Is a Woman-Woman ticket viable ? + Pluses? - Minuses? = ???


  • Total voters
    2
  • Poll closed .

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
James Comey is a Republican, if they take Clinton out, than Bernie Sanders will be nominated, a devout Socialist that can turn the country hard left. Which is worse, a hardcore progressive or neo-liberal like Clinton?

1z2nn6q.jpg


They want to get her badly, but they were out maneuvered by the Democrats who used Bernie Sanders to affect the investigation.

It is the same thing with Iraq, removing Saddam (Clinton) from power, or dealing ISIS (Bernie Sanders) in the aftermath? You leave Saddam in power...
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
They want to get her badly, but they were out maneuvered by the Democrats who used Bernie Sanders to affect the investigation.

How did the democrats maneuver and use Sanders to affect the investigation ???
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
President Obama laid praise on Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Convention, saying "There has never been a man or woman, not me, not Bill, more qualified to serve as president of the United States" http://4.nbcny.com/iNiTdqX
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
President Obama laid praise on Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Convention, saying "There has never been a man or woman, not me, not Bill, more qualified to serve as president of the United States"

Yeah, and with respect to Donald Trump he also said:
Don't boo, VOTE !

.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
P.S.

President Obama laid praise on Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Convention, saying "There has never been a man or woman, not me, not Bill, more qualified to serve as president of the United States"

Interpreted: She's the best of the present alternatives.

.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

In the absence of some unexpected extremely negative revelation about Hillary Clinton, we will see the restoration of “Team Billary” to the White House as POTUS. It is important that politically conscious individuals who reside in the “reality based world” prepare themselves for a new Billary presidency with their eyes wide open. Due to the uniquely unqualified narcissistic sociopath Donald Trump being the candidate for POTUS of the other corporate controlled political party, the RepubliKlans— there has been absolutely no corporate television media (NBC/MSNBC, ABC, FOX FAKE, CNN, CBS) exposes of the completely corrupt Bill & Hillary camarilla. Maureen Dowd in a column below reminds us why and how Barack Obama defeated the corrupt Clinton machine in 2008 — she also points out that the potential disaster of the neo-fascist Trump succeeding him as POTUS has forced Obama to embrace the corrupt Clintons despite their obvious easy-to-research blatant deception, corruption and virtue-of-selfishness ideology.

nytlogo379x64.gif

Thanks_Obama_heading.jpg



In little over eight years, President Obama has done a full reversal on Hillary Clinton’s strength as a potential president.

JULY 30, 2016

dowd-circular-thumbLarge-v8.jpg

by Maureen Dowd | http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/sunday/thanks-obama.html?_r=0

PHILADELPHIA — IT wasn’t easy for Barack Obama, a skinny newcomer to national politics with an exotic name and scant résumé, to overthrow the voracious Clinton machine.

The 45-year-old had to turn himself into a dream catcher. He had to become an avatar of idealism and persuade Americans that he could take us to a political Arden beyond lies and vanishing records and money grabs and Marc Rich and Monica and Motel 1600.

“We need a leader who’s going to touch our souls,” Michelle told a South Carolina rally in 2007. “Who’s going to make us feel differently about one another.”

Obama was going to lift Washington to a higher plateau — not one where the president consulted a pollster to see where he should vacation or if he should tell the truth about his intern/mistress. The young senator from Chicago was going to prove that the White House could be a gleaming citadel of integrity and ethics and exemplary family life.

Watching Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich go at it, Obama once wrote, “I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage.”

He presented himself as the ticket to the future. He made us feel good about ourselves, that we could be better, do better.

Making the case against Hillary, he said that America deserved more than triangulating and poll-driven positions and “the same old Washington textbook campaign,” more than a candidate answering questions whatever way she thought would be popular and “trying to sound or vote like Republicans, when it comes to national security issues.”

What about principles, he asked, what about a higher purpose?

