been rattling our Reps. cage now for well over a year. I may have started with the Tax Scam, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and the repealing of the ACA. It goes a long way back. He has heard words like criminal, Trump crime family, racist, lying asshole-in-chief, lawlessness and Orange Stain. I've asked him to move back to Louisiana to be near his KKK bros. I've told him his silence is deafening on the Rep. Omar issues and asked if he was anti-Muslim. I'm holding true to my vow of being a hemorrhoid to his office and having some fun at the same time. I hit them up at least 2 or more times per week.
By the way, I got asked about my Trump bashing at a ballgame last night and just stated I don't like the guy and am utilizing my free speech. Shut him up quickly. He either saw my car or read my Letters to the Editors over time.
Tim,
Well done!
Speaking out in rural/small town Trump country is a brave act. They don't want to hear it, but they need to. More people are speaking the truth about the Big MAGAt.
You might ask them if they are familiar with this fact. The German Nazis used the term “Lügenpresse”, or lying press, in their campaign to discredit journalism. Now American Trump fanatics cry “liberal media” and “fake news” when the truth threatens their agenda.
What would make someone believe a liar like Trump, anyway?
Is that the tradition they want to follow? I'd love to ask them about those "very fine people" with the swastikas, MAGA hats, and confederate flags, and why they love Trump so much. And why the agree with those white nationalists and racists.
I'd also ask them why we should trust a pathological liar, just to see them squirm.
If they tell you he keeps his promises, remind them about who's paying for that wall, and where's that "fantastic health care" he promised. And how about why he promised to leave Medicare and Social Security alone, but now wants to cut those programs.
I'd ask how it is Christian to cut taxes for the rich while taking food stamps from the poor.
All this would fry their closed minded brains.
They really have no clue how to engage in fair, fact-based, reasoned discussion. Let them walk away to their MAGA cult world, because they can't hold their own in reality.
As we've seen from our troll, it is a religion to them. A cult with all the answers...and all the hate of white nationalism.
"Remember the expression: Perfect is the enemy of good." ~~ TB3
I don't recall, honestly, but I can appreciate its useful and disastrous applications. Just "good" didn't get us to the moon in 1969. It probably won't save us from the imminent catastrophe of global warming, either.
"Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line?" ~~ TB3
Haven't come across this one either. Makes sense, though. Republicans being the authoritarians they are, and true progressives never appreciating being told what to do, it's the perfect defining and all-encompassing expression of the two.
"When you have a bad choice or an abysmal choice as the two likely outcomes, you don't pick secret option number 3 or 4 that have no chance at all of being successful." ~~ TB3
You're leaving out the possibility that the voter has no interest, at all, in seeing the number 1 or 2 choice find success, knows that one will, but finds pleasure in believing he or she voted with a conscience.
Don't discount the economic principle of individually assigning "utils" to the voting process. Which, incidently, means someone's vote shouldn't be easily given away. It should be earned.
The casting of my vote for a Democratic candidate, for instance, will come at a fairly steep price. The Democratic Party will definitely have to earn it. ;-)
"Noble. I agree with you. I'm not as passionate about it as you, but I agree with you. ~~ TB3
You should be. Corporate personhood, and it's resultant court decisions, is the underlying cause of the majority of social, cultural and political ills we suffer today. In fact, it's intrinsically connected to the rise of Trumpism that we're suffering through today.
"...when given the choice between 20% you agree with non-ideal candidate and Donald Trump, you pinch your nose." ~~ TB3
That's requiring that I not be true to myself, and not follow my conscience. That's asking that I accept and side with evil in order to defeat another evil. Isn't that evil?
I said, "...and place blame on the wrong reasons." and you replied...
"I'm requoting this because I want to circle back to specifically this." ~~ TB3
I'm sorry I mislead you on this. The blame I was referencing was/is the scapegoating Trump used/uses to capture the black hearts and empty minds of his deplorable base. That ploy has been used as long as humans have inhabited the planet.
Again, my apologies.
"Third parties can only be built up from the roots, not down from the top." ~~ Dave Dubya
Theoretically, you're right. But when the political process is controlled by an entrenched duopoly, and the mainstream corporate media have no incentive to allow third-party voices to participate with Republicans and Democrats in nationally televised "debates", getting traction at any level is an impossibility.
As much as TB3 attempts to convince that third-party politicians should not be considered as an option, it's this very reason they don't garner the very support they deserve.
Put them on the national stage with the major party contestants and the voting results would be astounding!
Case in point, look what the free hours of airtime did for Donald Trump.
"Except the fact the 'there's no difference between the parties' is demonstrably false." ~~ TB3
Okay, maybe not "no difference", but for 80% or more of policy issues there isn't. (Well, except under Trumpism, and even that's up for debate.)
The rest, as you described, are wedge-issues -- appropriated named to create and display a perceived difference between the two "wings" of the ruling Corporatist Party.
"I'm holding true to my vow of being a hemorrhoid to his office and having some fun at the same time." ~~ U.P Tim
Good job, Tim! I've been enough of a pain in the ass to my own congressional representative, also a Trump ally, that he doesn't answer me anymore.
