Again, I respect your position and your experience. And let me say I've
always respected you even when we disagree on this or that nuance. That is
not a soop by the way. It is a fact and from the gut and not the brain....My
side of this equation....
I only share my experiences as you have done so and so often.
We have not had goodchoices for decades as you allude to herein.
And while I aam a bit younger and of a different generation than you I've
been forced as you and others for these continual choices between, as Helen
Kelller said, "A choice between tweedledee and tweedledum."
Of course that is a choice between starving to death and starving fromm
thirst which is no choice at all!
II understand all of that, I really do.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:25 AM
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 I 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 vote".
Also I knew that NAFTA was insane as it was written and Perot was 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 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 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 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.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