Obama was not surrounded by the mercenary likes of David Brock and Dick Morris but true believers like David Axelrod.

The Clintons, infuriated by the raft of Democrats who deserted them during the 2008 campaign, sneered at Obama’s hope and change message. Hillary protested, “We don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country.” Bill groused, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

Voters, however, were starved for the fairy tale. For many, the line in an Obama ad rang true: “Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything and change nothing. It’s time to turn the page.”

Evidently, President Obama folded the corner of that page over so he could go back to it later. Remarkably, he bought us our return ticket to the past, rolling out the red carpet for the restoration of the Clinton blurred-lines White House.

An army of idealistic young people had moved to Iowa in 2007 to help Obama beat seemingly impossible odds. But in this election, Bernie Sanders’s idealistic young people were cast as unrealistic dreamers who wanted free stuff or, according to Gloria Steinem, dates.

The same Obama who sparked a revolution has now made it his mission to preserve the establishment for Hillary. He told Rutgers’s school paper in May that Sanders supporters needed to stop searching for silver bullets and recognize “we have to make incremental changes where we can, and every once in a while you’ll get a breakthrough and make the kind of big changes that are necessary.”

Yes we can — incrementally!

The president passed the baton to Hillary, as he puts it, more than three years ago, feeling she’s the safest bet to protect his legacy. As Politico’s Glenn Thrush reports, Obama wants to create what he calls “a 16-year era of progressive rule” and refocus American politics as the “Reagan of the left,” as one of his advisers put it.

Showing his icy pragmatism, the president passed over his loyal vice president because he thought Joe Biden would not be as strong a candidate, given his tendency for gab and gaffes. (That was before Donald Trump made Biden seem exquisitely bridled.) When Biden didn’t take the hint, Obama sent his former strategist David Plouffe to break the bad news.

Maybe Obama felt he owed Hillary, after leapfrogging over her to make history as a “first” — with the help of a lot of Democratic luminaries who publicly broke with the vindictive Clintons, only to find themselves having to spend the last couple years crawling back into their good graces.

Besides Biden, Obama threw another loyal former lieutenant, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, under the bus.

In the D.N.C. video introducing Obama at the convention, the president was built up as a hero on health care. It said Emanuel went to the president and said, “You’re going to have to pull the bill, because if you push this legislation, you will lose in 2012.”

Emanuel, who was hosting a party at the convention that night, was rightfully upset. It was his job to warn the president of the political consequences, and after Obama decided, it was Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi who had to arm-twist the bill through with no Republican votes.

Before he died, Beau Biden told his father he wanted him to run partly because he didn’t want the White House to fall back into the miasma of Clinton family values.

The president made his vote-for-Hillary-or-face-doom convention speech only 22 days after his F.B.I. director painted Hillary as reckless and untruthful.

He argued that there is no choice but to support Hillary against a “self-declared savior” like Donald Trump, perhaps forgetting that Obama was once hailed as such a messiah that Oprah introduced him in 2007 as “the one,” and it became his moniker.

In the end, Obama didn’t overthrow the Clinton machine. He enabled it.

It turns out, who we choose is not really about our souls. It’s just politics, man......the end




Wall_Street_Loves_Hillary_Clinton.png

Wall_Street_Loves_Hillary_Clinton.png

War and Wall Street: Clinton's Bleak Record

by Timothy Scott | August 1, 2016 | http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37054-hillary-clinton-s-record-a-us-horror-story

If you choose to support Clinton out of fear of a Trump presidency, then do so without perpetuating the multitude of myths and lies that portray Clinton as a champion of equity and social justice.