I'm hurt. ;-)
"You want to fight against the multi-nationals, fine. In the meantime the Republicans are packing the courts with their people for a generation." ~~ TB3
It's really the chicken or the egg question...or is it?
Donald Trump didn't come out of nowhere. He was the product of a status quo where those hit the hardest by the 2008 downturn were told they're on their own. Instead, the status quo propped up the investment banks and others who caused and created the problem.
The status quo refused to listen. The status quo refused to help. Donald Trump, though, at least pretended to listen; he said he'd take care of them (which we've since seen were lies) and he spoke their crude and under-educated language by scapegoating persons of color, suffering disabilities, or claiming same-sex orientation.
He combined all their hate and their resentments, took advantage of the corporate media's free airtime, and beat his more traditional political adversaries by defining a new way.
Donald Trump, and this has been said several times, isn't the problem. He's the symptom of a political system that failed to serve its people; didn't care about the citizenry, but instead made alliances with Wall Street, with the multinationals, and with the "1%" who would grease their wheels.
So what happens when Trump gets soundly thumped next year? That's easy to see and very easy to answer.
We'll continue to deal with the same corporatacracy we've had for decades. It just won't wear the strongman face of Donald Trump.
So what happens when Trump gets soundly thumped next year?
We'll still have a far Right Supreme Court, less democracy, and a stronger corporate state because he wasn't soundly thumped in 2016.
We'll still have his emboldened, racist, angry base.
We will still have many horrors and their continuing consequences that could have been prevented.
Heather Heyer will still be dead.
We'll still have the Party of Trump, because the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
If we don't vote for the corporatists over the fascists, we get the fascists.
"If we don't vote for the corporatists over the fascists, we get the fascists." ~~ Dave Dubya
Don't forget...the corporatists are fascists. Sheldon Wolin inferred this in his book where he coined the term "inverted totalitarianism".
Corporatism often enables fascism. No doubt some corporatists are fascists, but if we allow this equivalence we may as well say Gore was as bad as Bush/Cheney, Obama and Hillary are as bad as Trump, and both parties are the same.
The status of the EPA, DOJ, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, children in cages, etc. draw some distinctions that should not be ignored.
We man say what we will about corpo-dems, but Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Limbaugh wouldn't be calling the shots for Hillary.
"Just "good" didn't get us to the moon in 1969. It probably won't save us from the imminent catastrophe of global warming, either." - JG
That's not untrue, but getting to the moon in 1969 wasn't a decision between two people. Further more, getting to the moon was a lengthy, time consuming effort. Kennedy didn't announce our intention of getting to the moon and a year later we're up there playing golf and riding dune buggies. I am uncertain as to what you mean by this rebuttal.
"You're leaving out the possibility that the voter has no interest, at all, in seeing the number 1 or 2 choice find success, knows that one will, but finds pleasure in believing he or she voted with a conscience." - JG
Of course I'm leaving that out, because that's beside my point. You have a greater than 99% chance of one of two individuals winning the Presidency. Regardless of the fact either one of them earns your vote or not, they will win. You help the one closest to your ideals win instead of chasing the less than 1% chance neither of them get in. Furthermore, someone running for President is not going to concern themselves with individuals, but rather try to appeal to as much of the broader citizenry as possible. Your County Councilperson, on the other hand, I'd expect to go door to door earning your vote. It's unfortunate, but there's no way a Presidential Candidate is going to do that, thus they will never be able to earn your vote the way you'd prefer.
"You should be." - JG
Unconvincing. Corporate personhood is the result of decades of efforts by interested parties. It's here. We have to deal with it until we elect people that aren't Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump into office and provide them the political capital to actually write legislation to override the court decisions. Court decisions are only treated as "law" because they fill the void where legislation should have been.
"it's intrinsically connected to the rise of Trumpism that we're suffering through today." - JG
How, exactly? You and DD talk about this all the time and I typically just sit on the sidelines because the way you talk about it comes off more as conspiracy than fact. I have to remind myself you guys aren't talking about the Rothschilds or the Illuminati.
"That's requiring that I not be true to myself, and not follow my conscience. That's asking that I accept and side with evil in order to defeat another evil. Isn't that evil?" - JG
No. That's practicality. What you're describing sounds awfully romanticized and hyperbolic. Again- We are currently in a system that gives you two legitimate choices. You opt for neither... well, at least your have a clear conscious. Whatever that is worth to you. Meanwhile, in addition to that conscious, we get Trumpelthintskin and his two Federalist Society Justices and dozens of lower court judges.
"I'm sorry I mislead you on this." - JG
I apologize for getting defensive. I've been privy to a number of discussions and arguments with people over the 2016 elections. I am in absolute agreement in Trump's deliberate use of the tactics of division to achieve his goals was a major contributing factor to his primary and electoral success.
"As much as TB3 attempts to convince that third-party politicians should not be considered as an option, it's this very reason they don't garner the very support they deserve.
Put them on the national stage with the major party contestants and the voting results would be astounding!
