Friday, April 29, 2016
shit hillary said vol 44
"I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia."
at
23:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to how trump is morphing into bush III
"We’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world."
that could be a direct quote from bush. and, it's probably neither coincidence nor calculation - rather, i suspect that this speech was literally written by bush' old speechwriters.
but, something else is curious. if you take away the two or three lines about trade and the opaque barbs at obama, it sounds exactly like something hillary would say.
trump's mild appeal as a possible lesser evil is fading fast as he gets in line and becomes a spokesperson for the republican old guard. if you voted for him to flip the tpp, you've been had. might it have been a ploy from the start?
please vote for jill stein or do not vote at all.
http://time.com/4309786/read-donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech/
that could be a direct quote from bush. and, it's probably neither coincidence nor calculation - rather, i suspect that this speech was literally written by bush' old speechwriters.
but, something else is curious. if you take away the two or three lines about trade and the opaque barbs at obama, it sounds exactly like something hillary would say.
trump's mild appeal as a possible lesser evil is fading fast as he gets in line and becomes a spokesperson for the republican old guard. if you voted for him to flip the tpp, you've been had. might it have been a ploy from the start?
please vote for jill stein or do not vote at all.
http://time.com/4309786/read-donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech/
at
15:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to an anecdote by max blumenthal about sanders, warren and aipac
interesting sanders anecdote. and, i don't think this is news, i was just watching this as i was eating. nor is it the crux of the talk. i'm just saying....
nobody's ever argued that sanders is ideal. he's still a lesser evil. and, i've frankly never really taken his bit about corruption seriously - it's just politics.
i've heard elizabeth warren explain away her votes for israeli action by saying something like "america needs an ally in the middle east.". it's the same fundamental policy that's been in place since 1973. it's about the - reasonable - american refusal to accept the saudis as a full ally. it's not about any particular support for israeli policy, and really never has been. it's just all about the geo-political realities around controlling the oil supply.and, the palestinians just get thrown under the bus.
even that said, sanders has taken some really bold positions on the campaign trail. it may not be far enough for most activists, but, even on this issue, it's still incomparably better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdHkdnc7iA
i think that, if you follow the argument properly, the best thing that activists in the united states can do on the palestine issue is support the shift to renewable energy. if we can get off oil, we can get off israel, too. you're bluntly not likely to see positive changes in american policy in the region until the shift to energy independence is completed.
nobody's ever argued that sanders is ideal. he's still a lesser evil. and, i've frankly never really taken his bit about corruption seriously - it's just politics.
i've heard elizabeth warren explain away her votes for israeli action by saying something like "america needs an ally in the middle east.". it's the same fundamental policy that's been in place since 1973. it's about the - reasonable - american refusal to accept the saudis as a full ally. it's not about any particular support for israeli policy, and really never has been. it's just all about the geo-political realities around controlling the oil supply.and, the palestinians just get thrown under the bus.
even that said, sanders has taken some really bold positions on the campaign trail. it may not be far enough for most activists, but, even on this issue, it's still incomparably better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdHkdnc7iA
i think that, if you follow the argument properly, the best thing that activists in the united states can do on the palestine issue is support the shift to renewable energy. if we can get off oil, we can get off israel, too. you're bluntly not likely to see positive changes in american policy in the region until the shift to energy independence is completed.
at
14:27
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the supreme court argument [red herring...]
so, now it's about the supreme court, apparently - bernie supporters should support hillary to stop the republicans from stacking the supreme court. is that a better argument?
it's not. it's just a restatement of the other arguments, and the response is the same as it is with the other arguments.
first, let's acknowledge that it's a desperate reaction. what it states is that you can't win the argument that hillary is substantively better than trump, so you're just not making it. instead, you're essentially changing the topic. so, it's a red herring. when you say hillary isn't better than trump, that doesn't somehow not apply to the supreme court nominees.
what would hillary's supreme court nominees look like? they'd be pretty shitty, no doubt - designed to protect corporate power and uphold the status quo. and, remember: hillary supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion rights. she only came out in favour of gay marriage after the court ruling, and only because of the court ruling. she is a conservative, so you should expect her to appoint conservatives. the best case is the status quo; a realistic expectation is actually a shift to the right, as she'll no doubt replace the democrats that resign with justices that are more conservative.
so, like everything else about hillary, you should expect her supreme court nominations to be horrendous. disastrous, even. but, they'll be chosen in such a way as to not rock boats. you won't realize the shit has hit the fan until it does, if you do at all. so, we get this continuing shift to the right without anybody noticing.
what about trump? well, you'd expect little subtlety in his picks, although i don't think you should take him seriously on the abortion thing. but, let's say you do. let's say he literally appoints judge judy. and, let's say he somehow gets her confirmed. people are going to riot.
so, what do you want? do you want eight more years of the status quo, where they're fucking everybody over and nobody reacts? or do you want some serious pushback?
it's not. it's just a restatement of the other arguments, and the response is the same as it is with the other arguments.
first, let's acknowledge that it's a desperate reaction. what it states is that you can't win the argument that hillary is substantively better than trump, so you're just not making it. instead, you're essentially changing the topic. so, it's a red herring. when you say hillary isn't better than trump, that doesn't somehow not apply to the supreme court nominees.
what would hillary's supreme court nominees look like? they'd be pretty shitty, no doubt - designed to protect corporate power and uphold the status quo. and, remember: hillary supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion rights. she only came out in favour of gay marriage after the court ruling, and only because of the court ruling. she is a conservative, so you should expect her to appoint conservatives. the best case is the status quo; a realistic expectation is actually a shift to the right, as she'll no doubt replace the democrats that resign with justices that are more conservative.
so, like everything else about hillary, you should expect her supreme court nominations to be horrendous. disastrous, even. but, they'll be chosen in such a way as to not rock boats. you won't realize the shit has hit the fan until it does, if you do at all. so, we get this continuing shift to the right without anybody noticing.
what about trump? well, you'd expect little subtlety in his picks, although i don't think you should take him seriously on the abortion thing. but, let's say you do. let's say he literally appoints judge judy. and, let's say he somehow gets her confirmed. people are going to riot.
so, what do you want? do you want eight more years of the status quo, where they're fucking everybody over and nobody reacts? or do you want some serious pushback?
at
13:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)