Bernie and Cersei........er........I mean Hillary

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Saturday, July 16, 2016 09:00
VIEWED: 3384
PAGE 1 of 1

SHINYGOODGUY

Wednesday, July 13, 2016 1:52 PM

Finally, Bernie endorses Hillary. Still though, he bucking for power broker of the
year.

Some may suggest there's some behind-the-scenes tomfoolery going on, but I have a different take on the subject. Bernie is looking to make some noise in the grand scheme of things. Something's amiss!

SGG

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:58 PM

Bernie has had little influence on the DNC platform, as far as I can tell, and the platform will have 5% effect on what the Dems will actually accomplish. SO Bernie traded what influence he had for nothing, because the DNC won't accomplish anything positive and outside of the DNC nobody will even believe in his "revolution", they'll figure he's just another shill for the establishment.

With Hillary at the helm, I predict

Signing on to the TPP
War with Russia or China (or maybe both)
Another destroyed nation or two
Netanyahu going full-on grabbing more Palestinian land for Jewish settlements, and Another Palestinian/ Israeli "war" in which Jews get to shoot Muslim women and children like fish in a barrel, and either
Another bank failure or out-of-control-inflation ... or both.

All of that fancy domestic stuff that they promise will be 5% accomplished, maybe.

Poor Bernie, he lost his spine somewhere along the way.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

SECOND

Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Bernie has had little influence on the DNC platform, as far as I can tell

Bernie traded what influence he had for nothing

Poor Bernie, he lost his spine somewhere along the way.

Paul Ryan explains how Democrats became the party of Bernie Sanders
www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12150470/bernie-sanders-endorse-clinton

Democrats have shifted substantially to the left.

To get a flavor of how far the party has moved, it’s useful to consult a 2006 document called “A New Direction for America,” put out by Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel as an election manifesto for their ultimately successful effort to win a congressional majority for Democrats.

This is not the distant past that we are talking about. Clinton and Obama were sitting US senators, Pelosi is still House Democrats’ leader, Emanuel is an important party figure as mayor of Chicago, and Sanders was a veteran House member preparing to run for a US Senate seat. And yet 10 years is a long time in politics.

The “New Direction” did not mention climate change but did call for investments in “clean coal.”
It did not propose a single measure to provide health insurance to the uninsured.
Its only proposal on college affordability was to try to bring student loan interest rates down.
It promised to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour (this passed in 2007), which would be $8.64 today when adjusted for inflation.
Last but by no means least, House Democrats were loudly promising austerity budgeting under the banner of “fiscal discipline.”

Whatever you make of Hillary Clinton’s current policy agenda, there’s no denying that it’s far more left-wing across the board even as the status quo in many of these areas has shifted to the left.

Sanders himself, meanwhile, was advocating 10 years ago for roughly the same ideas on these topics as he stands for today. He was on the left flank of the party then and he’s on its left flank today, but that flank is much closer to the middle of the party thanks to a near-extinction of its right wing and a generally leftward tilt of mainstream Democrats after Obama’s win in 2008.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:02 PM

DEMOCRATIC PARTY FIRST SHIFTED TO THE RIGHT

Quote:
New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or Moderate Democrats, is an ideologically "centrist" faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are an economically conservative and "Third Way" faction which dominated the party for around 20 years starting in the late 1980s after the US populace turned much further to the political right. They are represented by organizations such as the New Democrat Network and the New Democrat Coalition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

Bill and Hillary Clinton, proponents of

NAFTA ("giant sucking sound")

Digital Millenium Copyright Act (which gave unprecedented copyright privileges to electronic content)

Welfare reform ("the end of welfare as we know it"),

Don't ask, don't tell,

Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act

Signing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (which brought us Enron)

The destruction of Yugoslavia

represented the deliberate rightward shift of the Democratic Party into the New Democratic Party. The Democratic Party's constituents shifted to the left after the 2008 financial meltdown, not "after Obama's win in 2008".

Who the hell wrote that article? It's a piece of dreck which ignores important events in favor of focusing on little ones. The Democratic Party is mostly bought-and-paid-for-hacks, like Wasserman-Schultz and Hillary herself, who have no interest in making any fundamental changes to ... well, anything.