This essay documents Hillary Clinton's history and record as an agent of Wall Street, war, racial violence and inequity, economic inequality and conservative ideology. While Clinton's early Republican Party history is well documented, it is unfair to judge her (or anyone) based on the political views of her youth. Like Clinton, all people are heavily influenced by the beliefs and values of their parents, local communities, religion, cultural and social identities as well as US dominant culture. Based on various factors, many people with conservative backgrounds are able to develop progressive and humanistic world views over time based on personal struggle, a capacity for empathy, and an expanded sense of consciousness through education and life experience. None of this appears to have happened for Hillary Clinton. Instead, she stayed the course as she and her husband pioneered the "New Democrat" (Centrist Democrats) movement and steered the party toward a neoliberal "Third Way" (dogmatic free-market and moderately liberal social policies). Yet, when it comes to the Clintons, many of their social policy positions are also distinctly conservative.

While incomplete, this post seeks to assist liberals and progressives in recognizing that when they support Hillary Clinton, they are in fact supporting violently oppressive and undemocratic interests. All of the information that follows is part of the public record.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Party's foreordained 2016 presidential candidate, is both a champion for -- and member of -- the top one-tenth of the one percent. As such, she is duplicitously held up by party leaders and supporters as an advocate of social equity and fair-minded economic pragmatism. As the first woman to be a viable presidential candidate (a second time around), Clinton promotes herself, along with other prominent white neoliberal feminists, as a status recognition trailblazer for all women; despite the fact that every position she has taken, or role she has been in, has disproportionately inflicted considerable harm to women across the globe (especially dispossessed Black, Brown and Indigenous women). In her Salon article titled, The unexpected side effect of Hillary 2016: How she transformed Democrats into "new" Republicans, Sophia A. McClennen writes:

…within the Clinton campaign there is a real issue with "the woman card." Of course, it is historic that she may well be the Democratic nominee. But that fact has nothing to do with whether or not she is feminist. It just means she is a woman who broke a barrier. Margaret Thatcher broke that barrier in her nation in 1975 and no one confused that with an advance for feminism… Having Clinton supporters like Gloria Steinem suggest that women who don't support Clinton are just looking for sex, suggests that the Clinton camp has some pretty confused ideas about what feminism means.

Hillary Clinton has a net worth of 313.3 million dollars and is a long-time darling of corporations and elite financial investors. Clinton served as a Walmart board member between 1988-1992, during which time she conspired with the company when it waged a major anti-union campaign against Walmart workers who attempted to unionize.

Her top contributors over the course of her political career include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, along with many other corporations and financial firms. During the 2016 primary election cycle, Clinton has portrayed herself as an advocate for income equality and an opponent of Wall Street greed. Yet, as the Washington Post reported in February 2016:


Even as Hillary Clinton has stepped up her rhetorical assault on Wall Street, her campaign and allied super PACs have continued to rake in millions from the financial sector, a sign of her deep and lasting relationships with banking and investment titans. Through the end of December, donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial services firms had given at least $21.4 million to support Clinton's 2016 presidential run.

Clinton's pick for Vice President is Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, whose campaign donors include the oil, gas and coal industries, the Israeli lobby, the finance and technology industries, defense contractors, agribusiness and more. He has thus been a champion of free-trade (TPP), bank deregulation, education reform (via EdTech), offshore drilling, hawkish foreign policies and union-busting. Kaine was also a supporter of a policy known as Project Exile, which was a federal crime and gun reduction strategy "championed by Republicans and Democrats alike and by both the top US gun lobby group and gun-control advocates." According to Nicole Lee, a Black civil-rights attorney, "Project Exile broke black families… This is not a benign thing to be for. These measures were not used against white kids in the suburbs with guns, they were used against black kids in the cities."

Clinton's current campaign manager, John Podesta, is an aggressive "corporate education reform" advocate and a long-time corporate lobbyist who founded the Podesta Group with his brother Tony in the 1980s. Writing in Salon in 2011, Justin Elliot reported:

The Podesta Group has been retained by some of the biggest corporations in the country, including Wal-Mart, BP and Lockheed Martin. After starting the firm, John Podesta went on to serve as Bill Clinton's chief of staff and, more recently, to found the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely associated with the Obama administration. The Podesta Group counsels Egypt 'on US policies of concern, activities in Congress and the Executive branch, and developments on the US political scene generally' according to forms filed with the Justice Department in 2009.

