Waiting For Everyman
Waiting For Everyman's JournalI know, right? It's like Neocon Central.
on GDP lately:
Honoring Kissinger. Having him for a mentor. Vacationing with that genocidal war-criminal asshole for years too.
Nancy Reagan's great work on AIDS. And the lovely poison Prison Blood Scandal.
"Sharing Bush donors' values". Cruz donors. "Megachurch Moms"
Yay big banks, and millions for secret speeches to the real base.
Lobbyist Superdelegates.
Cute hug pictures with Shrub. And Kissinger. And Trump.
Incrementalism. No we can't.
Privately run State Dept. with no transparency and no steenkin' FOIA.
"Too big to jail". Panderers-R-Us.
The Clinton Hit List.
There's nothing like a good whiplash U-turn to the right.
What's next, I wonder? I think Jebby for her VP would make it all just perfect.
Like the banks, "fraud as a business model".
We've got institutionalized fraud everywhere we look, but there's nothing to worry about. It's all a nothingburger. 
It's a lot like that movie, "Alien", with the mama alien and all the lesser ones running around...
And that Dem President honoring Kissinger thing, that didn't indicate anything either. I'm sure the next war we're in will have nothing to do with it... him... them.
Candidates above the law? Not a problem. We Dems have it all under control, so we're told. Pay-to-play in the State Department? I can't hear you. Didn't they used to call that graft in the olden days?
Voting irregularities? That's just an artful smear.
But we're out there "fighting for YOU" every day! So it's all good!!!!!
Yay! 
What the everlasting fuck!!!
Did this even make national news today? If it did, I didn't see it.
Obama is DONE in my book. This is appalling, and there was absolutely no need to do this!
By Nixon's released documents it is now absolutely known that there is zero question that he and Kissinger scuttled a Viet Nam peace agreement that LBJ had already arranged, so that Nixon could get himself elected in 1968. Everybody who served in VN between 1968 and end of it DID NOT HAVE TO.
That includes my late husband who died of the aftermath of that war at the age of 57, after suffering with illnesses and surgeries beyond description since he was 33.
Kissinger is the most despicable of traitors, literally, and by doing this, Obama is an accessory after the fact. I hope they all go to a "special place in hell".
Before this, I was very disappointed in Obama. Now I fucking hate him. All of these fuckers in the "leadership" today disgust me. I have no words to even say what I think, none are adequate.
This tells me EXACTLY who the current leaders of this party are. Fear over the other guy is fucking Hillaryous. This bunch are in a whole different league.
Obama may as well posthumously honor Hitler next. That's the equivalent of what he has just done.
HRC's camp doesn't care if she broke laws, so anything she does is a-ok.
They have actually created a situation where she can do whatever the hell she wants, and get away with it. Hillary has a BLANK CHECK to break laws, even be under FBI investigation for a 4-yr-long national security catastrophe and graft operation run in the State Dept., start wars, anything she wants with no charges brought and nothing to stop her. Even Bernie bought into it thus far. Because Republicans!!!
This is what is truly scary to me. That, right there. No consequences Hillary.
The law means nothing anymore. And this, brought about by two lawyers.
Not only is she not stopped, much less punished for anything she does, she's on track to be REWARDED with the Presidency for it!
Of course, she'll pick up all the big checks now, you can count on it. There is no down side for her, and she knows that, so why wouldn't she?
I used to defend her when she was attacked by Republicans, and I'm damn sorry I did.
(There's a song called "Devil In Disguise" by Yngwie Malmsteen, and another called "Judas". I won't bore others with posting them -- any interested look on YouTube -- but I'm going to go listen to both of them now as a catharsis because they remind me of what the Clintons have brought us to. Us, Dems and Americans. No I'm not exaggerating, we let this go on from here at our great peril. "I'd rather reign in hell some said, than serve in heaven." See ya all later.)
It sure is, John Denver was right.
Hello from a latter-day Morgan, next door near the border in Maryland. 
I'll be pulling for you guys to crush Hillary next Tuesday! 
I'm disappointed that we couldn't do the same, but I got such a feeling of well-being from voting for Bernie anyway unlike any vote in my lifetime, and I hope you find it so too!
With such non-stop manipulators in both parties
the question naturally arises. This whole landscape looks mighty fishy. There isn't much I would put past this establishment. (Btw, it was reported that Trump got more than $2 billion in free advertising, as of a month ago.)
It is very convenient, that the Goldwater Girl may happen to end up running against someone who just happens to stir up such FEAR as a motivator for people to vote for her, knowing her own super high disapproval rating. What did Goldwater lose on again? Why yes, it was fear of him! And HRC and Trump are such good social friends, their daughters are besties.
I don't think the hoax scenario is at all outside the realm of possibility, knowing some things such types have already done. Is it weirder than a phony war? I think not. We've had 2+ of those just in my lifetime.
