I wish congress really was dominated by some conservative types. It's
those right-wingers that get to me.
On 10/3/2016 8:36 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
All of what you say is true, Miriam.
And one of those two promoters of eternal capitalism with its eternal
wars and eternal fear, one of them will win. And yes, Hillary Clinton
might appoint judges to federal courts and to the Supreme Court who
would have some measure of human compassion, if congress can be
prodded to endorse them. But neither Clinton or Trump will bring this
nation down. Congress is already doing a fine job of that. Where
Americans are losing the battle for a strong working/middle class is
in the failure to break the conservative hold in our vast
Gerrymandered states.
We have allowed the conservative wing of the Republican Party to
"arrange" districts so that no matter what the people want,
conservatives will dominate congress. And in more and more states
they are dominating state legislatures. Besides, we survived Nixon,
Ford, Reagan, Bush Senior, Bush Junior, not to mention Carter, Clinton
and Obama. Show me one name in that long list who has fought for the
working class. I can't believe we have come so low in our
intelligence that we would put Trump in office. If that happens, then
we are in far worse shape than I ever imagined. My personal concern
is what happens if Hillary Clinton wins. Four or eight years of
staggering around on the home front, continuing war around the globe,
and a widening gap between the Ruling Class and working class. Not to
mention growing water shortages, worsening storms, growing wasteland,
wandering homeless people, growing unrest in our central cities,
bringing on police forces that look and act more and more like the US
Marines. After such a period, where will Americans turn for relief?
I think that no matter how it goes, after the election Cathy and I
will develop our own survival plan for ourselves and our family. If
we stay here on our ten acres, we will need to be able to run it
without propane. We are already planning to buy or build a large
greenhouse in order to raise a large portion of our fresh vegetables.
Of course if state and city pensions come under fire, all our plans
could be flushed down the toilet. Still, as uncertain as the future
appears, nonetheless it is exciting.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/3/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What about the Supreme Court?
What about the people who would surround Trump in his administration?
What about the civil rights of minorities, particularly Muslims?
I'm not arguing about whether or not you should vote for Clinton. I'm
pointing out that it is inaccurate to state that there's no difference in
the results of this election. There are hard realities and all of us make
choices that actually might, even if minimally, have real consequences. If
we vote for Stein, we are clearly choosing to vote for someone who will not
win and depending on what state we live in, we might be contributing to a
Trump Presidency. That is serious. If we do it, we'd better be very clear
about what the possible consequences of our choice might be.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:25 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open
Like you, Joe, I've backed many a loser. Often times, just as my up coming
vote for Jill Stein, my vote was in protest of the System, not a foolish
belief that if my candidate were elected the heavens would open and God
would strike my enemies dead...although...
My first presidential election was 1956, Ike versus Stevenson. But Ike was
such an...an...Ike Con, that he could have defeated Moses. I supported and
worked for the likes of Eugene McCarthy, McGovern and Nader.
But this is the first time that I really felt that my vote had been stolen
from me, replaced by a Sham. Clinton versus Trump? Really?
Just who's fooling whom?
Carl Jarvis
On 10/3/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I understand and really respect your position Carl. I really do and Ivote".
will not ttry to disuade you or anyone from similar positions.
I'm only stating my position and the fact that I will, probably
literally hold my nose while I cast my vote for Clintion.
BTW I have a long history of voting for lost causes (so-to-speak) in
protest
not only for President but for other offices.
Shit, I voted for Perot in 1992. I hate to admit that, but it was
purely a protest vote. I knew he was a "wingnut", thought a thousand
times better than Trump. I voted for him as a sort of a "none of the
above
Also I knew that NAFTA was insane as it was written and Perot waschange our minds?
correct in
the "giant sucking sound" thing went.
It was born out by facts which includes the demise of Flint btw.
I've also voted in the past for "Communists" and milder socialists and
even
right ins as a protest vote.
I'm not saying my method is correct or even right and, I like you am
sick to
death of the status quo ante.
Remember that when I was 19, and in my firts election I was a
Democratic party activist, not unlike the Millenials of this day, and
both idealistic and naive.
I eventually worked for McGovern very hard too. And I went to the
state convention as a delegated.
Mc Govern was as noble and naive as they came at the same time and
really, ironically lost my firm commitment when he dumped Eagleton
over his depression issues.
Actually, before I became a "McGovern" delegate I really was for
Shirley Chisholm. Another story for another day.
ByThat said, and by the time the 1976 election took place I voted for
Gus Hall, who was the Communist Party candidate and I knew he was
probably a stoodge at the very least of the FBI.
