Oh Miriam, you're just too practical.
Seriously, I do live in this world. But I no longer support someone
who has more ties to the Ruling Class than to the People who marked
the ballots. Perhaps the Working Class can work with Clinton more
easily than with Trump, but in either case it will take serious effort
to hold the line in social and homeland services. And what good did
it do to vote for Obama, whom I'd rather vote for than Clinton, since
his efforts to "compromise" brought him up short with a solid wall of
senate opposition. Sure, we can pretend that we're better off under
Obama, but despite some gains, we are plunging closer to the brink of
no return, both in climate change as well as final destruction. Yup,
the world I live in is ugly, due in part to our voting over and over
again for the Lesser of Two Evils. We have given Greed free reign,
pretending that just maybe this candidate will be able to control it.
A recent Op/Ed in the Columbian took a swipe at our state's school for
the blind. This Nationally recognized program has been producing some
tremendous young men and women. But money is tight and the school's
budget is tempting. The state of Oregon, as progressive as it is in
some ways, sold their school for the blind. Such programs as state
services for all disabilities are coming under fire as our eternal war
rages on. Clinton will not be the person I want to hitch my wagon to.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/18/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, first of all, the latest article that I've read about super
delegates,
indicated that they were created to ensure that the party nominated an
electable candidate rather than one who might appeal to the grass roots,
but couldn't win against the Republicans. So the super delegates are
supposed to be concerned with the welfare of the Democratic Party. This
time, they're obviously making an erroneous choice because Hillary is
unpopular and was behind Trump by 3 points in the latest poll that I've
read about, whereas Bernie is ahead of him by something like 13 points. So
if those super delegates are concerned about winning the election rather
than just following orders, they wouldn't be supporting Hillary.
As for the Democratic party, it does have a progressive wing. Although even
its progressive wing has its limitations, particularly in relation to war,
it does tend to create and vote for legislation that will help low and
middle income people. Each year, it presents a budget with lower military
spending and much more spending for domestic programs than the budget which
the mainstream politicians pass. The other difference between the
Democratic and Republican parties is that the Democrats have saner
positions
on social issues. They are more inclusive in relation to minorities, LGBT
issues, and religious freedom, as well as who is permitted to vote. We live
in the real world, not the one we wish existed, and so, we have to function
within existing political reality.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:05 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: No, Bill Clinton Didn't 'Kill' Himself
Trying
for a State of Palestine (Video)
My spin goes like this. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Barak Obama and now,
Hillary Clinton are not, and I repeat, **Are Not Friends or Supporters of
the Working Class Americans. Just how do we rationalize them as being our
friends? They are machine politicians, captured by the riches of the
Ruling
Class. The difference in my mind between the Republican Party and the so
called Democrat Party, is that the Democrats pretend to be upset when
social
services are compromised or destroyed, while the Republican Party minces no
words in announcing its plans to take down our hard fought for public
support network.
Perhaps some Democrats on this list can explain to me how the Party can
claim to represent the People, but has set as a buffer the Super Delegates.
These are Party Leaders, Congress Persons, not the "man in the street".
They represent the monied interests, not the fast diminishing Independent
Worker. How is that democracy? You cannot reach out to the People when
you
hold those same People in abject contempt. At least, until Uncle Donald,
the Republican Party never claimed to care about the struggling workers.
And don't get the idea that I'm suggesting that Trump cares. He does have
the basic cunning and skill to use the anger and despair of the working
class to whip up anti government emotion and send raging voters to the
polls
in growing numbers.
Meanwhile, the Democrat Party is about to realize it's worst nightmare.
Backing their elitist candidate, Hillary Clinton, they are about to witness
the destruction of their Party, and very likely throw open the White House
door to President Donald Trump.
And tell me how I will be better off voting for Clinton? I have no dog in
this fight. Even if I wish I did. Sanders came closest to attempting to
care for the basic needs of the working class. But even Bernie would be
tangled in the Corporate Capitalist web. And remember, Sanders is not
calling for Peace. He is still owned in part by the Military/Industrial
Forces.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/17/16, Bob Hachey <bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Miriam,himself"
Without reading this article, I believe that many of us on this list
would have known that Clinton lied like a rug when he said he "killed
trying to get an independent Palestinian state.
Personally, I believe that, in the beginning of his presidency,
Clinton did try to broker a peaceful solution in Israel, but any
desire to complete this process died with the assassination of Rabin.
I'm not sure that Clinton was the most pro-Israel president in our
history; seems to me, that honor ought to go to George W. Bush.
One final point here. The term squatters as used here should be
replaced with Israeli occupyers. IMHO occupyers need not be soldiers.
Bob Hachey
