sometimes, pictures are more useful than arguments.
there's really no rational reason at all why you should expect me to support clinton, or think she's less terrible than trump. all you have is fear. and i'm not buying it.
i'm probably not representative of the average sanders supporter. i'm an exaggeration. a caricature. but, the picture demonstrates the point and why running clinton is so alienating for so many would-be democratic party supporters.
i'm not exaggerating, either. the conservative party of canada supports single-payer health care, didn't push back against gay marriage at all, won't even talk about abortion, supports medical marijuana, wrote some pretty tough campaign finance laws ...
she really is to the right of harper. both economically and socially. not dramatically. but measurably.
this is their take. pretty close to mine, actually - although i don't think trump belongs on the economic right like that with the rest of them.
by comparison, this is 2008. clinton & obama are right on top of each other. sanders is closer to kucinich. and, i'm closest to nader - who is who i supported.
there has, in fact, been rigorous polling - going back decades - that demonstrates that tea-party type republicans are strongly supportive of government programs like medicare. remember: in the era that sanders is representing, this was the democratic party base. they lean right on social issues like abortion, gay rights, gun control - but they're very much in favour of government services.
that's about class. again.
it's no secret that trump is unpopular amongst republican women, either. that's not really identity politics, though. i mean, listen to the guy. it's easy to understand why republican women are less than happy about the prospect of trump winning, and maybe a little irritated by anything that would help it along. you'll no doubt get the same reaction from republican hispanics.
it's not lazy journalism. it's corporate-financed and driven social engineering.
yeah. snicker. i know. but, underneath the confusion is support for medicare, for veterans, for social security - they just lack the education to be able to articulate themselves.
i hadn't thought of this before. i figured sanders was mostly swinging anti-war libertarians. but, bernie sanders is actually exactly what the tea party needs.
"A recent poll by Lake Research shows that 82 percent of all Americans oppose cuts to Social Security, including 83 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of independents, 82 percent of Republicans — and, in one of the most startling findings of all, fully three-fourths of all self-described Tea Party members (74 percent). (Social Security Works has a video and a petition on this subject.)"
this is a special kind of brilliant, existing in the intersection point of a parody of prog rock concept records and an exploration of wagnerian opera.
nobody has ever seriously suggested that sanders supporters will vote for trump - although i do think he had a chance had he stuck to trade and toned down the nonsense. it's still probably his best tactic, but it's the best of a bad bunch. it may be true that most people realize that he's not going to build a wall or ban muslims. but, the thing is that it also follows that he's not going to pull out of nafta, either. he just has absolutely no credibility at all. what he says is absolutely meaningless. so, if the problem with clinton is that you think she's a liar that's only in it for herself and that you can't believe a word she says, trump is not a solution. to a sanders supporter, they really come off more or less as interchangeable. so, the reverse of that is that trump doesn't seem so scary, either - he just seems like a non-solution.
"Analysis of the detailed poll findings also suggests Sanders voters could help Clinton recapture support from young people, union members and voters in the midwest and north-east."
ok. that's true - you didn't need a poll for it. but, why would they want to?
can you give me one reason that a sanders voter should vote for clinton? "trump eats children" is a good plot for a cartoon show, but not actually a very good argument.
now, i want to be clear: i'm not suggesting that you're going to see a poll with the greens competitive any time soon.
i think the libertarian thing, from sanders voters, is probably a kneejerk. it may be reflective of ignorance, or identity politics, or a bit of both. 15% seems like a lot, but 15% of 18% is less than 3%. we do live in a patriarchal society. it may be clueless and ignorant to label bernie supporters as 'bros', or suggest that her gender is what's pushing opposition to her (hey! hey! hillary! how many kids did you kill today?), but one would nonetheless expect some level of gender-based reactionary rejectionism. 3% seems like the right number. the sanders--->johnston swing may be a good metric to gauge how much it is that sexism is actually a problem. why else would you vote for gary johnson, after supporting a candidate that wants single-payer healthcare and state-funded tuition? you'd have to be entirely clueless or hopelessly sexist. i'm pretty critical of identity politics, but it has a use and this is it.
