HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 97 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 24,979

Journal Archives

Madam, I never expected early leaking of the transcripts.

Why would anyone at Goldman Sachs or any of Clinton's other many corporate bosses care to help Sanders? Some of them will doubtless care to damage Clinton once the likely disaster is complete, and she is the "nominee." So you'll get to read them (ha ha) and/or pretend they are inconsequential some time this fall. (August is a news hole.)

And I've never expected an indictment. It's the sort of felony that no establishment figure gets hit on. Assuming she gets past Trump, the theater starts on Jan 21, when the Republicans initiate some four-year impeachment soap opera that we will all have to pretend is very serious and historic. She'll probably "win." In two senses: she'll probably survive it, and she won't have to pretend she's trying to institute progressive policies since there will be continued gridlock.

Anyway, I've been awfully juvenile in always swinging and hitting your idea of a fastball, so I'll see you some nevertime. Have fun!

PS - Love your transparency page, by the way. See how many more you can get.

You, in effect.

"neither of them are real"

Of course the transcripts exist. And they will be released.

On the e-mails, I agree with you about the triviality of a mere felony of the kind most of the politicians sooner or later commit, as compared to the worldspanning mass murder operations that Clinton has helped to conduct. But if it stops her, which I don't expect, so be it. (What I do expect is that it becomes the stuff of some four-year impeachment soap opera that suspends all other business, just like with her husband.)

Oligarchs is a special category of capitalist overlord, the billionaires basically. The big corporations are obviously a larger factor.

The past? Wealth concentration and direct corporate control of politics have never been greater than today, not even in 1929 or the Gilded Age. But of course that's no concern to an acute analyst of political economy like yourself. I will miss you for the easy fodder.

Hmm, 2 out of 3 of those are owned by Clinton.

She cited Kissinger as her "progressive" endorser in a debate, met him repeatedly, presented him with a prize, went to his tribute party, etc. etc. So Camboida.

As the senator from New York she cast an essential vote for going to war against the "wrong" country. As SoS she pushed hardest for the insane destruction of Libya without a plan for the day after, which Obama calls his biggest mistake.

Iran/Contra, we can leave her out of. She would have been a very minor player at most.

I agree, the e-mail story is small potatoes by comparison. What's a mere felony on exaggerated "national security" grounds compared to all that approval of mass murder you just pinned on her? But if it stops the Clintonista machine from taking over again, might as well go with it.

Truth is, Sanders has been in as long as Clinton.

In the House since 1990, as an Independent, yes. Who has caucused and voted with the Democrats pretty much the whole way since then. And in all the exceptions, it happens he was right!

Yes. Thank you.

Beautiful post. I wish it was enough to say the truth as it is. Maybe soon it will be! This story doesn't end in July, or November, or January. It's not about Bernie - and he wouldn't think so, I do believe - it's about justice and peace and rational development! Enough of this failed establishment creating a bloody mess with everywhere and everything they touch!

She could always prevent this by keeping her promise.

A California debate was agreed upon months ago!

Categorical hairsplitting.

"Closeted partisans" = people who wish they had a better fucking choice but usually take what they see as the lesser evil.

"True independent" = ideal category that corresponds to no one in reality, and if you think about it would be a creature both frightening and boring. A blank slate. An idiot who can't even name the parties. Etc.

The only definition that could be valid on empirical grounds is just what the term means in the electoral context: someone not registered with a party. Otherwise obviously no two of them will be exactly alike.

Point is, Sanders has an easier time picking up support beyond the automatic voting base for Democratic candidates, and motivating people who might not vote. Call them by whatever label you will.

Except it was a primary in name only.

Was it a secret that this poll does not actually decide anything?

Was any campaign bothering with appearances or calls or spending to contest this "primary"? Was there GOTV?

It's a stupid set up and stupid rules, to have a caucus that counts and then weeks later to hold a "primary" that does not. But that's how the WA party set it up long in advance, independently of anything else.

Any complaints belong with the WA Democratic Party.

Oh please, the drama.

With a bit of luck, this will bring down HRC BEFORE the nom (or it will be a weapon for Trump). But let's be real here, okay?

No doubt felonies were committed with the set up of an insecure private e-mail server. But this was just a small part of the process for committing the crimes against humanity that make up routine United States foreign policy, under any administration, Republican or Democrat.

She risked some "secrets" in the process of managing the imperialist machine, oh heavens! (If she goes down for it, it has a certain ironic value, given the way she was acting about Wikileaks.)

Almost every goddamn U.S. politician is minimum knee-deep in the process of worldwide mass murder. Bernie's only in it up to the knees and that's supposed to be a reason to prefer him. Clinton's swimming in an ocean of it. There's no need to get this morally huffed-up about an insecure server.

The way of economists is to let some lame ratings system do the thinking.

In which reality is abandoned for convenience of measurement, even if it is facade and nothing important is being measured. Rather than bother to define terms like "liberal" or figure out right and wrong, some self-inflated think-tank duo aggregated and weighted a set of congressional votes they decided would measure "liberal," and gave us a number. Hooray! We can pretend political ideology is no different than batting average. She ranks 11th in the league! And you seriously repeat that bullshit as if it could ever mean anything. The positivism, it burns!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 97 Next »