There are a few good people in the Dem Party, and somewhat fewer good people in the Repub Party, but right now the parties represent Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee who are squabbling between each other for money. None of the establishment politicians will institute the kinds of changes that are required to close the wealth gap, prevent us from falling into another financial meltdown, restore our Constitutional rights, stop the USA from destabilizing yet more nations, prevent more refugee crises, re-industrialize the USA, or slow down climate change or even prepare for its eventuality.

All we'll get is a thin layer of goo on an unchanging policy, cosmetics that some people will point to as being an "improvement" even as things slip from bad to worse. That's what happened under Obama, right? So, yeah let's vote for Four more years! ... as if that was an acceptable choice.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

SECOND

Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

All we'll get is a thin layer of goo on an unchanging policy, cosmetics that some people will point to as being an "improvement" even as things slip from bad to worse. That's what happened under Obama, right?

Wrong.

Congress, not the President, is the most important policymaking institution in the American constitutional system. But individual members of Congress are not knowledgeable about policy and are not equipped to become knowledgeable, and becoming knowledgeable is not a good way to shift into a leadership position.

Always some Congressional leaders are dumber or more ignorant than your average member of Congress, but most fundamentally they are an integral part of a Congressional framework that cultivates and promotes ignorance. That system is what’s really scary. The ultimate result is legitimately bad.

Want details and examples? Then read www.vox.com/2016/7/13/12159000/mike-pence-sorry

Even though Congress is mostly failing to make policy, abdicating to the White House, Bernie knows policy. Many Democratic members of Congress are more or less blindly following talking points that they got from somewhere else and that they don’t really understand. In the next Congress the Democrats will be blindly following Bernie's talking points written into the Party's platform.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 14, 2016 1:02 AM

So, according to you, Congress

"will institute the kinds of changes that are required to close the wealth gap, prevent us from falling into another financial meltdown, restore our Constitutional rights, stop the USA from destabilizing yet more nations, prevent more refugee crises, re-industrialize the USA, or slow down climate change or even prepare for its eventuality."

In other words, there will be a real political revolution, like Bernie promised.

Should that go into the predictions thread?

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

SECOND

Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, according to you, Congress . . . Should that go into the predictions thread?

Wrong, again, Signym. If it happens, it will be Congress's doing, not the President's. The President doesn't have, never has had that power. The Democrats in Congress will have Bernie's talking points to guide them toward your goals, but Republicans in Congress are the majority. So long as that majority of Congress does not want any of your marvelous suggestions enacted, your suggestions won't become law. It couldn't be simpler, but for some reason you must think that the President can change the direction of the USA. The Constitution says Congress does it or else it doesn't get done.

If you need a prediction, I predict that the bright future you hope for won't happen until Republicans are in the minority in both the Senate and House of Representatives and the President is a Democrat. That is what happened for FDR and JFK. That's why those years were full of great changes.

P.S. What do the Republicans plan, if they remain in the majority in Congress? The Republican platform is still something of a mystery, but in 2012 its economic growth plan mostly focused on lowering taxes; passing a Balanced Budget Amendment; getting back on the gold standard; and letting the unfettered free market handle home mortgages (!). If we actually did all this stuff, it would probably crush economic growth for decades.

1KIKI

Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:14 AM

Signy has been making the point over and over that the president's most powerful role is in foreign policy.

What do YOU think a Clinton foreign policy will look like?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:40 AM

I'm putting this in a few threads to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the refusal to even entertain the idea that Clinton is flawed is a problem both Second and SGG have. I guarantee, they won't discuss any of her shortcomings. Ever. No matter how evident those flaws are to reasonable people.

It is increasingly harder to acknowledge that Clinton has been a target of unfair attacks while also asking fair questions about her record. ... First of all, there is ample evidence she simply lied. A lot. We know that she originally stated she used a private server to allow her to email from one device. That has been proven false. We know that despite apologizing for poor judgment, she has consistently passed the blame onto others, suggesting that her colleagues were the ones who should have known the rules. We also know that she has really refused to take seriously the idea that sensitive and classified information was mishandled and that that information may have actually been leaked. Most importantly we have clear evidence that she has handled this mess with spin and rhetoric more than actual leadership.