I'm with you, ViseGrip, I think it's more likely than not, just going by objective observation.
As to most of the responses here, scoffers aren't thinkers. They are the LAST to know what's going on.
Most certainly, this will be an interesting kabuki to watch play out.
Respect is long gone, the question now is whether she is even tolerable.
That is looking iffy.
But I'll hang in there as best I can until the FBI gets back to us.
Back in 2007 this was "waiting on the world to change", and it did, and Bernie ran, and now I substitute the lyrics for "waiting on the shoe to drop".
Clinton and Sanders are not similar, they are opposites.
They are the antithesis of each other, regardless of both voting for the same things at certain times. There is no compromise between the two as people or as nominees, in the same way that it's impossible to be a little bit pregnant. That is not a "purist" statement, it is a factual one.(For an explanation of the above paragraph, read some of the many sincere and intelligent posts by Sanders supporters on this site, who have been writing about it and documenting it for months now.)
I saw the author of the OP article on one of the MSNBC shows yesterday, not knowing any of her writing including this article, and I was not impressed. The first quote below from her article, seems to be in the right ballpark, but although correct enough as far as it goes, it falls short because she does not get the full meaning of the statement I just made in my subject line and first paragraph above. The reason she doesn't get it, I believe, is that she was born in 1975 which makes her the same age as my children. (I looked up her bio in several places.)
My children (like many others their age, fortunately) understand more than she does because they know that folks who lived during the time events took place, are a better source than books on the subject. And this comes back to what I saw on tv today. She is commenting on a subject she believes she understands, which she does not. Of course, she's not the only one doing the exact same thing today. But the fact remains that the destruction of FDR's Democratic party and its replacement with the Clintons' disgusting Third Way, is something she didn't live, as we older Dems have.
She didn't exist to experience what an FDR America was still rising to achieve after WW2, she didn't exist during Nixon's atrocities and what all of that meant to life at that time, and she was a kid during Reagan's tragic demolition of FDR America, just as she was a school student through the Clinton years and all the well-hidden corrosion that administration produced then and since. Many principal players in these tragedies still remain on the stage today, more such as Kissinger are still in the wings mentoring people like HRC, and certainly their ideas are still very much at the core of the continuing destruction going on now.
The victors write history. So the reality of those times, especially times of such repression and persecution (read the Church Committee findings, and my sig line), has never been written into history book or treatises on this-and-that, which are used to indoctrinate people like the author at institutions of higher propaganda like Berkeley and NYU.
Could we get some professionals in the political media and commentary realm who know these issues first hand? Could those of us who were there and politically aware be listened to at all before we all drive off of this cliff in front of us? What does it take to restore some semblance of reality to what we're doing here?
Us old people are trying to tell you (general "you" Dems) you're putting pedophiles in charge of the kindergarten -- do you give a damn? The answer would seem to be no, judging by Clinton's "inevitability".
I could understand this if, as is usually the case, there was no GOOD CHOICE among the choices. But the reason why this election is so telling, is that there IS ONE, and it is being rejected for the worst of the worst. Good God, people, quit pounding your social justice bullshit drum for 10 seconds and look at what is true. Information abounds. The responsibility for this next chapter of tragedy for America is squarely on the shoulders of those forcing us into this disgusting madness of putting the Clintons in the White House AGAIN. Oh. My. God.
Which brings us back to this site. I appreciate what you tried to do by posting this article, Skinner. But if there is a clamp down on Sanders posters here, I fear it really will for all intents and purposes end this site as we know it, and that would be a shame in my view. I HOPE you don't do that. If you must, I really hope you take the suggestion of IdaBriggs and others above, and clone this site for us original Dems, the FDR wing. I value this site, I value many of the people on it, and I would like to see its resources continue, in some fashion.
That's my two cents, for what it's worth. The quotes below are others from the article. Bolding mine.
...
The ideological divide between Sanders and Clinton, however, is much wider than that between Clinton and Barack Obama. The 2008 primary was a battle over representation, raw because it pit the first female candidate with a legitimate shot at the presidency against the first black one. There was not, however, much of a gap between what Clinton and Obama hoped to accomplish in office.
This year is different. It’s a split between liberalism and the left, between those who seek greater representation within the existing system and those who would replace it entirely. Liberals can’t understand why those to their left refuse to recognize that incremental progress is better than none, particularly given the intolerable danger of the modern GOP. Leftists are increasingly convinced that liberals, ever eager to compromise, aspire to nothing beyond a more diverse ruling class and are thus obstacles to revolution.
...