I did it as an iconoclast, sticking my finger in the eye of the
establisment.
Again, I'm not saying my way is the right way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 10:13 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open
As for me, "I will not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Bernie Sanders has
done. nor will I reluctantly vote for her."
In fact, my vote has been stolen from me and a rubber stamp has been
stuck in its place. Want the fast track to Hell? Vote for Trump.
Otherwise stay with Clinton and "enjoy" the slow trip to the same
destination.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/2/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Weissman writes: "Faced with two differently flawed major party
candidates for president, most of us have already made our choice,
especially after their first debate. What could anyone possibly say
at this point to change our minds? But since you have been long-time
readers, here is how I plan to vote and why."
Hillary Clinton. (photo: The New York Times)
Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open By Steve Weissman, Reader
Supported News
02 October 16
Faced with two differently flawed major party candidates for
president, most of us have already made our choice, especially after
their first debate. What could anyone possibly say at this point to
Donald Trump?But since you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to vote
and why.
I will not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Bernie Sanders has done. But I
will reluctantly vote for her. I know of no other realistic way to
defeat Trump and his followers by the largest possible majority.
Like many of you, I see Trump and his followers as an existential
danger to Muslims, Latinos, and African-Americans, an insult to
women, and a threat to the creation of a progressive America. His
hate-filled campaign empowers white supremacists, who have never
accepted the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. His
demonization of Islam rallies religious conservatives who think
America should be a Christian nation. His authoritarianism and his
endless claim that “only I can solve your problems” raise the specter
of “a man on horseback,” if not an orange-haired fascist Führer.
Why, then, don’t I vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein?
Many friends and colleagues who vote in states where Clinton appears
to have a sizeable lead may well vote for Jill. But it's a risky
gamble. During the primaries, the polls – and even the legendary Nate
Silver's probability predictions – proved glaringly unreliable. How
can we trust the numbers to be any more accurate in this strange and
extremely consequential election?
How can we risk a protest vote on a candidate who has almost no
chance of being seen or heard, and absolutely no chance of defeating
Donald Trump?Does voting for Clinton trap us forever into having to vote for a
lesser evil? That is up to us. Bernie is trying to meet this
challenge both inside and outside the Democratic Party. He has helped
create groups like Our Revolution and Brand New Congress, which are
funding progressive candidates for all levels of government.
Bernie himself has chosen to work within the Clinton campaign,
stressing the progressive nature of the Democratic Party platform to
which Hillary agreed, and promising to hold her feet to the fire once
she’s elected.
He has also agreed to work with Senator Elizabeth Warren to fight
against Hillary selecting any Wall Street figures to serve in her
cabinet. I suspect that Hillary will roll right over them, but the
fight is worth the effort.
Make no mistake. I greatly admire Hillary Clinton for her intellect
and determination. Becoming the country’s first female presidential
candidate from a major political party has been a huge success for
her, her family, and all of America, especially our young people,
boys as well as girls. I also agree with Bernie and Nobel
Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, an advisor to Hillary, that
she is more progressive than Obama, though that is not a very high
standard.
She has publicly acknowledged the need to rein in Wall Street. If she
does, I think we should all support her efforts. But I am not
optimistic. She continues to peddle the discredited myth of mostly
free-market, neo-liberal economics.
She has said many times that the vast inequality of wealth in America
destroys our democracy. She has promised to fight this inequality. I
hope she does. But she limits what she can do by the close ties she
continues to maintain with Wall Street and major multinational
corporations.
Under pressure from Bernie’s supporters, she has promised to oppose
the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But every time she defends her
husband’s energetic support for the North Atlantic Free Trade
Agreement, as she did in her first debate with Trump, she loses more
support from former Democratic voters who saw NAFTA send American
factories to Mexico, kill well-paying jobs, and destroy living and
working communities, mostly in what we now call the Rust Belt.
You can see why I’m so unhappy about having to vote for Clinton just
to vote against Trump. But the main reason I cannot endorse Hillary
should be obvious from all that I’ve written. Simply put, I cannot go
along with her interventionist, liberal imperialist foreign policy,
whether in Syria or Libya, and her eagerness to engage in a new Cold
War with Russia.
Endless, no-win wars in Muslim countries will only encourage more
terrorist attacks, spurring on the racial and religious hatred that
Donald Trump and his followers are now preaching. A cold war with
Russia raises the risk of nuclear confrontation that we could all
lose. And all the military spending, planning, and plotting will only
take time, focus, and resources away from building a truly
progressive America.