Case in point, look what the free hours of airtime did for Donald Trump." - JG
I agree. It would be astounding. What I am saying is that 3rd and 4th Party Candidates lack the resources, backing and organization of the other two parties. In order to have these things, they need to be built up. Going straight for the Presidency is like building the roof of a house pouring the foundation and erecting the walls. It's just not happening. Also- Donald Trump is not the case in point. Donald Trump ran as a Republican, not as a 3rd Party. He didn't do so hot in 2000 when he considered his run as part of the Reform Party. Even Trump knew he'd need to choose to either be a D or an R to even have a shot at the Presidency.
"Donald Trump didn't come out of nowhere." - JG
You're right. It'd be even more scary if he did come out of nowhere. No. Trump is the result of decades of Right-Wing Media, Talking Heads and Dittoheads parroting how awful everything that isn't "conservative" or "how it used to be" is. Trump tapped into the Limbaughs and the Hannitys. People who felt left behind failed to follow their own "Conservative" advice and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Hillary was not wrong about needing to retool and retrain coal miners. Obama was not wrong about needing to retrain manufacturing laborers for the 21st Century. We had people out there trying to convince people away from how it's always been. Yes, the investment bankers F'ed up with a capital UCKED but letting them fail would have been disasterous. Now failing to adaquately punish them is a different matter. But people failing to come to terms with the reality they found themselves in? Thats not the fault of people like Obama and Clinton. They tried. We just had the McConnells, the Limbaughs, and the Hannitys of the country denying reality and giving too many people comfortable lies. It's just easier to scapegoat and point the finger and let things slip into a morrass of awful than it is to actually put in the work to improve your situation. The same people who decry Medicaid and Foodstamps were ironically hoping the government would wave the magic wand and make Bethleham Steel and Coal giants again.
Dave and Jeff thanks guys. I haven't been cut-off yet by the Reps. office or had the Feds at my door. Lucky I guess. Dave, a lot of the points you made have been brought up in my Letters to the Editor in our small town daily rag The Daily Mining Gazette and the weekly L'Anse Sentinel. We've started a little group up here which we call our Legislative Watch Group and we study current legislation which is in the loop and discuss strategies on how we can have our concerns heard or make some sort of impact. It's fun and hopefully beneficial. We gotta keep up the fight.
"No doubt some corporatists are fascists, but if we allow this equivalence..." ~~ Dave Dubya
Excuse me, Dave, I should have said, instead, "corporatism" is "fascism". It makes it less personal; more macro or structural.
"...we may as well say Gore was as bad as Bush/Cheney, Obama and Hillary are as bad as Trump, and both parties are the same." ~~ Dave Dubya
Both wings...oh, wait, sorry...both parties are essentially the same. One performs the dominate persona, the other the submissive one. Both, working in tandem, play us.
"We may say what we will about corpo-dems, but Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Limbaugh wouldn't be calling the shots for Hillary." ~~ Dave Dubya
No doubt Clinton wouldn't have been listening to them, but we would still be experiencing record income inequality; an economy, for most, based upon accumulating debt instead of wealth; rights granted by the Constitutional amendments meant for humans and instead bestowed upon multinational corporations for manipulation by their cadre of lawyers; indiscriminate pollution of our air, land and waterways; and the stealing of our nation's treasures and commons for sale to the highest bidders.
New day, same ol' s**t. No thanks.
"I am uncertain as to what you mean by this rebuttal." ~~ TB3
Don't read too much into it, other than I'd rather see perfection in the project to reach the Moon, and not just good. In the same sense, I'd rather have a perfect pilot in the cockpit and not just a good one.
"...someone running for President is not going to concern themselves with individuals, but rather try to appeal to as much of the broader citizenry as possible." ~~ TB3
Of course. It seems logical, but with most of America wanting universal health care and the end to permanent war, how many centrist politicians run on these issues?
"...there's no way a Presidential Candidate is going to do that, thus they will never be able to earn your vote the way you'd prefer. ~~ TB3
I never asked for door-to-door solicitation. I did say I wanted a candidate that spoke for and believed in my concerns. I don't need them to personally deliver their message[s]. The Internet and/or TV would be fine with me.
"Corporate personhood is the result of decades of efforts by interested parties. It's here. We have to deal with it until we elect people that aren't [the usual suspects]." ~~ TB3
No, not just decades -- more than 125 years. The legal fiction of corporate personhood got a foothold with an erroneous court decision in 1886, with several court decisions since using that as legal precedent to overrule human rights and destroy our democratic processes.
Your words, "until we elect people..." gave me a chuckle. ;-) How long will that take? I've been waiting since 1886. LOL
"You and DD talk about [corporate personhood] all the time and I typically just sit on the sidelines because the way you talk about it comes off more as conspiracy than fact." ~~ TB3
I can't be sure what you're referencing when you say "the way you talk about it", so I can't address this. Sorry. Can you be more specific?
As far as the legal fiction known as corporate personhood, there are many excellent resources out there. I first became acquainted with the concept when I bought a book by Thom Hartmann sometime in the early 2000s. (I'm sorry, I can't recall the exact title right now.)
"Donald Trump is not the case in point. Donald Trump ran as a Republican..." ~~ TB3
Whether he ran as a Republican, a Democrat, a Green, or an alien from outer-space, the point is he received free national airtime from the corporate mainstream media. It's what gave his hateful and fear-mongering message traction and name-power.
