j reacts to sanders' choice for the dnc rules committee

i think we can at the very least expect an honest telling of events from dr. west. but, don't be surprised when he explains that there was never really anything up for debate - that the majority came in with a stack of binders full of neatly printed materials and was looking for nothing more in depth than an enthusiastic rubber stamp.

this is how they get you. they make you think the process is real. that's the lie that keeps this whole charade in motion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puRzyEoCdJI

j reacts to clinton's debate refusal (strategically correct, if deflating)

no. it's the right choice. note the language from the clinton campaign: they want to compete in california. if they wanted to win in california, they would have said that. that's a slip that seems to have been missed and that implies their internals are negative.

if sanders wins a close race, it doesn't matter much. but if he wins in a landslide, there's a chance it might.

clinton's optimal strategy is to keep the situation low key in order to reduce turnout. turning down the debate is actually a voter suppression tactic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnO-EnkyNV4

and, i'm going to post a sobering link to some comments gore made in 2002.

"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore on the iraq war, 2002

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html

www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal

sorry, just to be clear: sanctions are an act of war. they imply the intent for war. and, in context, they were preparation for an eventual invasion. the fact that gore actively and belligerently supported the sanctions, the no-fly zone and everything else indicates pretty clearly that he was on the side of invasion and would have either done it on his watch or set it up nicely for the next president to do it.

the fact that he was out of the senate at the time robs us of absolute proof. but, we know who was in the senate, and how she voted. gore's logic may have differed mildly from bush', but he would not have made a different decision than clinton did.

www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal

j reacts to the continuing specious scaremongering around third parties (gore == bush)

fuck the scare mongering. you should know better.

i'm not going to argue against the idea that nader won bush the election. it's mostly not true, but let's say it is.

reality check: it wouldn't have mattered. gore and bush were interchangeable. that's why nader was appealing.

reality check: trump and clinton are interchangeable. it doesn't matter who wins.

stop falling for the two-headed monster.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html

Tariq Shakoor
I think Jill Stein's invitation to Bernie supporters (I am one) is a significant one and has immense future possibilities for a viable third party in this country. I'm all for it---just not in this particular election cycle. Why? Because the one thing this otherwise excellent article did not touch on was the surrendering of the Supreme Court and at least one or two appointments in the next few years. If Trump wins this election, we already know what he will do---"appoint a judge like Scalia." Okay? You can't be more clear than that. Hillary for all her warts and issues will never make such a disastrous appointment. Why? She has a constituency that would literally drag her ass out of the White House if she did make that type of appointment. She may be a lot of things---but, stupid is not one of them. The Supreme Court appointments are not small factor to consider when you look at all the possible issues the left holds dear all of a sudden become DOA. So, I do not hold the same opinion that both Trump and Hillary would be equally bad for this country---that is only true in some areas---not all, and especially the social programs that we support. Roe v. Wade, LGBT rights, Obamacare/Single Payer Healthcare, Voting Rights, Social Security, Public Education, Consumer rights, wage equality for women, and so much more. It's easy to say she is a war hawk and should not serve----but, do you actually think Trump is going to be able to be the isolationist he wants to be without losing massive support from his base and the GOP establishment? No, if they want war--there will be a war, and he won't be able to stop them. So, let's look beyond the issue that they both will be on the same page about ultimately. I feel our support for all the other programs are more important and more realistic to bring us together.

Plato
Honduras death squads? Haiti, invasion and repression? Libya, wealthiest country in Africa bombed to the stone age and Hillary Clinton gloating that ISIS with U.S. support tortured and murdered the president? Funding, arming and importing terrorists to Syria? From destroying Yugoslavia to the extermination of the native population of Palestine, Hillary Clinton never saw a bloodbath she didn't love.

MPEG1982
You didn't actually address Tariq's point. Several Republicans appointed to the bench could be a serious disaster for this country, arguably more so than any war. Look at the impact of decisions like Citizen's United.

Clinton has done some horrid things, but at least she won't hand over the Supreme Court.

deathtokoalas
but, it simply doesn't make sense to vote for clinton if you're trying to keep the right off the bench.
if it's trump v. clinton, the issue is already decided: the right keeps the court for another generation.
this boat has sailed.

www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal

j reacts to clinton taking her open and transparent demagoguery up a level

i want to clarify what i said about this a while back, because it's floating around all over the place.

i said something like "the real issue with trump is that he'll bankrupt the country". now, if you put it into context, it's clear that what i was talking about was tax policy - that he'd slash taxes to almost nothing, thereby creating tremendous structural deficits.

that's not literal bankruptcy. it was just meant to suggest that you can expect that he'll carry on with the privatization of all the things, by continuing to reduce revenue sources down to nothing.

here, clinton is once again demonstrating the demagoguery that has defined her candidacy. a country cannot go bankrupt, and there is nothing of any value that can be gained in comparing running a country to running a business like a casino - except to confuse and mislead people.

these are conservative talking points designed to appeal to conservatives. and, get used to it. that's what this election is going to be like.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/24/clinton_trump_will_bankrupt_america_like_hes_bankrupted_his_companies_hes_a_bully_in_the_pulpit.html

RRuin
Jill Stein has no more serious qualifications to be POTUS than Donald Trump. The Presidency is NOT an entry level position. Sure, disgruntled Bernie followers can vote for Stein and help elect Donald Trump. No, this isn't about a lesser of two evils either. This is about a bigot, Trump, running against Hillary Clinton who is one of the most experienced and qualified candidates to run for the Presidency. It's all swell to give these academic holier than thou lectures about our democracy. But this is the real world where a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. That is reality.If nothing else remember the future of the Supreme Court is up for grabs. Think long and hard before casting a protest vote.

