rhett o rickrhett o rick's Journal
the side in charge of counting the votes, the Establishment won. All we can do is take our blue pill and pretend he lost fair and square. Those that chose to side with the Establishment so they could gloat should remember that it's going to be those among us that are struggling that are going to get the worst of this. For every war for profit, every "bank crisis", ultimately hurts the most vulnerable. There are two sides to this class war the Progressive Side fighting for the People and the Corporate Side fighting for bigger and bigger profits for corporations. We may lose this battle but we will be back.
The ideologies are not clearly divided by Party. While all the Republicons are conservative to the max, there are Democrats that are also conservative. The New-Democrats figured out they could appeal to some of the Democratic base by supporting some social programs and yet keep their very conservative ideologies with re. to foreign policy, national security vs. Constitutional rights and the Economy. In other worlds by support a few social issues they can still make their billions and trillions off of wars, environmental exploitation and economic policies that favor the Wealthy. While we may see some movement in social justice issues with another New-Democrat admin, we will also see the wealth gap continue it's destructive growth. We may end up in the poor farm but allowed to have same sex marriage.
support a corporate run oligarchy and disparage those that would fight for freedom it shows that 1. They are susceptible to the propaganda of the Oligarchy, 2. They have been raised to put their personal comfort above being free and thinking for themselves, and 3. They can some how, rationalize that helping corporations make profits is more important than helping the 2.5 million homeless children. And they call themselves Democrats.
I want a revolution but no violence. I know that the Corp-Oligarchy will not allow that because they want the violence, they welcome the violence because they can use it. They will pit one section of the 99% against the other and use the violence to justify clamping down more on our rights. Actually we've had a good start on this civil war. The Oligarchy is currently militarizing the local police forces and promoting tough drug laws that see the minority communities targeted and singled out to be incarcerated. This can't continue before the minority communities rebel. Sadly, it seems the minority communities, fault the white middle class in lieu of the Oligarchy. Racial unrest plays directly into the hands of the Oligarchy. Don't get me wrong, blaming the white middle class is understandable as that is where the support lies for "voting" in the Corporate politicians. What's sadly ironic is that the portion of the middle class that supports the Big Corporations (New-Democrats) will tell you they support the minority communities and they think they do. But it's their elected politicians, call them neo-liberals or New-Democrats, that have clamped down hard on the minority communities.
Michelle Alexander explains it clearly in her book, "The New Jim Crow." The New-Democrats (DLC) clamped down hard on drug laws that effected mostly the AA and other minority communities. Not only that they severely damaged welfare programs but also made it impossible for felons to get welfare, foodstamps, and help with education costs. And why one might ask? To win over those Americans that support the conservative racial agenda. The New-Democrats created the current racial under-caste. And yet there are people that claim to be fighting for racial rights but that support the New-Democrat's agenda.
The Corporate Democrats that support Goldman-Sachs and their sponsored candidate won't come to grips with the disaster that unregulated capitalism has brought to us. Clinton, when asked what to do about the growing wealth gap, says to grow the economy. No journalist will follow up and point out that the economy has been growing and is glowing, for the wealthy. In fact the Clintons are doing very well. But we all know that the rising tides lift the yachets and swamp the skiffs. Although waffling now, Clinton has always been a big supporter of Free Trade in spite of the fact that it brings massive job losses to the working class.
In theory, an improved economy should result in a higher standard of living for its citizens. However, in Mexico poverty and unemployment have actually increased since NAFTA was enacted in addition to an increase in illegal aliens crossing from Mexico to
the United States in recent years
(Mexican sweatshops) along the border. (From 1994-2000,
In 2004, the Washington post reported that ten years after NAFTA was enacted,
19 million more people were living in poverty than twenty years ago, and nearly one in
four Mexicans were unable to afford adequate food 17.
If one of the provisions of NAFTA was to create new employment opportunities and raise living standards, why has poverty
increased in Mexico?
It's not rocket science. The Big Corporations are not about helping the workers of the world. In fact their charters require them to make as much profits as they can. That puts them in direct conflict with workers trying to make an honest living. If you let the Big Corporations write the "Free" trade agreements, it is abso-fracking-lutly a fact that they will screw the workers in our country and in foreign countries to increase their profits.
I ask those of you that support Clinton and the Major Corporations to consider that the status quo has given us 4.8 million homeless incl 2 million children, 50 million people living in poverty incl 16 million children and the worst infant mortality rate in the modern world. Goldman-Sachs and the other major corps that support Clinton expect to gain higher profits, that's a capitalist fact, and not help those struggling among us. Why would you help the major corporations keep their strangle hold on the People of this country?
The rich and powerful don't wish us peons to die, but we have resources they want and if we die as a result of them getting them, it's not personal it's just business.
2000. In a close election it doesn't take much to push one way or the other. Same thing happened in 2004. And it looks like it's happening again. Now each and every case the candidate that the Powers That Be support win.
I don't know what you think of President Carter but this is what he said,
Now those that side with Clinton and the billionaires won't like what he has to say.
for issues other than social justice issues, who gets elected president.
IMHO the president and Congress have little power in the areas of Foreign Policy, National Security and our Economy. When the president walks into office he/she will find that everything in these areas are under control and will be told that if he/she messes with anything important, it could lead to disaster and that would be on them.
And the move to global capitalism/corporatism can't be stopped. Capitalism relies on the perception of continues growth. The capitalists must continually increase their wealth and there are two ways to do it. One is exploit the earth, which is increasing and can't be reversed. The second is to take wealth away from others (also known as increasing the wealth gap). And since the Capitalist/Corporatists have the power, we really can't stop them.
Someone talk me down plez.
Some are terrified to fight for our freedoms and liberties apparently more comfort in their bubble of denial. They need to wake up and smell the class war. Every day more and more of the wealth and resources of the 99% are being transferred via taxing laws/regulations to the 1%.
There are two candidates, Sen Sanders clearly favors the 99% while Clinton whose own wealth puts her and Bill comfortably in the 0.1% of wealthiest and they got it from the 1% class. They represent the 1% as the Koch Bros have recently admitted.
It's one thing to be terrified to go against the Wealthy but it's another to turn backs on those struggling among us just so Goldman-Sachs and the Clinton Family can amass more and more wealth.
"I will never support any legislation that will reduce the profits of (fill in the name of the corp paying for the speech). Make the check out to ClintonCash and have my car brought around."
With Regard to the Crime Bill, Sen Sanders tried numerous times to get the parts of the bill removed
that pertained to the harsh sentencing that was supported by the Clintons. You can see him on youtube arguing against.
The House version of the Crime Bill included a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Sanders had supported the ban since 1988. The conference committee version included not only the assault weapons ban but also the Violence Against Women Act provisions. Sanders supported these efforts to protect women. Shame on that try to smear him.
As far as Hillary Clinton let's review what Black Lives Matters has to say about her:
The policies that she pushed filled the Prisons For Profits that in turn were very generous to her. Did she personally profit from these "tough" policies? Do her followers believe toughness is more important than empathy?
as well as embracing Citizens United. But if one wants to be on the winning side, and that's all that matters, the odds are the side with the backing of the billionaires, banksters and Wall Fracking Street crooks. You do know that if you lay with the dogs or lie with the dogs you will get fleas. Can we send Frontline?
Profile InformationGender: Male
Member since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 12:05 PM
Number of posts: 55,981
- 2016 (43)
- 2015 (38)
- 2014 (23)
- 2013 (21)
- 2012 (3)