The corporate media, intentionally or not, got this corrupt and inept man elected. Don't blame Jill Stein or those interested in justice and fairness in this country.
And now we have to contend with the lead corpo-democrat of them all, Joe Biden. [head shaking]
If he's chosen by the DNC for 2020, I already know I will not be putting my checkmark by his name. Biden is the epitome of "same ol' s**t, new day".
Say it ain't so, Joe.
"I first became acquainted with the concept when I bought a book by Thom Hartmann sometime in the early 2000s. (I'm sorry, I can't recall the exact title right now.)" ~~ Me
TB3, the title of the Hartmann book is "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights".
"That should be more than enough motivation to vote against Republicans.
If not, then what would it take?
Staying home is just what the worst of us wants. The same applies to third party votes." ~~ iDave Dubya
You can't equate the apathy of those who stay home -- whether purposely or because of forgetfulness -- with those who have the same motivation and feeling of civic duty of the most overly zealous Democrat or Republican. I'll counter that third-party voters have thought more about their choices than either major party adherent.
The irony is that TB3 has criticized Vern, on several occasions, for viewing politics as no more than sport; for backing "his team" at the expense of the long-term greater good of the country. Why isn't his argument, and yours, not advocating the exact same thing?
Isn't this strategy, to defeat Trump at all costs, no more than just a fallback position; a retreat toward something familiar and "comforting" -- back to the "same ol', same ol'" systemic policies of neoliberalism and globalization...indeed, just a step back to a less visibly and overt racist establishment structure we've both railed against for years?
Isn't the primary objection to Trump primarily his promotion of hate and racist rhetoric? Isn't another objection over his attacks against the "free press" (the corporate media), which have been, year after year, almost exclusively the mouthpiece and domain of the prevailing corporate state?
Do you really believe stepping back to "what was before" is the path to social justice?...to legal justice for all?...to a more fair sense of economic and income equality?
Dave, I don't.
JG,
Like it or not, a presidential election is essentially a binary choice. The lesser evil v. the greater evil. Only one of the two major parties has AOC, Omar, and Tlaib as members. The more people like them who get elected, the more progressive the party will become. Allowing Trump a second term only impairs their progressive efforts.
I am equating low voter turnout and voting for third party presidential candidates with more Republicans in power. The Republican Party is the greater evil I vote against. That is where my conscience takes me.
In 2000 Ralph Nader’s voters voted their conscience, but what were the consequences? The greater evil won. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the Bush/Cheney war on Iraq.
Their road to hell was paved with good intentions.
It’s not “stepping back to what was before”, it is stepping back from the greater evil that is happening now.
I’d very much like to step back from any more Cavanaughs on the Supreme Court.
I’d very much like to step back to allowing NASA and NOAA to address global warming, climate change, and rising sea levels. I’d like to step back to an EPA not managed by polluters.
Allowing Trump a second term is taking the path away from climate science, environmental protections, public healthcare, social justice, and equality. Allowing Trump a second term not only rewards the liar and racist , but encourages more dishonesty and racism.
Allowing Trump a second term means allowing the greater evil.
I’m a big fan of George Carlin. His insight on the owners of the “freak show” was clear.
Yet he said he didn’t vote because elections are only the illusion of choice.
“Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything.”
He’s correct on many levels, except the real life and death consequences.
Voting against the greater evil is voting for the long-term greater good of the country.
"I’m a big fan of George Carlin." ~~ Dave Dubya
I am too, Dave. He was another prophet taken from us too soon.
"Yet he said he didn’t vote because elections are only the illusion of choice." ~~ Dave Dubya
He was right, of course. I also made that illusion reference earlier in this thread in response to TB3.
You mentioned our election process is a binary choice. In reality, it's a unitary "choice" with a few wedge issues thrown in to keep the masses split and fighting amongst themselves.
In the meantime, the "owners" grab all the gusto and leave the rest of us scrambling over the crumbs.
We play into their hands with each and every election cycle -- whether the Republic wing or the Democratic wing steers the corporate state.
I don't deny we're facing extraordinary circumstances under Trumpism, unlike any threat we've faced since the Great Depression/WWII, but I also believe this is in the better interests of "the owners". Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be happening.
"Voting against the greater evil is voting for the long-term greater good of the country." ~~ Dave Dubya
Please allow me to slightly amend...
Voting against the greater evil is voting for the illusion of a long-term greater good of the country.
"Voting against the greater evil is voting for the illusion of a long-term greater good of the country."
As opposed to voting FOR the greater evil?
Imagine how many more humans would be alive if a thousand more people in Florida shared that illusion in 2000. War and torture are not illusions.
The McConnell/Trump Supreme Court is not an illusion either. Imagine if only 77,000 more people in three states shared that illusion.
Human suffering is not an illusion and voting to prevent human suffering is not an illusion.
Again, consequences are very real.
"As opposed to voting FOR the greater evil?" ~~ Dave Dubya
It just depends upon what method one chooses to loose it all...with certainty, or certainty with a smile.
It's really a zero-sum game, isn't it? We're f**ked any way you look at it.
Hedges is right. I know it, and you've expressed you know it.