Carls Pen
You're right, just look what happened in the 2000 election and see how well that worked out. If the people in this country would take the time to really understand our history they might stop making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

loebner
let's explain for those to young

Ralph Nader ran as a liberal third party candidate vs Gore and Bush, thus ensuring Bush's victory.
Nader's followers kept saying "there's no difference between Gore and Bush."

Fools

deathtokoalas
i still don't think there would have been any difference between gore and bush except in public perception. so, when gore invaded iraq, he wouldn't have generated the same kind of protests.

loebner
No, no, no dtk. There is a world of difference between Gore and Bush. We *know* that Bush invaded Iraq. We don't *know* that Gore would have invaded. Why did Bush invade? Oil. You are aware, I presume, that the only ministry protected was oil? And that VP Cheney was CEO of Hallibuton. Gore would not have had the oil interests pushing for invasion.

And of course Bush is lauded for his concern for the environment. (sarcasm)

deathtokoalas
well, we know that gore supported the sanctions under the clinton regime, and no doubt thought that the price of hundreds of thousands of dead children was worth it. your argument that gore was less beholden to oil interests is simply not upheld by any evidence.

www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?

T Fletcher
Jill Stein and the Greens have a fantastic shot at getting my vote depending on how things unfold.
And remember that the Movement is much more about transforming your everyday lives and your communities than it is about voting for president.

RRuin
The President nominates the justices on the Supreme Court. If you don't think that will impact your communities than you're fooling yourself. This is not an intellectual exercise. It has real consequences. All a vote for Jill Stein will do is increase the possibility of a President Trump and a right wing Supreme Court. Then let us see if you still think the vote for President has no impact.

deathtokoalas
i'm not convinced that clinton's picks will be less right-wing than trump's. i mean, we're talking about somebody that rejected gay marriage to the very last moment, wants a constitutional restriction on access to abortion, has supported trade deals with secret tribunals, supports mass deportation and has stood up for corporate hegemony at every possible opportunity. if you let clinton shape the supreme court, she will put it on a rightward path that will not be reversible for another generation.

www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal

23-05-2016: starts rock band. cancels tour because he has to work.

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/23.html

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to the ramifications of not being conditioned properly by tv brainwashing

somebody asked me about which saturday morning cartoons i used to watch as a kid last night, and i really drew a bank.

"my parents never had cable."

and, that's true. they didn't. but it's not really the reason - i wouldn't have watched them if i had cable, anyways. see, i do think i can actually draw larger conclusions about my individuality through my disengagement with popular culture so i think this is worth a bit of a rant.

the truth is that i used to sleep in on saturday mornings. the reason is that my parents were divorced and friday night was the time i spent with my dad. he'd often keep me up until well past midnight, even when i was very young. so, i would almost always be asleep on saturday mornings until close to noon.

i guess most parents want to put their kids to bed early on friday nights, so they can get a rest from their kids. for me, it was the opposite: i wasn't allowed to go to sleep.

so, rather than watch early morning cartoons on saturday, i always watched late night movies on fridays. and, i actually remember being isolated from the other kids because of it. they'd be talking about these cartoons, and i'd have no idea what they were talking about, so i'd just end up on the outside. had they seen the new tom hanks film? the star wars trilogy? and, the answer was they hadn't - they weren't allowed to, they wouldn't want to, they weren't able to follow...

so, i found myself unable to relate to the other kids at a pretty young age.

a pattern developed as i grew older. had i seen the new sitcom? no; i was reading a book. had i seen the new action series? i still didn't have cable. had i played the new video game? i didn't have a gaming console, and i didn't really want one - i preferred my guitar.

i've argued in the past that you could probably convert me into a normal dipshit by sitting me down and making me watch every episode of friends for a month, clockwork orange style. the reason is that the reason i'm not a normal dipshit is that i didn't watch every episode of friends. or any episode of friends. i don't know which one i am; i'm not even entirely sure which is which.

what that means is that i never got all the subtle capitalist brainwashing that they cram into television, and i've consequently never really had to reverse it. so, all the left-wing music and political commentary came at me as a tabula rasa; i didn't form myself by reacting against the status quo so much as i formed myself by not knowing what the status quo even was.

there's a lesson for parents. if you keep your kids off tv, they may end up with a higher kind of pure intelligence. but, the functional outcome of this may just end up being a life time of alienation and an inherent inability to understand how to conform.

forced brainwashing aside, i think i'm too far gone. i'm half way to my grave. i'm not worth the energy. and i kind of like myself who i am, anyways. but, in hindsight, i realize the longterm social disadvantages of not being able to relate to the people around me when i was very little and am aware that i'd be very different today had i actually watched those saturday cartoons like the other kids.