The Podesta Group also does PR work for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

After becoming governor of Arkansas (again) in 1983, Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to chair the state's Education Standards Committee, a task force charged with reforming Arkansas' education system. According to author Jeffrey Saint Clair, Hillary Clinton's law:

…showcased teacher testing and funding the schools through a sales tax increase, an astoundingly regressive proposal since it imposed new costs on the poor in a very poor state while sparing any levies on big corporations. The plan went through. Arkansas' educational ranking remained abysmal, but Hillary won national attention as a "realistic Democrat" who could make "hard" choices, like taxing welfare mothers.

The Arkansas Education Association (AES), unsuccessfully sued the state to overturn the law. Speaking of the law in 1983, AES president Peggy Nabors, claimed, "[t]he law was not designed to help, but was designed to be punitive in nature and to make teachers the scapegoat for education`s ills."

Clinton continues to have close personal and professional relationships within the education reform industry and with some of its key venture philanthropists. Yet, with growing national opposition to corporate education reform policies, Clinton is currently playing it safe on the campaign trail about her support for these policies. DLA Piper, a corporate law firm that represents major companies in the global education market is a major Clinton campaign donor. So is Walmart heiress Alice Walton (the world's 13th-richest person), who is a highly influential education reformer through her family's Walton Family Foundation. Clinton also served as a board member and a paid consultant for the National Center on Education and the Economy, a leading education reform policy advocacy think tank dating back to 1988. In a speech at the 1999 National Education Association's convention, Clinton asked of the union's leadership, "I also hope that you will continue to stand behind the charter school/public school movement, because I believe that parents do deserve greater choice within the public school system to meet the unique needs of their children." The charter school movement Clinton was extolling is instrumental in the privatization of public education via market-based education reform policies. Charter schools have been advanced by free market zealots and are currently being financed by billionaire venture philanthropists and hedge funders. Charter schools have also been instrumental in the resegregation of schooling in the US For more information about education reform, check out Education, Inc or this more comprehensive multi-media article. You can also listen to Education Radio.

The Clinton Foundation (known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation until 2015) has a sordid history. It has been accused over the years of being non transparent on many levels, which include being a slush fund for the Clinton family and racking up conflicts of interest in its support of aid projects that serve the interests of markets over human suffering. According to the Clinton Foundation website:

Everywhere we go, we're trying to work ourselves out of a job. Whether it's improving global health, increasing opportunity for girls and women, reducing childhood obesity and preventable diseases, creating economic opportunity and growth, or helping communities address the effects of climate change, we keep score by the lives that are saved or improved.

The foundation is funded by a "who's who" of banks, corporations, venture philanthropists, trade associations, military contractors, oil and pharmaceutical companies and governments that are clearly at odds with foundation's stated mission. A very short list of donors includes the US Chamber of Commerce, Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Exxon, BP, Pfizer, Monsanto, Mars, Coca-Cola, and the infamous private security firm Blackwater.

In 1994, president Bill Clinton passed the deeply racist Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, of which intensified the criminalized Black and Brown Americans. First lady Hillary Clinton actively lobbied for the bill's passage, famously referring to Black youth as "super predators." With Hillary Clinton's active support, the bill increased prison sentences for nonviolent offenders, adopted harsh mandatory minimum sentences, encouraged police and prosecutors to be tougher on defendants; allocated $9.7 billion in new funding for the construction of prisons and $10.8 billion for 100,000 new police officers; attached the death penalty to more federal crimes; ended higher-education grants for prisoners; excluded ex drug offenders from food stamps and welfare; encouraged states to try more children as adults; facilitated the distribution of surplus military equipment to local police departments; and put time limits on death-penalty appeals. In just eight years following the crime bill, the prison population increased by more than 673,000 inmates.