I sometimes think our chances of full scale resistance comes easier being thrown in the fire, instead of cooking in a slow boil.
"Imagine how many more humans would be alive if a thousand more people in Florida shared that illusion in 2000." ~~ Dave Dubya
Imagine if a corrupt and partisan Florida government, and a partisan and corrupt Supreme Court, didn't stop the vote recount.
"The McConnell/Trump Supreme Court is not an illusion either."
Hardly. Like Trump, they're all corrupt as the day is long.
"Human suffering is not an illusion..." ~~ Dave Dubya
Human suffering has skyrocketed since the Reagan years. I'd venture a guess that it didn't abate much under the corporate-moderates Clinton or Obama.
Voting to prevent human suffering shouldn't be confused with voting to reduce human suffering, even a little -- which is all the corpo-democrats will ever be able to offer.
"Again, consequences are very real." ~~ Dave Dubya
Whether victims of intended consequences linked to neoliberalism and its associated policies of greed and death, or the unintended consequences of voting for what's best for all Americans, for all humankind, and for all living species inhabiting this still beautiful planet, I prefer to follow my conscience and support what I want -- not vote against what I don't want.
Right now it's a mute point. As long as the DNC puts up a nominee in-line with the humanistic values of someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the prospect of a challenging third-party candidate will not be necessary. Do I see this as a possibility? Yes, it is possible. Will it happen? Probably not.
The corporate power and lure of big money will be too much for the DNC to ignore. Like the GOP, they've been bought and sold. Between the two, it's a race for the bottom. Under Trumpism, the GOP has taken a sizable lead, of course, but any win by a corpo-democrat will narrow the gap.
I believe this to be the "owner's" objective.
By the way, without Congressional oversight support and impeachment proceedings undertaken against Donald Trump, precedent will be firmly established for the continuation of the imperial dictatorial presidency. Imagine the prospect of another future strongman in the White House -- this time an intelligent one.
The very idea should send shivers up your spine.
"Imagine the prospect of another future strongman in the White House -- this time an intelligent one. The very idea should send shivers up your spine."
That is where we are headed if Trump isn't defeated or impeached.
And I would vote against him too.
Hey JG,
Thank you for the thoughtful responses and providing me the name of the book your referenced. I'll look into procuring a copy and giving it a once over. I'm not going to go point by point through your responses. I think we're firmly ensconced in our opinions on the matter, and that's okay. :)
I will, however, respond to:
"The irony is that TB3 has criticized Vern, on several occasions, for viewing politics as no more than sport; for backing "his team" at the expense of the long-term greater good of the country. Why isn't his argument, and yours, not advocating the exact same thing?"
There's no irony here, because what I (And DD) am advocating isn't a team mentality. I don't want to speak for DD, but I'm pretty sure this is the case, that we are simply pointing out that we're given two viable options at the top of the ticket. There may be others on the ballot, but you have a greater than 99% chance that the D or the R at the top of the ticket is going to win the Presidency in our current 2 party system. Voting the L, the G, the I, the C are all just cast aside votes. You vote your conscious, but voting for anything PRESENTLY that's not an R and D and expecting change is foolhearty. If one day, with effort and work, a Progressive or Socialist or New Democrat or New Republican party rises as a separate distinct entity with an actual shot at winning the Presidency, vote for them. Right now, it's not in the cards because those separate parties don't have the necessary machine or clout to win anything. Getting 30 thousand extra votes in 2020 for one of these spoiler party's will just give a favorable swing to one of the two actual, viable parties.
The JTFs of the world treat it like sport because as soon as their team has won, things they previous whined, complained and railed against that the other side did prior to their win, they're either quiet, complicit, or outright cheerleaders for now.
If I want to stretch the sports analogy a little bit further in regards to what I (and DD) are advocating; It's like you really, really, really can't stand the New England Patriots. CAN'T STAND THEM. They're in the Superbowl against a team other than your preferred team. We're advocating that if you're going to watch the game, that you root for the team opposing the New England Patriots. You know, except Politics and Government matter and the Superbowl doesn't.
"The JTFs of the world treat it like sport because as soon as their team has won, things they previous whined, complained and railed against that the other side did prior to their win, they're either quiet, complicit, or outright cheerleaders for now."
The progressive/liberal/leftist/democrat voter does the same thing.
Among a dozen distractions and deflections, JTF made one point relevant to the discussion.
"The progressive/liberal/leftist/democrat voter does the same thing."
Yes, there is a grain of truth there. However that grain is overwhelmed by projection and false equivalence.
I can think of occasions when Democrats win, drone killings and corporate string-pulling become less terrible, but I have yet to see a liberal, progressive or leftist in the White House.
And no. JTF doesn't get to define liberal, progressive or leftist.
"The progressive/liberal/leftist/democrat voter does the same thing." - JTF
And we all know how much "conservatives" love mimicking what Progressive/Liberal/Leftist/Democratic voters do, don't we? Now would be a wonderful opportunity for "Conservatives" to do what Mrs. Trump (III) wants us all to do; Be Best. But, hey, cool. It must be a charmed life being able to rail against fake tyranny and constitutional usurpation but also be complicit and cheer for the real thing when it suits you. A life with no shame, wallowing in hypocrisy. At least T.Paine gave it up when he couldn't fake it anymore.