Taken together those behaviors might not make her a criminal–although there is some real doubt on that point — but I believe it is fairly clear that they suggest serious flaws in a future president.

The point is that it is time to revise Bernie Sanders’ statement that “we are sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails.” Even if the whole investigation was politically motivated,
it turns out that there are some legitimate things to worry about. As Lee Camp explains on Redacted Tonight, the actual content of the emails is real cause for concern. That’s not even mentioning the whole host of other Clinton practices—her hawkishness, pro-Wall Street record, cronyism, etc. — that are worth critiquing.

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/12/the_blowback_from_hillary_bashing_righ
t_wing_attacks_thwart_reasonable_criticism_of_clintons_campaign/

The blowback from Hillary bashing: Right-wing attacks thwart reasonable criticism of Clinton’s campaign

Last week brought two tales of an email scandal. In one version the former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, committed a crime by using a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. She sloppily handled classified information, left our nation vulnerable to terrorist hacks, and lied repeatedly to the public and the authorities when asked about it. She was crooked and careless and acted as though she was above the law because she is a scheming she-devil. In another version of the story, there is no story — no crime, no carelessness, no lies worth paying attention to. The case is closed and we should all move on and get ready for to root for Hillary at the upcoming Democratic convention.

For some of us, both of those versions of the story are completely idiotic. They make no sense at all. But they aren’t equal in their nonsense. One of the versions is far more delirious and far more vicious. And that is the problem.

The right-wing attacks on Clinton are so excessive, so misogynistic, so mean-spirited and so often absent of any connection to reality, that it has become almost impossible to criticize her at all.

It’s no news that Hillary Clinton may well be the most lambasted politician in recent history. And, given the trouncing Barack Obama has endured, that is really saying something.

The shrill, vitriolic, and often hysterical attacks on Clinton have been constant. As Clinton supporter David Brock of Media Matters points out in his book on media coverage of her: There is ample evidence of a sustained right-wing plot to derail her as a candidate. Gene Lyons, another pro-Clinton commentator, has also amassed significant evidence of a “covert and often concerted effort” to take down Bill and Hillary. If you are skeptical that a Cli

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:14 PM

Ah, finally...........predictions.

Well, it's kind of hard to be in a "power" position when you get trampled upon
and scrape yourself off the ground to present your case. That only happens when you
allow yourself to be influenced by delusions of grandeur, and Bernie had visions of
sugar plums dancing in his head - to be sure. Heady stuff.

So, basically, he had no "hand" (as George Castanza would say). Hillary sat perched upon the Iron Throne calmly, patiently awaiting the inevitable......Bernie sheepishly coming before her, hat in hand, begging for scraps. "Please sir, could I have some more." Poor Bernie, to come oh so close, but yet fall oh so far and his ego just couldn't bear parting from the spotlight.

Yep, I agree - War, Famine and pestilence is the order of the day. But, mind you,
that will happen no matter who's in the driver seat. Well, most especially with a
certain loon that shall remain nameless - you know, the tycoon from Monopoly Land:
Uncle Moneybags. The more I think about it, the more I shudder to think that it could still happen. Boy, will we be supremely FUCKED!

The Constitution will certainly be busy............yes, even more than now.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Bernie has had little influence on the DNC platform, as far as I can tell, and the platform will have 5% effect on what the Dems will actually accomplish. SO Bernie traded what influence he had for nothing, because the DNC won't accomplish anything positive and outside of the DNC nobody will even believe in his "revolution", they'll figure he's just another shill for the establishment.

With Hillary at the helm, I predict

Signing on to the TPP
War with Russia or China (or maybe both)
Another destroyed nation or two
Netanyahu going full-on grabbing more Palestinian land for Jewish settlements, and Another Palestinian/ Israeli "war" in which Jews get to shoot Muslim women and children like fish in a barrel, and either
Another bank failure or out-of-control-inflation ... or both.