the real fight is between clinton and stein. it might not present itself for a while. it might take until october, even. but, this is where bernie supporters' heads are at, and the choice they're going to be making.
the media will not cover this until it is forced to.
if she can get some traction to start with, though, don't be surprised if she gains support very quickly.
what we've learned with sanders is that americans are inherently conservative in their voting choices. they have to know their candidates. that's stein's biggest challenge.
and i would encourage sanders supporters to facilitate this, rather than get in line behind another war criminal.
if you can't make sense of what you're seeing in front of you with logic and policy-based analysis, then you need to look at other explanations - and identity politics are as valid as any other, to specifically explain how small numbers of voters react in irrational ways. it's when people start using identity politics as a dominant tool of analysis, or suggest that identity > ideology, that i'm going to push back and call "bullshit". this is a bankers' wet dream. some kind of vulgar gramscian brainwashing through advertising. it's divide and conquer. so, of course it gets pushed down. but, it's almost always very easily deconstructed as nonsense (and i've done that on this page).
what the system wants is to be able to manchurian candidate you by your identity - to push a few buttons and get every gay eskimo with a pet squirrel to behave the same way. they want to destroy your individuality in favour of a constructed identity that they can download into your brain from head office. the tools are still pretty crude - advertising, tv, movies, mainstream music, just media in general - but they're developing. and, they've managed to capture a large swath of the left.
again: it's usually deconstructed, and usually into class, with little effort. but, it's not some accident that the media goes out of it's way to obscure things and break you down into these atomized advertising demographics. they hope it's self-fulfilling. but, leave it to the misanthropic cynic to have more faith in human individuality than that.
so, yes - there are going to be people that will not vote for clinton because she's female. there will also be people that will vote for clinton because she's female. but, you need to measure this at around 2-3% of the total voting population, not 40% of all voters in the primary. and, you'll likely see it more or less balance out.
i'm not bleeding yet. but my wrists have been a problem for weeks. there's a huge red splotch that looks like it's going to blow. what do i do? go to a hospital? wait it out?
i'm trying to eat more and drink more water - and i actually think i'm succeeding. see..
i boosted my hormones a few months ago, and i think that what's happening is that they're not getting fuel to carry out their instruction set. something that happens when you take estrogen is that your body gets instructions (in the form of chemical signals) to redistribute fat differently. now, energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only converted from one source to another (we can be engineers in context - it's true enough). so, if you get instructions to increase hip width and and build breast size but you're not consuming more excess energy for storage then your body is going to have to go towards other stores of fat - like your arms - to complete the instructions being given out by the hormones. the solution is that if you're very thin and you want to boost your hormones then you should probably eat more, too.
like i say: i do think that increasing my calorie intake has started to make a difference. all the fat is migrating to the girl spots, which is a start. i'm not storing weight in my stomach (in fact, my stomach looks smaller because my hips are coming out). but i'm not noticing my fat stores in my arms or my neck come back yet, which was why i started eating more. it's only been about two weeks, though, too.
as i was typing this, the red mark disappeared. i think that's what i was expecting would happen. it was probably just irritation from laying it down on the table, although it remains reflective of not getting enough calories. listen: i actually eat well. i just put my body into shock.
had it blown, though, i'd definitely be seeking naturalistic explanations.
for real tuning out. just about done wiping the music facebook page. will need to catch up on the vlogs after. this is done, i'm disinterested, and i want to get some real work done.
but, let it be written that my takeaway from the primary is this: hillary clinton has won the democratic primary not by winning minorities but by suppressing them through restrictive voter id laws. this is a relic of the old dixiecrat machine, which clinton in fact represents only a mildly reformed faction of. the media coverage is a function of this.
it'll take a few years. but, when the dust settles this will be properly understood.
if elected, she will carry on the dixiecrat-lite policies that her husband created and her predecessor carried on. in a brutal twist of irony, she will likely get her constitutional amendment to restrict abortion, too.
y'all should've paid closer attention to orwell in high school.