"That is where we are headed if Trump isn't defeated or impeached." ~~ Dave Dubya
Correction: That is where we're headin' if Trump is not, first, impeached. Without this precursor, whether Trump wins a second term or not, precedent will have been established for the imperial dictatorial presidency.
It's not an "either/or" option. Impeachment must be undertaken.
"I'll look into procuring a copy and giving it a once over." ~~ TB3
Don't do like I did and give it away to a friend. I had a first edition copy. I did a cursory search the other day to find a replacement. It appears it's out of print. There are secondhand copies available, though. Grab one and start the process of learning the underlying reason for almost every societal and economic illness we struggle to cope with today.
"...we are simply pointing out that we're given two viable options at the top of the ticket. There may be others on the ballot, but you have a greater than 99% chance that the D or the R at the top of the ticket is going to win the Presidency..."
I wonder whether my hangup is with the definition of the word, "viable"? I don't like being boxed-in with such a limiting choice, I guess (no choice, really), and am hopeful that a consciousness-raising will somehow occur where people will have awakened from their comatose state and realize they've been had by their "owners".
Don't misunderstand. I understand probability theory and statistical analysis, and realize the opportunity is slim-to-none. But I also believe that the most profound and greatest achievements of humankind started with just one person saying "I can", or "I won't take anymore".
"The [Verns] of the world treat [politics] like sport because as soon as their team has won, things they previous whined, complained and railed against that the other side did prior to their win, they're either quiet, complicit, or outright cheerleaders for now." ~~ TB3
Amen. They're the consummate definition of hypocrisy. Obviously, this lends itself to them having absolutely no credibility. Other examples who come immediately to mind are Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham. Both are, like Donald Trump, shameful to the core.
"We're advocating that if you're going to watch the game, that you root for the team opposing the New England Patriots." ~~ TB3
Nice analogy. Your point hit home when I inserted the New York Yankees for the New England Patriots, and any game (regular season or otherwise) for the Superbowl. ;-)
"And no. [Vern] doesn't get to define liberal, progressive or leftist." ~~ Dave Dubya
No, but Dennis Prager thinks he does. :-)
Prager is such a pompous dickhead.
"I wonder whether my hangup is with the definition of the word, "viable"? I don't like being boxed-in with such a limiting choice, I guess (no choice, really), and am hopeful that a consciousness-raising will somehow occur where people will have awakened from their comatose state and realize they've been had by their "owners"." - JG
Maybe "viable" is the wrong word choice? Or the wrong one to articulate the point? I simply mean we're limited to, in reality, two real choices for likely winner. As unfortunate as that is, that's what we currently have. Liking or not liking being boxed into that choice is neither here, not there, honestly. Either an R or a D will win (Right now). If the D aligns more than the R does to your ideals, you have to vote the D cause the R will be a backslide. Voting for L, C, G, whatever is simply a vote for the R as trite and awful as that sounds when you're trying to vote for the right choice for you. Unfortunately, we're voting for all, not just for ourselves.
"greatest achievements of humankind started with just one person saying "I can", or "I won't take anymore"." - JG
But unfortunately those achievements weren't related to the turnovers of government. Nor were they individual statements made at the ballot box... especially since our votes are private and electioneering, at least where I live, is prohibited to a certain distance from polling places. :)
"Nice analogy. Your point hit home when I inserted the New York Yankees for the New England Patriots, and any game (regular season or otherwise) for the Superbowl. ;-)" - JG
As an Orioles fan, I can't long-distance High-Five you hard enough.
TB3,,
"As an Orioles fan"...never forget the Browns.
dave, jg, etc,
Interesting how in your debate about 3rd party voting and the merits of voting or not voting, that the name of Ross Periot has not come up.
"As an Orioles fan, I can't long-distance High-Five you hard enough." ~~ TB3
LOL
When I moved to this region I took on the Orioles as my home team. Shared a Sunday season ticket plan during the Ripkin years with a friend, and my wife and I spent many weekends in Baltimore enjoying Camden Yards.
When the Expos moved to Washington we both became Nats fans. We don't attend many games anymore (too expensive, and the game's evolved into a HR hitting contest), but still manage one or two a season.
Still...have absolutely no fondness for the Yankees. :-)
"Donald Trump has made more than 10,000 false or misleading claims since he became president in January 2017, according to a count by factcheckers at the Washington Post.
Trump’s strike rate of 'alternative facts' – a phrase made infamous by senior adviser Kellyanne Conway – has increased rapidly in recent months, the paper said on Monday.
Whereas it took Trump 601 days to make 5,000 false and misleading claims, equivalent to eight a day, it was only another 226 days before he smashed the 10,000 barrier, an average of nearly 23 claims a day, the Post reported." ~~ The Guardian, "Trump has made 10,000 untrue claims as president, factcheckers say", by David Smith, April 29, 2019
Gee, that's a record worthy of mention. I would guess the distant second place holder, and I do mean distant, would be a toss up among mostly Republican presidents of the modern era. Right off the bat, George Bush and Richard Nixon come to mind. Democrats of this dubious "honor" would include Bill Clinton and, I suppose, Lyndon Johnson.
