Carl,
I'm so comforted that Trump won't win. And I'm sure that supporters of the
Democratic party on this list, are comforted by the picture of stability
that you portray. After all, the Democratic Party, the party of the working
man, the party that supports progressive values, will remain in power. Those
Democratic Party supporters can be relieved that none of those wealthy Green
Party people have attained high office, and the socialists among us can be
happy that none of those capitalist supporting Green Party members have
attained high office. It is the best of all possible worlds.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 11:15 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't Enough
Miriam,
What you say makes good sense. It's just that I don't agree. Yes, if Trump
were somehow to shut his mouth and become our next president, and if somehow
he made the sort of appointments we think he would make, and if two or three
additional spots opened on the Supreme Court, and if he had congress'
backing on appointments to the many vacancies in the lower courts, and if he
quit groping women, then we would be in a world of hurt...not to mention
having to face the other nations around the world.
But Trump is not going to win. What we have is Clinton in the driver's
seat. A two-faced woman who will spin fancy lies to make us working class
folk believe she is doing something for us, while she is busy handing off
our public schools, cutting back our social security, parceling out our
Meidcare, and marching our children off to be cannon fodder in a meaningless
eternal war to protect the interests of the Rich and Idle. And I don't
trust any court appointments Clinton will make.
In short, what we've seen under Obama is what we'll continue receiving under
Clinton. And that is not a world I want for the millions of my starving
People, or for the billions around the globe, who are below the subsistence
level.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/24/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
Given that you don't live in a swing state, I won't argue with you. I,
also, have the luxury of voting for someone who most closely
approximates what I stand for, knowing that my vote is symbolic and
that no one cares, and that it won't matter. But I do take issue with
your point that it doesn't matter which of the major candidates
becomes President. And you surely know, from everything that I've
said and from all of the articles that I've posted, that I think that
Hillary Clinton as our President, would be a disaster.
But it doesn't follow that the results of her presidency are equally
as bad as of a Trump presidency. It doesn't matter because of the
kinds of people that each of them would surround themselves with.
And because the power of the Presidency is something to be reckoned
with. Remember that it was Obama who stopped the 2013 attack on Syria.
It would have happened except for his resistance. Reagan had
alzheimer's, long before the public knew, and it was the people whom
he had chosen as his advisors, who made the decisions. Bush was
lacking in intellect, but he had Cheney and Rumsfeld and we had the
Iraq War. And when people vote for a president, they tend to vote for
congresspeople of the same party. So you'd have trump, very right wing
Republicans, Evangelical Christians, and Republican majorities in the
House and Senate. And Trump isn't just power hungry like Clinton, and
he's not stupid like Bush. He's sneaky, and he consorts with
criminals. He lies about everything all of the time. His main interest
is himself. He's crude. His judgment is often poor to nonexistent.
He's like a toddler in adult disguise. He isn't personally qualified
to hold a job, any job, let alone the highest office in the land. I
certainly agree that his candidacy is a symptom of the times and that
if not for the connivance of the banks and the politicians, he never
would have achieved what he did, and had it not been for the willing
cooperation of the media, he wouldn't have achieved the presidential
candidacy. And I agree that there are power elites who run our
country. Hell, they run the world. Nevertheless, it does matter
whether it is Trump who becomes president, or Clinton. And if I lived
in a purple state, in a state where my vote was consequential, I'd
vote against Trump which means a vote for Clinton because if the
revolution comes, it won't be tomorrow. But in January, we will all
have to deal with the consequences of how we vote.
Miriam.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:17 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't
Enough
Good points, Miriam. I'm here, snug and safe in good old semi
progressive Washington State, beating my chest like a Neanderthal.
And I can't argue with your statements, since I have never faced
voting in a Swing State. In fact, I always thought I was voting as an
American Citizen.
I know that my little vote will be lost in the total shuffle, not
making even a whisper of a statement, but frankly, I don't give a
Damn. I can't bring myself to support any part of a government that
will not support me or my people. We, the working class, have been
abandoned. But we are still expected to support one or another of the
Corporate Candidates? Shoot me in the left foot or shoot me in the
right foot. It makes no difference.
Sure,
things will be wild and crazy under a Trump presidency. But Trump
will be either reigned in, or run out before he can mess up the plans
of the American Empire.
In some ways, Hillary could be worse. Putting her in the driver's
seat will give us a collective sigh of relief. And while we're
sighing, she and her Owners will be busy moving the working class
closer and closer to becoming the Indentured People of America.
Of course I'm speaking of us White Working Class folk. People of
Color have always been treated as Indentured Servants. Meanwhile,
Hillary will lie to us, telling us how important we are, while she
steers us away from protests and toward compliance. Trump would do
what Trump does best. He would continue to pit faction against
faction. We would become a nation at war against itself.
Can anyone see one or the other as being "Lesser of Two Evils"?
Since I'm going to get screwed either way, I might as well get screwed
standing for my beliefs. I cannot sell out my Working Class roots by
pretending to support either of these "Aliens To Freedom".
Carl Jarvis
On 10/23/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, I do think that guy on Democrdacy Now, Eddy, something or
other, has a point when he talks about strategic voting because in
the swing states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. if you don't
vote for Hillary, Donald may very possibly win the state. And I do
think that if Donald wins the swing states and the red states and
becomes president, things would become very much worse, very quickly
for minorities, Muslims, women, and anyone who isn't straight
sexually. I do think that the effect on the supreme court would be
disastrous. I do think that the far right and the extreme racists
would gain a tremendous amount of power and I think that would be
worse than what we have now or what Hillary will give us.
Miriam.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 1:18 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't
Enough
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 yearHell's Fire.
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
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 Isnt Enough
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_overturning_citizens_united
_
i
s
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-isn
t
-
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
nights 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 decisionv.
that 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-registr
a
t
i
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 Isnt Enough
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
© 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
