On a bad day I think they believe that we are stupid. But then I
remember that we say the same about them.
Part of the answer is that the corporate mass media has influenced our
thinking for many long years, and the folks in charge know how to use
this to their advantage. They know, for example, that we are charmed
and lulled into a warm fuzzy place by good looking smiling soft spoken
people, telling us that we are the biggest and the very best in the
whole wide world. One of the oft spoken phrases is, "We have to
settle for the lesser of two evils". Even old Adolph knew that if you
tell a lie often enough, or tell a lie huge enough, people will come
to believe it. I can tell you that I don't have to settle for the
lesser of two evils. I will not settle for a reckless
billionaire(self proclaimed), nor a War Hawk, even if it's a woman.
The last time I went for the lesser of two evils was in 2008, when I
held my breath and marked my ballot for Barack Obama. He still hasn't
figured out how to get us out of the Bush war. He still hasn't come
to believe that he lied to the working class and sold them out, over
and over, mostly because he had made a deal with the Corporate Ruling
Class.
And the last repeated lie I'll address is the one that says if I don't
vote for the lesser of two evils, I'll actually be voting for the
greater of two evils.
In voting for Jill Stein, I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, nor for
Donald Trump. I am voting for Jill Stein.
To me it's like someone saying, "Carl, you have to pick between the
electric chair or hanging.
"I'll take a pardon from the governor," I tell them. "No, if you ask
for a pardon, you're actually selecting the electric chair." Huh? I
know I don't have a chance in getting a pardon from the governor, but
how does my wild selection have anything to do with the choices they
offered me? That's not my paradigm.
And that's how I feel about picking from among the choices thrust upon
me. Let them pick. We're headed for Hell in a hand basket, no matter
which one they select. Our only hope is that there really is a
governor, a higher authority, who will intercede on our behalf...boy,
ain't that grabbing at straws!
Carl Jarvis
On 10/23/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I read The Nation, which is on BARD, every week. It is a 150 year old
magazine, and it is left of center. This year, for the first time, it
endorsed a nominee during the Democratic primary, and that nominee was
Bernie Sanders. This week it endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. I
read
its endorsement very carefully, and I found it disappointing and
depressing.
Basically, everyone is saying the same thing. "We learned our lesson from
the Obama election. We must begin pushing Hillary immediately as soon as
she
takes office". No waiting, no giving her time, as they did for Obama. But
there is so much denial in what they're saying because after she is
elected,
they will have no leverage at all. She'll be in office. Why should she
listen to the Progressive base if she wasn't forced to listen to them
during
the campaign? Every time they say that Sanders forced her to move left on
certain issues, I want to vomit. He forced her to make public statements
that sounded as if she were moving left. Making statements is one thing
True
belief followed up by action is something very different. Are they all so
stupid that they believe what they're writing, or is it that they think
we're stupid enough to believe it?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 11:44 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't Enough
My personal belief is that any hint that Hillary Clinton is in favor of
overturning Citizens United, is pure hogwash.
But assuming she is, and announces her decision to pursue this goal, she
would be confronted by a solid wall of opposition that would make Trump's
border wall look like it was made from Papier-mache.
As much as the congressmen and women shed tears of frustration, they are
owned by the big money donors.
Look about you and tell me which major political party represents the
working class majority of American People.
And frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing folks telling us that all we need
to do is to bring pressure on Hillary, once she's in office. Do we really
think that we can pit our numbers against her donor's billions? Even
Bernie
Sanders has lost considerable respect by myself, as he begs folks to back
Clinton.
Tell me just how we turn our nation away from violence and eternal war, if
we vote for the War Hawk Clinton?
No my friends, as much as we'd like to believe that we can force Hillary
Clinton to work on behalf of the People of America...not just the 1%, the
best we can hope to gain is to slow down our decent into Hell's Fire.
The only way we Americans can establish a democracy in this
Republic(actually, the Oligarchy) is to remove all charters to all
corporations, and along with that, remove all their ill gotten money.