Hillary Clinton was also an ardent supporter of the Clinton administration's Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform); legislation that disproportionately hurt Black and Brown women and children by dismantling the federal safety net program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In her 2004 memoir Clinton claimed, "By the time Bill and I left the White House, welfare rolls had dropped 60 percent." This fact was not due to a reduction in poverty.


In 2011 as Secretary of State, Clinton penned a Foreign Policy essay titled "America's Pacific Century." In it she emphasized the importance of "opening new markets for American businesses" through using "the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade" by locking "in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region." According to Clinton, this project will entail dispatching:

…our highest-ranking officials, our development experts, our interagency teams, and our permanent assets — to every country and corner of the Asia-Pacific region. Our strategy will have to keep accounting for and adapting to the rapid and dramatic shifts playing out across Asia. With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

The strategy that Clinton outlined is based on a familiar empire building formula that the US has utilized over the past half century. Multilateral institutions refer to development banks and other organizations that shape and protect inequitable neoliberal economies. Bilateral security alliances (see Afghanistan) means providing direct military support (troops and arms) to allied governments, often times violent dictatorships. Broad-based military presence is about maintaining US military dominance over an entire region by having a continuous and visible display of readily deployable forces and weaponry. Expanding "trade and investment" means ensuring that US based financial investors and corporations dominate markets, resources and economies byway of the aforementioned strategies. This is all part of an Obama administration plan called "pivot to Asia" that was developed in response to China's growing economic power and influence, which is threatening US military and economic dominance in the region. As retired US Army colonel Ann Wright puts it, "with the Obama administration's 'pivot' of the United States military and economic strategy to Asia and the Pacific, the Chinese have seen military construction in their front yard." Read more about Clinton and "pivot to Asia" here. When it comes to expanding and protecting US hegemony at any cost, it appears that Hillary Clinton has learned much from her close personal friend Henry Kissinger.

As First Lady, Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As a US Senator, Clinton had a chance to vote on ten free trade deals. She voted yes to six and no to two. She actively supported agreements with Jordan and Peru, but skipped the votes while running for president against Obama. Clinton voted against the Trade Act of 2002, which expanded duty-free exports from Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, because it gave fast-track authority to President Bush. During this time, free trade polled as being largely unpopular with the US electorate, so in anticipation of her 2008 presidential bid, Clinton voted against the 2005 Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. As did the politically ambitious Senator Obama, who up to then was a vocal supporter of free trade, with the caveat that they protect the rights of workers. As soon Obama became president, he forged ahead as an aggressive agent of free trade without concern for workers' rights. Secretary Clinton's recently released emails reveal that in 2011 she personally lobbied Senate Democrats to support three free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. While running for president in 2007, she claimed that she would oppose all three.

As Secretary of State, Clinton played a leading role in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). TPP is a widely unpopular free trade pact negotiated between eleven Pacific Rim countries and the US It is designed to maximize profits for global investors, while also advantaging the financial interests that are aligned with the US and its allies over that of China. Ultimately, coupled with "pivot to Asia," TPP is intended to be a financial weapon that is part of an escalating cold war between the US and China. As with other free trade pacts, Clinton has only backed off of her support for TPP during her latest bid for president. As presidential candidate Obama put it in 2008, Clinton said "great things about NAFTA until she started running for president."

In 2013 Bloomberg BusinessWeek reflected on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, claiming that "Clinton's corporate cheerleading has won praise from business groups." The article went on to chronicle how she prioritized State Department activities to focus on advancing US business interests and conducted herself as if she were a high-ranking business lobbyist, at times taking it upon herself to negotiate lucrative global contracts for US based corporations and military contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed, and General Electric. According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, "In one directive, called the 'Ambassador-as-CEO' memo, she ordered US embassies to make it a priority to help US businesses win contracts. Science officers now extoll American clean-tech companies. Military affairs officers promote US fighter planes." More audaciously, according to a 2015 International Business Times investigation:

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation…[and] authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation. American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements.