All of that fancy domestic stuff that they promise will be 5% accomplished, maybe.

Poor Bernie, he lost his spine somewhere along the way.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:46 PM

OMFG, will you give it a rest. Damn you are annoying. ALL politicians are Liars, cheats and crooks. ALL, especially the republican-controlled houses, are greedy bastards who think only of themselves. INCLUDING HILLARY!

There, I've discussed it. Happy Now! Geeesh!

I'm not so thick-headed that I don't see what politicians are, a low form of scum.
Maybe the lowest. Just because I don't go at it tooth and nail with you doesn't mean I don't get it. Back in the day, I marched and protested with the best of them. So please, just make your comments, but don't assume. It's just not worth it.
You guys are like pit bulls, you latch on and refuse any other point of view. Fine.
I may be dumb, but I'm no fool. And if I don't discuss every move I make, that's my business. You want to win every argument or point regardless of anyone else's beliefs or life experiences, no matter what. It's sickening and annoying; and just downright depressing.

And please don't insult me with that "reasonable people" crap, although I have come to expect that from you. Every fucker on this planet has shortcomings. Me, you, the
angelic Bernie, David Duke, Giuliani, Al Sharpton, The Notorious RBG, the president. No one is immune, because we are human. Sorry to burst your bubble.

But relentlessly gnawing at my ankles to get me to bow and scrape to your superior
intellect, it's just not worth it. Like I said, make your argument. If I so choose,
I'll comment and express my thoughts. PERIOD. Maybe I don't feel like discussing her shortcomings because of my reluctance to admit to my shortcomings. Ever thought
of that? Besides, is this a competition where you win a door prize? I think not.
I'm a die-hard Democrat, always have been, always will be until my last breath. I also happen to be a free-critical-thinker (my word). So Hillary sucks at being a normal person.......well, la-dee freaking da! Take a good look around. Donald Fucking Trump, Newt, Palin and the fat & ugly Rush. Not exactly pillars of virtue.

So you hate Hillary. Okay I hate all injustice, bullies and assholes. Obama got
handed a fucking shitty deck of cards and all of the repubs fuck with him so as to
make him look bad. Here it is Barack, the edge of darkness.......good luck making
America Great Again. Near financial collapse, war, and rampant unemployment....
fuck you very much. Obstruction up the ass........grab your ankles, it's going to
be a bumpy ride America. Has he been flawless. of course not. You would have thought - no way he gets out of this unscathed. Actually, your right. But look where we are. Despite the fact he was left to twist in the wind.

I remember hearing right wing nuts talking about how he was going to confiscate
all the guns in the country. Fucking stupidest things I ever heard. And yet, here
we are; 11 massacres later. So, make your comments, predictions and character
assassinations. Go ahead, have at it! I'm not going anywhere. If I don't answer, it's because I really don't give a shit. Or maybe I'm on the porcelain throne!

All Hail Queen Cersei, long may she reign!

Not if the Khaleesi has something to say about it.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm putting this in a few threads to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the refusal to even entertain the idea that Clinton is flawed is a problem both Second and SGG have. I guarantee, they won't discuss any of her shortcomings. Ever. No matter how evident those flaws are to reasonable people.

It is increasingly harder to acknowledge that Clinton has been a target of unfair attacks while also asking fair questions about her record. ... First of all, there is ample evidence she simply lied. A lot. We know that she originally stated she used a private server to allow her to email from one device. That has been proven false. We know that despite apologizing for poor judgment, she has consistently passed the blame onto other

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SECOND

Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm putting this in a few threads to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the refusal to even entertain the idea that Clinton is flawed is a problem both Second and SGG have. I guarantee, they won't discuss any of her shortcomings. Ever. No matter how evident those flaws are to reasonable people.

Max Weber explained Hillary. Hillary even quoted Weber, so she knows who he is and she knows herself. She is not a beautiful soul like Bernie. I'll quote a little from
www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12053146/max-weber-hillary-clinton

The ethic of responsibility

The same [Max Weber] essay also offers an implicit response to many of the criticisms leveled against Clinton by Bernie Sanders over the course of the campaign. Politics, says Weber, requires a particular mode of ethical conduct suited to its unique demands — what he calls an ethic of responsibility.