On the other side is Khaldoun Khelil, a 39-year-old of Palestinian-Algerian descent who is appalled to see some of his female friends overlooking Clinton’s awful rhetoric on Palestine.* “I’m a passionate supporter of women’s rights and other progressive ideals, but when I ask for the same support from them to stand behind me and Palestinians—suddenly I’m a Bernie Bro,” he says. Khelil feels personally wounded by the silence of his Clinton-supporting friends in the face of their candidate’s lopsided pro-Israel rhetoric. “It just turned my stomach,” he told me. “I think the bad feelings will persist. It showed me that I’m kind of a lower peer.”
...
Talking to people on both sides of the divide, I heard similar sentiments over and over. People thought their friendships were built on a shared worldview. They thought their friends respected their experiences, their judgments, and their identities. But the primary has revealed opposing priorities and, fundamentally, different apprehensions of reality. “I feel like I’m living in the Twilight Zone,” says Katie Halper, a writer, radio host, and outspoken Sanders supporter. To her, Clinton’s flaws are manifold and glaring, and watching fellow feminists deny them is driving her mad. “This is the first time I’ve ever felt gaslit in my life,” she adds.
...
Angie Aker, a 37-year-old web writer and progressive activist in Kenosha, Wisconsin...
“I’m not going to refuse to do business with Hillary supporters or start fights with them at our friends’ bridal showers, but neither will I ever forget that when they had a chance to vote for and support a truly progressive future for people worse off than them, they decided a neoliberal feminist-in-name-only getting her turn was more important,” she replied. “It will color the way I see them from here on out, as I’m sure the force with which I’ve spoken against their views will color how they see me.” With that last part, at least, Clinton supporters will surely agree.
"The river is high
And the bridges are burning
I know I've been hurt
But I keep on returning
I have traveled the paths of desire
Following smoke and remembering fire
The night is falling
The path is receding
I don't need to see it to know
Where it's leading"
("Paths of Desire", October Project)
That's a very good question.
My answer is, most of the disgusting mountains of money raised for political campaigns gets paid to the media. People do not stop and think about this fact enough. I think it's a fact that Sanders should point out more. It's obvious, but people overlook it.
A big chunk of all the fundraising from all the big donors gets paid to them. So when Hillary is out collecting the big checks by selling influence and exemptions from our law to these predator donors, the money she's raising goes to the media. They are 100% aware of this all the time. When there is a story about Hillary's glam high-ticket fundraisers, the media licks their chops just like Pavlov's dogs.
She is important to them, and they like her a lot, as you can imagine. Same for the other establishment (meaning pay-to-play, sold out) candidates including the Repubs and the down tickets of both sides.
Do you think the media want the system changed? Do you think they are desperate to have anyone but Sanders win the election?
There's your answer. They would put any criminal in the White House, including the reincarnation of Attila the Hun, rather than lose their cash cow of windfall profits which they never should've started receiving in the first place, in a business in which the government, whose elections they are raking in all this cash from, gives them a license to use the public airwaves! You can't get nuttier than that. It's like the government giving the media a gun to stick up the government with! There is absolutely no reason for this to be happening. And this stranglehold on politics by the media in turn enables this same media to create more politically corrupt power in elected office to pay the media even more... the vicious cycle goes on until THAT bubble pops sometime.
It's similar to what goes on with all the other dysfunctional sectors of our society, the dinosaurs feeding on all of us which should've been in the rear view mirror by now, like: fossil fuels, private health insurance, student loan financing, etc. And who are they? Why, they're big donors of course!!! See what a great thing they have going at the cost of the destruction of the remaining healthy sectors of society that are left? The whole thing is a viruent disease, killing us all. But will they stop at some point? NOPE. We saw that in 2008, didn't we? They will even kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, to get one more for themselves. This is who we're dealing with -- psychos, who we have promoted and elected all the way to the top of the pyramid of power. And we're poised to elect another one.
So the media's attitude is... shhh, don't talk about Hillary's little problem with the Feds. Just keep putting surrogates on shows to keep lying and saying it'll be ok.
The only problem with that: I don't think Comey is going to be bought off. And he isn't the only one who can leak Hilly's little problem in a way that will be taken seriously by the public. So let's see who among the players swerves first, in this game of chicken. We might as well watch the interesting show play out, since we're along for the ride with no choice about it.
I would bet the ranch on this though: one day in the near future we're going to wake up and there will be shit hitting the fan all over the place.
She's the one who couldn't wait to take on Trump.
So have at it. I don't think complaining about being offended is going to do much to Trump, but far be it from me to point out reality to those who know it all already. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and wore it out, not interested in doing it any further.
I'm ready. I've got my 
Go for it. Show us how it's done.
I did notice, however, that the first thing he said this morning when Hillary was brought up was, "so what's happening with the email scandal... "
Told ya so. 
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHome country: USA
Member since: Mon Jun 23, 2008, 12:17 PM
Number of posts: 9,385