But nobody would come even close to the habitual chronic fairytale teller we have to put up with today. Our Liar-in-chief is a record holder of Cal Ripken proportions.
He'll be voted into the Hall of Shame, in his first year of eligibility, on first ballot. I'm sure his acceptance speech will be a whopper! ;-)
"Interesting how...the name of Ross Periot has not come up." ~~ Timothy L. Trueblood V (or known, simply, as "Vern")
He struck a chord, obviously, but was just a little too early. People were beginning to feel fed up with "the system" in '92. I know I was.
Without looking I remember he picked up 19% of the popular vote. That should have given both wings of the Corporatist Party pause.
It didn't. Now we have to deal with a would-be dictator and anti-rule-of-law liar in Donald Trump.
Perot lost a lot of his populism appeal when he waffled out and back in the election.
His anti-trade agreement/globalism rhetoric may have resonated with many, but his Republican style of obsessing on the deficits and demands for loyalty oaths paint the picture of just another unqualified, entitled, authoritarian billionaire with a large ego.
It's not surprising he went on to support Bush Jr. and Mitt Romney.
Perot's problem was the American people weren't yet indoctrinated enough by FOX(R) at the time, so they kept up their lies and demonization until the next unqualified, entitled, authoritarian billionaire with a large ego showed up.
"Interesting how in your debate about 3rd party voting and the merits of voting or not voting, that the name of Ross Periot has not come up." - JTF
I had a comment about Perot written up in one of my responses but opted to omit it, as it did nothing for the point I was making. Besides, DD, I think, already mentioned Nader.
"Still...have absolutely no fondness for the Yankees. :-)" - JG
Now there's common ground to build upon if I ever saw any. :)
"Without looking I remember he picked up 19% of the popular vote. That should have given both wings of the Corporatist Party pause." - JG
And not a single Electoral College vote with that 19%. I think bringing up Perot is a good argument against the Electoral College, thank you for the reminder JTF.
TB3
Actually 19% of the vote isn't enough to win a 3 way election, with or without the EC, so what's your point? HRC lost with over 50% of the popular vote, while her husband won with less than 50% of the popular vote.
"Now there's common ground to build upon if I ever saw any. :)"
It's not like we didn't share common interests already. Our current disagreement is philosophical only. We're in the same neighborhood.
It's not like with Vern. He's from another planet.
"Perot's problem was the American people weren't yet indoctrinated enough by FOX(R) at the time, so they kept up their lies and demonization until the next unqualified, entitled, authoritarian billionaire with a large ego showed up." ~~ Dave Dubya
Yes, as the FOX propaganda-machine ramped up, and at the same time the traditional enclave of working-class interests instead turned more and more toward its corporate benefactors, the political and economic climate became even more fertile for "something different".
Surprisingly (not really), the Republican Party was the first to select a nut-job to be their chosen nominee. And, as TB3 aptly described, the rest of their loyalists "stepped in-line".
This outcome was a long time in the making. It's not going to go away just because the Democrats put a corporatist on the lead horse.
We, as a nation, still have a long way to go to get out of this. It's not going to go away with a sweeping "middle of the road" Democratic win next year. Not even close.
"Despite White House promises that it would raise the pay of the average American household by around $4,000, workers benefited almost not at all from Trump’s much heralded 2017 tax cut, an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity has shown. While big companies pushed for the passage of the Tax and Jobs Act, they refused to commit to specific wage increases for their employees, and have since spent just 6% of their new tax savings on workers." ~~ The Guardian, "US briefing: Rosenstein resigns, Trump tax cuts and Japan's abdication", by Tim Walker, April 30, 2019
Vern, how did Trump's signature tax legislation work out for you?
I look at this Republican fleecing of America as one of the greatest victories of the prevailing corporate state. The Trumpist Republican Party led the charge, and truly "stepped in-line" behind the mobster-in-chief. The American people, at least the vast majority, will remember this heist on election day next year.
Just another lie of the over 10,000 credited to Trump since he took office, but this one hit people in their pocketbook. They'll remember, especially when they're reminded again next April 15th.
Even after the liar-in-chief is defeated soundly in 2020, and he's led away in handcuffs from the inaugural podium immediately after the oath of office is finished, Americans will always be reminded each tax season of his "legacy".
"Actually 19% of the vote isn't enough to win a 3 way election, with or without the EC, so what's your point? HRC lost with over 50% of the popular vote, while her husband won with less than 50% of the popular vote." - JTF
It sounds like you understand my point perfectly fine. Where as I left it unsaid because it's obvious, you articulated it. You articulated it in actual original words and not cut and paste non-sense. Look at you. Growth.
Yes. Despite getting 1/5th of the popular vote, Perot achieved 0/5 the electoral votes. Perot got as many electoral college votes as I did in 1992.
"It's not like we didn't share common interests already. Our current disagreement is philosophical only. We're in the same neighborhood." - JG
I was making a poor attempt at a joke for those in the studio audience. Hey, look. Political discourse where two people don't have the exact same position on something... and their not calling each other names and acting like 4 year olds!