The ethic of responsibility is first and foremost focused on the practical impact of the political leader’s stances.

He contrasts this with an ethic of ultimate ends that focuses more on the righteousness of the positions taken. Weber writes that you could show a left-winger who adheres to an ethic of ultimate ends "that his action will result in increasing the opportunities of reaction, in increasing the oppression of his class, and obstructing its ascent — and you will not make the slightest impression upon him."

By contrast, says Weber, "a man who believes in an ethic of responsibility takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people."

Weber clearly did not have this specific example in mind, but the ethic of responsibility is the sort of ethic that might lead a person to embrace the Defense of Marriage Act in order to keep a broadly pro-LGBTQ political regime in office and then flip-flop on the issue only once public opinion had evolved.

But it can work in the other ideological direction as well. The ethic of responsibility could lead a former secretary of state to somewhat implausibly disavow a Trans-Pacific Partnership she was involved in negotiating, if that’s the best way to keep anti-globalization backlash from getting entirely out of control.

Steadfastness of heart

Perhaps most surprisingly, the very end of Weber’s essay — the part Clinton quoted directly — can be read as in some respects a mild rebuke of Barack Obama.

Weber analogizes politics to the process of drilling a hole through a very hard piece of wood. It’s incredibly annoying, and it’s critical not to become discouraged. He writes that "man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible" but that typically what happens when you reach out for the impossible is you simply fail.

To succeed, one must arm oneself "with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes."

Clinton tells Klein that times of great peril and opportunity arise in politics and "you have to seize those moments, and I think President Obama did that" at the beginning of his administration. But she gently suggests that after the initial rush wore off, Obama may have become excessively daunted by the partisan onslaught:

But I think you’ve got to try to push forward as many different issues as you can all at the same time, because you never know what’s going to turn the tide. So I just think it’s that getting up every day and working on it. It is not flashy, and you don’t telegraph everything you’re doing because that would be breaching the relationship and the negotiation you may be involved in.

I certainly saw my husband do that, and he did it with people who were trying to destroy him every single day. He’d meet with him at night; they’d hammer out deals; they would negotiate over very difficult things; they’d shut the government down; he’d veto them; they’d come back.

You just keep going.

This is considerably less appealing — but perhaps more realistic — than a standard political promise to &qu

SHINYGOODGUY

Friday, July 15, 2016 3:29 PM

Meanwhile, Bernie's endorsement had some feeling betrayed.

SGG

SIGNYM

Friday, July 15, 2016 4:12 PM

SIGNYM

Friday, July 15, 2016 4:18 PM

"At this point there was no other political and electoral solution" [for Bernie, other than to endorse Clinton.]

None of you probably know this, but Jill Stein and the Green Party offered Sanders her spot on the Green ticket.

You can't offer people a "political revolution" and then weenie out like that. That feels too much like "business as usual".

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

SECOND

Friday, July 15, 2016 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"At this point there was no other political and electoral solution" [for Bernie, other than to endorse Clinton.]

You can't offer people a "political revolution" and then weenie out like that. That feels too much like "business as usual".

Did it occur to you that Bernie might be strongly opposed to the Trump agenda? That includes repealing Obamacare, building a wall along the Mexican border, deporting illegal immigrants, banning Muslims at the border, and restoring waterboarding and other torture techniques. If Bernie has priorities, it might be more important to him to stop Trump than to stop Hillary.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/05/hillary-clinto
n/clinton-video-lists-8-promises-trump-presidency/

It just might be that Bernie is more focused on the practical impact of his stances than his followers are. Bernie's followers focused on the righteousness of Bernie's positions against Hillary. Maybe Bernie does not want Trump to martyr America even if Bernie's followers are fine with the self-righteous feeling of taking the perfect position against Hillary but still losing to Trump.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 15, 2016 6:09 PM

Quote:
I'm putting this in a few threads to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the refusal to even entertain the idea that Clinton is flawed is a problem both Second and SGG have. I guarantee, they won't discuss any of her shortcomings. Ever. No matter how evident those flaws are to reasonable people. - KIKI
Max Weber explained Hillary.- SECOND

Wow, long-dead Max explained Hillary from the grave! [/snark]

Quote:
Hillary even quoted Weber, so she knows who he is and she knows herself.