Clinton's State Department approved these arms deals even though many of them strengthened the militaries of authoritarian regimes with well-documented records of human rights abuses.

As a US Senator, Clinton voted for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which has resulted in up to 175,172 civilian deaths (from violence alone) and a total of 242,000 deaths when combatants are included. In 2011, during a roundtable event on investing in Iraq, which included senior executives from thirty US companies, Secretary of State Clinton declared "It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity." Iraq had long been considered a "business opportunity" by many US investment firms, corporations and political leaders. Yet, in her role as Secretary of State, Clinton was not obligated to take the lead in these matters, which are normally the domain of the US Secretary of Commerce. Representatives from JPMorgan, ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs were present, all of which (among others) received profitable US government and other contracts resulting from the decimation of Iraq (war profiteering). These four firms and others present during this 2011 roundtable were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

As Secretary of State Clinton was a forceful advocate for escalating US military operations in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. She also presided over the expansion of drone attacks that have killed hundreds, if not thousands of civilians (up to 90% not being the intended targets), while reinforcing US commitments to dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco and elsewhere. In a 2009 interview (two years before the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt) with the Arab television network Al Arabiya, Secretary of State Clinton was asked, "the State Department issued a report about criticizing the human rights record of Egypt. And what kind of -- in order for Egypt to enhance its record, what do you recommend or ask Egypt to do?" Clinton replied -- in part -- with the following:

We issue these reports on every country. We consider Egypt to be a friend and we engage in very forthright conversations with our friends… we look forward to President Mubarak coming [to the US] as soon as his schedule would permit. I had a wonderful time with him this morning. I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States.

In 2009 the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was deposed by a military coup not long after he took a leftist turn, allying the nation with the Chávez government in Venezuela, while taking steps to pass comprehensive land reform legislation. Naturally, this course upset the nation's business elite and international investors. While much of the world expressed outrage over the coup, demanding Zelaya's return, Secretary Clinton (at the behest of president Obama) continued to fund Honduran security forces and proceeded to enter secret negotiations with the coup leader -- Roberto Micheletti -- to not return Zelaya to power and instead schedule new elections. The two subsequent "elected" presidents have since reinforced Honduras' grossly unequal and despotic neoliberal paradise for the business elite, while violently suppressing efforts for social, environmental and economic justice by the most impoverished Hondurans. Clinton and the Obama administration have shown both active and passive support for both post-coup Honduran presidents, primarily through the continuance of military aid.

In terms of Haiti, Hillary Clinton's record is consistent, "where she blatantly manipulated and threatened Haitian government officials to control electoral outcomes. In that country, too, she and her husband have led the way in promoting a sweatshop-led development model." Read more here.

Finally, in a June 2016 campaign speech immediately following the mass murder within the LGBTQ club in Orlando Florida, Hillary Clinton emphasized the need for an "intelligence surge." She went on to explain, "we will work with our" Big Data (technology) companies -- as the prevailing domestic surveillance apparatus -- to expand their existing practices of "tracking and analyzing social media posts" along with other digital platforms.

In conclusion, yes Donald Trump is a scary and unpredictable bigot who should never hold public office. Yet, Clinton is far from being progressive, let alone liberal, and in fact is an agent of the status quo: a nation of unprecedented social inequity, economic inequality, militarism and structural racism. Additionally, there is no evidence to support claims that Clinton will actively support "reasonable" gun laws, LGBTQ rights and parental leave. There is, however, evidence that she will perpetuate legal and institutionalized racial violence against Black and Brown people through the "war on drugs," mass incarceration, economic austerity, militarism, immigration policy, the ongoing subjugation of Native people and summary executions by the police. While Clinton may "heed" climate science, her past and present cozy relationship with the fossil fuel industry does not bode well for her taking a lead in advancing urgent solutions for climate change. Yes, she will support Obamacare because it is in line with her market-based worldview. Still, let's stop perpetuating myths about Obamacare. It is a highly inequitable and ineffective system that mandates people to buy increasingly expensive plans that provide extensively inadequate health care coverage from nefarious insurance companies. Under the reign of Obamacare, the less money you have, the shi**ier the health care coverage you get. We must only support candidates that will advance a comprehensive single-payer healthcare system. In terms of fear about Supreme Court nominees and the overturning of decisions like Roe v. Wade -- as with the 14th and 15th Amendments and the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision -- the age-old problem of federal enforcement and states rights have systematically been reversing Roe v. Wade, particularly within the last 5 years. Even if Clinton wanted to take such action (more than likely halfheartedly), she cannot do anything about those structural realities that impede lasting legal solutions that protect civil and human rights.