"I was making a poor attempt at a joke..." ~~ TB3
No, it wasn't a poor attempt, at all. I got it. So much truth is conveyed through humor, satire and sarcasm. You nailed it.
"Political discourse where two people don't have the exact same position on something..." ~~ TB3
Like I said, we're in the same neighborhood -- not light-years apart.
JTf has left the discussion and returned to trolling.
dave is not posting all of what I offer, on purpose I might add, as he is a coward, and will not publish this for his own sick reason. He is afraid. He is a traitor..He is a racist...He is a liar. ...What has Fox News (founded 1999) have to do with the election of 1992? dave seems to think that anything opposing his political position should be outlawed, is that good for our democracy?
And he wonders why he can't sit at the adult table?
I think you made yourself pretty clear and I am uncertain as to what JTF found unclear about your assertion. I'll chalk it up to willful misunderstanding: The Tucker-Effect.
"...I am uncertain as to what JTF found unclear about your assertion. I'll chalk it up to willful misunderstanding: The Tucker-Effect." ~~ TB3
Although, I have accused Vern on several occasions of having reading comprehension challenges.
Is it the Tucker-effect or reading comprehension challenges?...or both?
"Is it the Tucker-effect or reading comprehension challenges?...or both?" - JTF
Allegedly they are an adult, when you get to the point in your life where you're no longer learning to read, you lose the ability to chalk it up to reading comprehension. If there's something JTF doesn't understand, than they have demonstrated on COUNTLESS occasions that they understand how to find "information" and "facts" online whenever they get the gumption to do so. So if JTF fails to understand something; The Tucker-Effect. As you know, and for JTF's benefit, named after a certain noted Californian, Silverspoon having, Formerly Bowtied, North Eastern Educated, Liberal Arts Degree-having, Daily Caller-Founding, derp-faced, perpetually baffled propagandist.
Understanding? Right Wing Authoritarians don’t need no stinkin’ understanding.
To the RWA, "understanding" stuff they don't need to know is for losers and libs. They certainly don't need to understand us to hate us. It's quite the opposite. The are indoctrinated to hate us.
As with those in a cult, there is no need, desire, or curiosity in understanding anything outside their beliefs.
They already believe what is necessary. They believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, so why bother understanding views or information from others?
They believe their authoritarian leaders above all, and they believe anyone who disagrees with them is an America-hating, commie lib.
Understanding those they have been indoctrinated to hate and blame has no purpose.
This is why emotional reaction is inculcated in lieu of engaging in reason.
They are told who to blame, fear, and hate, and what to believe, and that is what they will believe they “think”.
Understanding anything is entirely irrelevant.
It's that simple.
"Understanding? Right Wing Authoritarians don’t need no stinkin’ understanding." ~~ Dave Dubya
and...
"It's that simple. ~~ Dave Dubya
We all know Vern never had any intentions to debate or share ideas. He only trolls your blog, and others, to disrupt and be a nuisance.
Case in point...what kind of sick fuck would write the following about his blog host?
"dave is not posting all of what I offer, on purpose I might add, as he is a coward, and will not publish this for his own sick reason."
What maniacal mind, unless filled with hate and vile venom, would write such things about his host?
He is afraid. He is a traitor..He is a racist."
Vern is an acknowledged and avowed racist, who projects his own inadequacies and deficiencies upon his host. For what reason?
Is this his methodology to recruit more Trumpists to "the cause"? I don't know.
Mueller's letter to the Big MAGAt's personal AG contains a lot of what Vern will need to willfully NOT understand:
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
Ya think ol' Vern will have a thoughtful analysis of this new development?
Can't wait to hear Mueller's testimony at the House hearings.
It could be probably be best summarized, "The report told you to do your job, and impeach the asshole!"
Barr has lied to congress. He and the Big MAGAt are both criminals and should be impeached.
The entire Republican Party is guilty of covering up for criminals, violating their oaths of office, and betraying our Constitution.
So, what else is new?
"Barr has lied to congress. He and the Big MAGAt are both criminals and should be impeached." ~~ Dave Dubya
Agreed. The truth always seeks the light.
"The entire Republican Party is guilty of covering up for criminals, violating their oaths of office, and betraying our Constitution." ~~ Dave Dubya
Agreed...agreed...and agreed.
Trump was right saying there has been a coup d'état. He just failed to mention it's being carried out by the GOP.
"What maniacal mind, unless filled with hate and vile venom, would write such things about his host?" - JG
Someone who has nothing to contribute and a person who has lost the argument and has nothing else but to play the victim. The irony is that people like JTF are the ones that mock, chastise, and admonish what they perceive as "The Left" for being "Snowflakes" and easily "Triggered", when in reality these people leave their bubbles they quickly prove they are projecting their own insecurities.
"He is afraid." - JTF by way of JG
I wonder; Of what? Surely not of words cut and pasted from sources like Breitbart and the Daily Caller without context or nuance or any attempt to relate to the conversation they are being injected into. It's like JTF complains that we're sitting here all talking about cars and they are upset that they want to talk about birds, then submarines, then Ross Perot.
Post a Comment