Huh? None of that makes sense.

Quote:
She is not a beautiful soul like Bernie.

Bernie is not a beautiful soul.

Quote:
I'll quote a little from
www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12053146/max-weber-hillary-clinton

The ethic of responsibility

The same [Max Weber] essay also offers an implicit response to many of the criticisms leveled against Clinton by Bernie Sanders over the course of the campaign. Politics, says Weber, requires a particular mode of ethical conduct suited to its unique demands — what he calls an ethic of responsibility.

The ethic of responsibility is first and foremost focused on the practical impact of the political leader’s stances. He contrasts this with an ethic of ultimate ends that focuses more on the righteousness of the positions taken. Weber writes that you could show a left-winger who adheres to an ethic of ultimate ends "that his action will result in increasing the opportunities of reaction, in increasing the oppression of his class, and obstructing its ascent — and you will not make the slightest impression upon him."

There are so many assumptions wrapped up in that concept it's even hard to know how to unpack it.

Quote:
By contrast, says Weber, "a man who believes in an ethic of responsibility takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people."

Weber's assumption that politicians enjoy special rights, implied in the first para, comes shining thru.

Quote:
Weber clearly did not have this specific example in mind, but the ethic of responsibility is the sort of ethic that might lead a person to embrace the Defense of Marriage Act in order to keep a broadly pro-LGBTQ political regime in office and then flip-flop on the issue only once public opinion had evolved.

That is the most miserable excuse for political expediency that I've ever heard, and implies a profound disrespect for the people who voted you into office.

Quote:
But it can work in the other ideological direction as well. The ethic of responsibility could lead a former secretary of state to somewhat implausibly disavow a Trans-Pacific Partnership she was involved in negotiating, if that’s the best way to keep anti-globalization backlash from getting entirely out of control.

Steadfastness of heart
Perhaps most surprisingly, the very end of Weber’s essay — the part Clinton quoted directly — can be read as in some respects a mild rebuke of Barack Obama. ...To succeed, one must arm oneself "with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes."

Clinton tells Klein that times of great peril and opportunity arise in politics and "you have to seize those moments, and I think President Obama did that" at the beginning of his administration. But she gently suggests that after the initial rush wore off, Obama may have become excessively daunted by the partisan onslaught:
But I think you’ve got to try to push forward as many different issues as you can all at the same time, because you never know what’s going to turn the tide. So I just think it’s that getting up every day and working on it. It is not flashy, and you don’t telegraph everything you’re doing because that would be breaching the relationship and the negotiation you may be involved in.

But what about breaching the negotiation that you were in when you were elected? That is, the negotiation that you had with your supporters, when you promised to

SECOND

Friday, July 15, 2016 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I can point to Obama's many other betrayals of his constituency, and Hillary's, and - at this point- Bernie's. And yup- Max Weber excuses them all.

Weber knows you are self-righteous. You would rather Republicans win (remember oh so excellent leaders Bush II, Nixon?) than you get your precious soul dirtied by voting for evil Vice-Presidents Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore.

I keep forgetting to hammer the point hard: everybody smart enough to get to a voting machine or request a ballot by mail will know that their one vote out of millions will not decide the Presidential election. In a large number of people that totally frees them in their minds of any responsibility for what happens next. Some people will vote despite the insignificance of what they do. Many will vote for the candidate that makes them feel most self-righteous about their own moral superiority. When it goes sadly wrong, as it did with Nixon and Bush II, they will feel betrayed rather than feel it is their fault for voting for a Trump. This way they can always feel good about themselves even when they helped elect in their own tiny insignificant way the worst of the candidates for President.