At the very least, if you choose to support Clinton out of fear of a Trump presidency, then do so without perpetuating the multitude of myths and lies that portray Clinton as a champion of equity and social justice.........the end



The film below should be watched by everyone, especially for those of you who don't read articles or books longer than 300 words. Just like Michael Moore's 2004 Fahrenheit 9/11 which revealed how the "Bush crime family" operated, the film below, Clinton Cash reveals the inner workings of the Clinton Foundation 501c3 international slush fund.
For those of you confused??? here's how it works— the reason the Bush or Clinton families don't sue credible documentary film makers who reveal their corruption is that a lawsuit would involve "discovery"— they would have to prove in court that the facts illuminated in the films are untrue. They can't do that , so they just stay silent, call the film a "conspiracy theory" and most importantly rely on the ignorance of the American sheeple to disbelieve what their own eyes and ears are showing them; this works 90% of the time.

Clinton_Cash.png




CmNWkGgUoAAKyN4.jpg

 
Last edited:

Camille

Kitchen Wench #TeamQuaid
Staff member
Being a Hillary Clinton supporter isn’t always easy. Not because I question my support of her, but because literally hundreds of millions of dollars (over nearly a quarter century) has been spent trying to slander her name. The list of conspiracies, misinformation, lies and ridiculous propaganda people use to attack her is seemingly endless.


Not a joke: There’s actually a website that tracks the “people the Clinton's have had killed.” The list has well over 90 names — including John F. Kennedy, Jr. Yes, this list claims that the Clinton's killed the eldest son of JFK.

Oh! And apparently Bill Clinton isn’t actually Chelsea’s father.

While President Obama has absolutely endured a lot of scrutiny as president, nobody comes close to what Hillary Clinton has had to endure — for nearly 25 years.

So, in the spirit of the multi-hundred million dollar campaign that’s been spent trying to keep one woman out of the White House, I thought I’d take a few moments to debunk many (though not all, because I’m sure I’ll forget about as many as I’m about to list) of the myths, lies and ridiculous conspiracies that many people actually believe about Hillary Clinton.

Multiple Republican-led investigations have found that she wasn’t responsible for what happened in Benghazi: Despite what many Republican voters believe, the indisputable facts prove that there was nothing Hillary Clinton could have done to prevent what happened. And if you don’t believe me, or the Republicans in Congress who were desperately trying to blame this on her, then just ask the family of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens who’ve said it’s unfair to blame Clinton and they’re sick of his name being used for petty, political games.

No, Hillary Clinton didn’t “sleep through” the Benghazi attack: Actually, when the Benghazi attack occurred, it was mid-afternoon in Washington and she issued a public statement at 10 p.m. that night. Even in her infamous emails it shows she was emailing people around 11 p.m. that evening about the attack.

There was no “stand down” order given by Hillary Clinton or the Obama administration: Yeah, despite popular right-wing folklore, this never happened. Furthermore, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton didn’t actually have that power.