Since these vast corporations, some more powerful than most nations, will
never agree to sharing that which they stole, we have only two choices to
select from. We're back to the Lady or the Tiger. Behind one door is the
"Lady" who will distract us and charm us and help us forget that we are
fast
becoming Serfs of the Empire. From behind the other door rages the
corporate monster, eager to spring forth and devour us in a single gulp.
Before we open this door, we'd better have a plan for killing the monster.
If we hesitate or believe we can tame it, we are dead meat.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/23/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
revisit Buckley v.
Truthdig
Why Overturning Citizens United Isn’t Enough
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_overturning_citizens_united_is
nt_eno
ugh_20161022/
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to MoreShare to Email
Posted on Oct 22, 2016
By Adam Eichen / Moyers &
Company(http://billmoyers.com/story/overturning-citizens-united-isnt-e
nough/
)
Pictures of Money(https://www.flickr.com/photos/pictures-of-money/) /
(CC-BY-2.0)(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
Amidst all the other headline-grabbing pronouncements in Wednesday
night’s debate, Hillary Clinton mentioned the importance of
overturning Citizens United. While this is encouraging, focusing on
Citizens United is not enough; our campaign finance system was broken
well before 2010. If Clinton is serious about reducing the role of
money in politics, she should appoint Supreme Court justices willing to
Valeo(https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/75-436) , a 1976 decision thatv.
said (among other things) third parties could spend unlimited amounts
to influence the outcome of an election, and First National Bank of
Boston
Bellotti(https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1172) , a decision two
years later that struck down state attempts to limit corporate
spending to affect ballot initiatives. Those cases formed the basis
for our inability to regulate money in politics.
Moreover, altering Supreme Court case law is not enough. To ensure
fair elections it is essential to pass public financing of
congressional elections, create independent redistricting commissions,
and reduce lobbyist influence over public policy.
In their discussion of the Supreme Court, both candidates also failed
to mention Shelby County v.
Holder(https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96)
(2013), the case that gutted the Voting Rights Act — arguably the most
important piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. Since this
disastrous decision, states across the country have passed
anti-democratic measures that mandate voter IDs, enact draconian voter
registration
requirements(https://www.thenation.com/article/texass-voter-registrati
on-law
s-are-straight-out-of-the-jim-crow-playbook/) , reduce early voting,
and eliminate preregistration for minors (among other measures). The
next president must address this democratic crisis.
As Ari Berman
argues(http://billmoyers.com/story/election-rigged-not-democrats/) ,
the election is “rigged,” but not in the way proclaimed by Trump. The
Republican nominee continues to lambaste the virtually non-existent
voter fraud (an occurrence less likely than being struck by
lightning), while millions of Americans will be forced to sit out this
election due to voter disenfranchisement.
Electoral integrity is a serious matter. The United States has a long
way to go to ensure a fully functioning representative democracy. Yet,
refusing to concede an election on fallacious grounds, as Trump did
last night, is beyond inappropriate. As law professor Rick Hasen
wrote(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87772) , “Our democracy is a
fragile thing which depends upon accepting the rules of the game.”
Democracy is a living form of government, evolving over time and
requiring constant vigilance to ensure proper representation;
undermining the entire process, however, is childish and dangerous.
Adam Eichen is a member of the Democracy Matters Board of Directors
and a Fellow at the Small Planet Institute,(http://smallplanet.org/)
where he is working on a book on the Democracy Movement with founder
Frances Moore Lappé. He served as the deputy communications director
for Democracy Spring.
Follow him on Twitter: @eichendoit(https://twitter.com/eichendoit) .
Photo of the Week: Will Islamic State Pour Into Syria After Suffering
Defeat in Iraq?
Truthdigger of the Week: Julian Assange, Publisher of the Clinton
Campaign Emails
Cast Your Vote: Did the Presidential Debates Make an Impact?
Why Overturning Citizens United Isn’t Enough
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
© 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