I see that Johnson has 8.1% of the forecast vote. For the irresponsible who want that self-righteous feeling without a guilty conscience for a bad choice AND permission to freely bitch endlessly about the next President, Johnson could be the perfect candidate. Clue: Johnson will not be the next President. That is why he is perfect. The other strategy for the self-righteous is to not vote, since your vote is only 1 out of 150 million. If you don't vote, you're not to blame for what a President does, at least inside the brain of the self-righteous, but not outside in the real world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

SIGNYM

Friday, July 15, 2016 10:41 PM

Quote:
I can point to Obama's many other betrayals of his constituency, and Hillary's, and - at this point- Bernie's. And yup- Max Weber excuses them all.- SIGNY

Weber knows you are self-righteous.

Weber is dead. He doesn't know dick about anything right now; that's just your interpretation. Stop hiding behind Weber.

Quote:
You would rather Republicans win (remember oh so excellent leaders Bush II, Nixon?) than you get your precious soul dirtied by voting for evil Vice-Presidents Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore.

I have no idea what you're saying. I voted for Al Gore and Hubert Humphrey. It's not like I don't know how to compromise my vote. But when a candidate -or current office-holder- falls below a minimum standard, I refuse to vote for them.

Quote:
I keep forgetting to hammer the point hard: everybody smart enough to get to a voting machine or request a ballot by mail will know that their one vote out of millions will not decide the Presidential election. In a large number of people that totally frees them in their minds of any responsibility for what happens next. Some people will vote despite the insignificance of what they do. Many will vote for the candidate that makes them feel most self-righteous about their own moral superiority. When it goes sadly wrong, as it did with Nixon and Bush II

Bush II was not elected. There is solid evidence of vote-counting fraud so pervasive that it gave him the election. Also, people didn't vote for Bush because they felt "morally superior" to him, they voted for him because they thought they could drink beer with him.

Or are you griping to the (nonexistent) people (on this board) who voted for Ralph Nader? Because if that's who you're castigating, you're preaching to the wrong crowd.

Quote:
they will feel betrayed rather than feel it is their fault for voting for a Trump. This way they can always feel good about themselves even when they helped elect in their own tiny insignificant way the worst of the candidates for President.

If Trump is elected and he screws up big-time, I will know that, in my own small way, I helped make that happen. But that's why I didn't vote for Clinton or Obama the second time around: They truly betrayed the people who vote for them. With Clinton, it just took eight years for the hollowing-out of financial institutions that he approved to show up.

Quote:
I see that Johnson has 8.1% of the forecast vote. For the irresponsible who want that self-righteous feeling without a guilty conscience for a bad choice AND permission to freely bitch endlessly about the next President, Johnson could be the perfect candidate. Clue: Johnson will not be the next President. That is why he is perfect. The other strategy for the self-righteous is to not vote, since your vote is only 1 out of 150 million. If you don't vote, you're not to blame for what a President does, at least inside the brain of the self-righteous, but not outside in the real world.

Basically, you don't like third-party votes? I use third-party votes strategically: I'd vote for Jill Stein, but ONLY if Hillary has a solid lock on CA.

I don't think you realize that I'm not voting for "lesser of two evils". I've measured the kind of performance Hillary is likely to give us against the situations that we're likely to encounter in the future, and not only do I find her wanting (venal, corrupt, vindictive, and dishonest) I find her so warlike as to be existentially dangerous.

If more people held their politicians to objective measures of performance instead of some comparative scale (presumed "lesser of two evils") we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thi

SECOND

Saturday, July 16, 2016 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

If more people held their politicians to objective measures of performance instead of some comparative scale (presumed "lesser of two evils") we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

Why would you believe that "objective measures of performance" means superior governing? The USA does not have a system where failure to perform is punished by losing office. Politicians can hang on until the next election, whether they failed badly or not. All the state and federal constitutions would need to be rewritten to make it routine for the quick loss of office when a politician flunks. (When a mayor, congressman, governor, president drops dead, there are ordinary procedures to quickly replace them. When those same politicians drop the ball rather than dying, there is nothing that can be immediately done about it.) There is a country that does punish its politician. For example: the PM of UK failed two weeks back and he lost his office this week. This is how it has been in the UK for a century and it does not follow that its particular system of governing has been superior to the USA.