Some wishful thinkers have argued that Hillary has good reasons to
turn away from her war-like ways and focus on her progressive
aspirations. If she does, let us all applaud. If she does not, I will
continue to oppose her.
I
expect most of you will do the same.
________________________________________
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left
monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London,
working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives
and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money
and the Corporate State:
How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to
Nonviolently Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: The New York Times)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open By Steve Weissman, Reader
Supported News
02 October 16
aced with two differently flawed major party candidates for
president, most of us have already made our choice, especially after
their first debate.
What could anyone possibly say at this point to change our minds? But
since you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to vote and
why.
I will not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Bernie Sanders has done. But I
will reluctantly vote for her. I know of no other realistic way to
defeat Trump and his followers by the largest possible majority.
Like many of you, I see Trump and his followers as an existential
danger to Muslims, Latinos, and African-Americans, an insult to
women, and a threat to the creation of a progressive America. His
hate-filled campaign empowers white supremacists, who have never
accepted the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. His
demonization of Islam rallies religious conservatives who think
America should be a Christian nation. His authoritarianism and his
endless claim that “only I can solve your problems” raise the specter
of “a man on horseback,” if not an orange-haired fascist Führer.
Why, then, don’t I vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein?
Many friends and colleagues who vote in states where Clinton appears
to have a sizeable lead may well vote for Jill. But it's a risky
gamble. During the primaries, the polls – and even the legendary Nate
Silver's probability predictions – proved glaringly unreliable. How
can we trust the numbers to be any more accurate in this strange and
extremely consequential election?
How can we risk a protest vote on a candidate who has almost no
chance of being seen or heard, and absolutely no chance of defeating
Does voting for Clinton trap us forever into having to vote for a
lesser evil? That is up to us. Bernie is trying to meet this
challenge both inside and outside the Democratic Party. He has helped
create groups like Our Revolution and Brand New Congress, which are
funding progressive candidates for all levels of government.
Bernie himself has chosen to work within the Clinton campaign,
stressing the progressive nature of the Democratic Party platform to
which Hillary agreed, and promising to hold her feet to the fire once
she’s elected.
He has also agreed to work with Senator Elizabeth Warren to fight
against Hillary selecting any Wall Street figures to serve in her
cabinet. I suspect that Hillary will roll right over them, but the
fight is worth the effort.
Make no mistake. I greatly admire Hillary Clinton for her intellect
and determination. Becoming the country’s first female presidential
candidate from a major political party has been a huge success for
her, her family, and all of America, especially our young people,
boys as well as girls. I also agree with Bernie and Nobel
Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, an advisor to Hillary, that
she is more progressive than Obama, though that is not a very high
standard.
She has publicly acknowledged the need to rein in Wall Street. If she
does, I think we should all support her efforts. But I am not
optimistic. She continues to peddle the discredited myth of mostly
free-market, neo-liberal economics.
She has said many times that the vast inequality of wealth in America
destroys our democracy. She has promised to fight this inequality. I
hope she does. But she limits what she can do by the close ties she
continues to maintain with Wall Street and major multinational
corporations.
Under pressure from Bernie’s supporters, she has promised to oppose
the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But every time she defends her
husband’s energetic support for the North Atlantic Free Trade
Agreement, as she did in her first debate with Trump, she loses more
support from former Democratic voters who saw NAFTA send American
factories to Mexico, kill well-paying jobs, and destroy living and
working communities, mostly in what we now call the Rust Belt.
You can see why I’m so unhappy about having to vote for Clinton just
to vote against Trump. But the main reason I cannot endorse Hillary
should be obvious from all that I’ve written. Simply put, I cannot go
along with her interventionist, liberal imperialist foreign policy,
whether in Syria or Libya, and her eagerness to engage in a new Cold
War with Russia.
Endless, no-win wars in Muslim countries will only encourage more
terrorist attacks, spurring on the racial and religious hatred that
Donald Trump and his followers are now preaching. A cold war with
Russia raises the risk of nuclear confrontation that we could all
lose. And all the military spending, planning, and plotting will only
take time, focus, and resources away from building a truly
progressive America.
Some wishful thinkers have argued that Hillary has good reasons to
turn away from her war-like ways and focus on her progressive
aspirations. If she does, let us all applaud. If she does not, I will
continue to oppose her.
I
expect most of you will do the same.
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left
monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London,
working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives
and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money
and the Corporate State:
How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to
Nonviolently Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