Take the hint that your "objective measures of performance instead of some comparative scale" will not keep the USA out of the situation it is in (unless you can find somewhere a god-like creature with absolute integrity and wisdom to objectively measure performance of politicians for benefit of humanity). I suspect SIGNYM thinks it is the god-like creature, but will deny it because SIGNYM is modest and humble.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 16, 2016 3:16 AM

Quote:
Take the hint that your "objective measures of performance instead of some comparative scale" will not keep the USA out of the situation it is in

Take the hint that the Tea Party, Occupy, Sanders, Trump ... and even Gary Johnson - movements demonstrate that many people already think- objectively- that they've been screwed by both parties.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 16, 2016 4:15 AM

This discussion is old, but here http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60126 is where it was 9 months ago

Quote:
Boy, do you have a HUGE chip on your shoulder and a Walmart-sized laundry list of Obama crimes and misdemeanors.- SGG

Yes, Obama did a lot of bad things. IF he hadn't, then my list wouldn't be so friggin' long! -SIGNY

Just so you know, I am one of the few people on this site that repeatedly talks about the economic crisis, that began in early 2008, and reached critical mass in October/November 2008. SGG

And I think I'm the only one on this site who actually predicted it™. And I will tell you right now that Obama's "fix" for the crisis is just leading to another one™.

I'm going to respond to just 2 items on your laundry list:
1- Senator Max Baucus: a supporter of the ACA, once called the ACA a "train wreck"............. The AP reports that Baucus, "who helped write President Barack Obama's health care law," "stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a 'train wreck' because of bumbling implementation." "'I just see a huge train wreck coming down." He went so far as to tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that "The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade." "You need to fix this," he said. Baucus also said "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet," meaning he has addressed the problem with Secretary Sebelius before.- SGG

Obamacare's problem is much more fundamental than it's implementation. The problem goes right back to what Max Baucus designed, which has led to one of the greatest collective butt-fuckings the population has ever experienced (aside from our relentless expensive "wars"). Because when all is said and done, the portion of GDP spent on healthcare will go UP from its already extraordinarily high expenditure (relative to other industrialized nations) and the health insurances and healthcare industries will rake in even more dough. I'm not going to give an inch on this. I was following the debate VERY closely because our daughter has had a preexisting condition ever since she was born (brain injury @ birth) making her ineligible for any insurance aside from Medicaid. I saw how the discussion went from single-payer to public option, and how Obama's support for a government-backed plan diminished as time went on, and was last mentioned as a goal in his second State of the Union speech, and then he told its supporters ... and that was the vast majority of the nation ... that it was a non-starter [with whom?] and that he was taking it off the table.

That must have been Obama's "ethic of responsibility" shining through. *snicker* That when he had a popular mandate AND a Democratic Congress, he refused to construct something that would be EFFECTIVE, and instead whittled his own proposal down to something costly, ineffective, and coercive.

Quote:
Do you remember the Harvard research paper that I brought up which found that America is an oligarchy?
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oli
garchy-2014-4
What the authors found is that "the people" mostly get what they want, because their goals mostly correspond to what the rich want. But when the goals and desires of the American people conflict with the goals and desires of the wealthy, the wealthy almost always get their way. Now, this can't possibly happen without the connivance of politicians, who are tied to their donors' apron strings.- SIGNY

Timothy Geithner: Was never a Wall Street banker.
"The most blatantly false example is Geithner, who is pictured along with the words “Goldman Sachs” and “$1.7 million estimate of assets.” Despite a popular myth circulated on

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Saturday, July 16, 2016 8:56 AM

"The ethic of responsibility is first and foremost focused on the practical impact of the political leader’s stances.".

I don't feel like getting blown up in a nuclear confrontation with Russia.

What's Hillary's 'ethic' (sic) of responsibility about that?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Saturday, July 16, 2016 9:00 AM

Yanno what I find so disgusting about you Hillarities? That you refuse to discuss her faults, her dangerousness, and what you might do to mitigate them.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!