She did not unilaterally approve a uranium deal with the Russians based on donations to the Clinton Foundation: Not only did nine other government departments have to sign off on this deal, even the author of Clinton Cash has admitted that there’s really no substainal evidence linking some sort of “pay for play” scheme while she was Secretary of State. Everything he claimed was based entirely on circumstantial evidence — which has been soundly debunked. And if you don’t believe me, just ask Fox News’ Chris Wallace who called out the author of Clinton Cash (where this myth started) last year for not having a “single piece of evidence that she was involved in this deal.”

While she was wrong to say that no emails marked classified passed through her server, the FBI director did say that none of the ones that did were properly marked, and that it was “reasonable” for someone to not be aware that they were classified:
When FBI Director James Comey was asked by Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) if the emails Clinton received were properly marked, he said they lacked the proper headers and banners indicating they were classified and it would be a “reasonable inference” to assume that, with the absence of those banners and headers, they weren’t classified. So, while she was wrong, based on Comey’s own words, she didn’t lie.


Now on to a few of the myths some on the left believe about Hillary Clinton.

She’s no better than a Republican and just as conservative: She was actually ranked the 11th most liberal senator (much more liberal than Obama was) when she served, and she voted with Bernie Sanders 93 percent of the time. So, unlesss the difference between Sanders and a “conservative Republican” is seven percent of a voting record, then claiming she’s “no better than a Republican” is ridiculous.

If elected she would select conservative Supreme Court Justices: Based on what evidence? The last time we had a Clinton as president, he gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — two of our most consistently liberal Justices.

Her campaign contributions prove she’s nothing but a puppet for Wall Street: Actually, President Obama set a record for the amount raised by a candidate from Wall Street — then went on to pass strict financial regulations.

She’s been too pro-Wall Street: Actually, aside from one somewhat pro-Wall Street vote in eight years as senator, the only other Wall Street related issue you’ll find on her record was in 2007 when she called for tighter regulations on the financial industry. And if you don’t believe me, just ask Bernie Sanders who, when asked during a debate to provide examples where Clinton had been corrupted by Wall Street, couldn’t pinpoint anything in her record where donations had impacted her voting record as a senator.

She opposes universal health care: The truth is, she was fighting for universal health care before a good chunk of Bernie Sanders’ voters were even born. Her stance this year was that she’d rather expand the Affordable Care Act to become true universal health care rather than start a whole new fight by trying to pass a completely different health care bill. Her argument was that she would rather fix what we have than start all over. Which actually makes sense!

As a lawyer, she defended a rapist: While this is true, she was ordered by a judge to take the case. When she tried to get out of it, the judge denied her request. So, she could have either thrown her career down the drain or followed through with what she was legally required to do by defending a client she didn’t want, but was ordered to defend by a judge.

She’s a shill for Walmart and served on their board of directors: While it’s true Clinton served on the board of Walmart, the reason why she was given that position was due in large part because Sam Walton was getting pressure to appoint a woman to the company’s board of directors. However, while serving on Walmart’s board, she became an advocate for hiring more women for management positions and pushed the company to adopt a much more comprehensive environmental program. So, yes, she served on Walmart’s board of directors from 1986-1992, and during that time she became a big advocate for the company promoting more women and establishing a much more extensive environmental program — how awful.

Hillary Clinton sat on the board of Monsanto: Nope, never happened. Though on the subject of GMO’s, if you don’t like Clinton’s positions, might I suggest you heed the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson.

She only recently came out in support of same-sex marriage and equality for homosexuals: Yes, that’s true — but so did President Obama. Are we really going to attack someone for realizing a mistake and evolving on an issue? There are a lot of Democrats who once opposed same-sex marriage who now proudly support it. In fact, her husband (for the time he served) was considered the most “pro-gay” president in our nation’s history. Granted, by today’s standards many of the policies of the 90’s are archaic, but for their time they were incredibly progressive and controversial.

I could keep going, but those are some of the biggest myths, conspiracies and outright lies many folks on both the left and the right actually believe about Hillary Clinton.

It’s like I said the other day on Twitter, the vast majority of people I encounter who attack Hillary Clinton almost always use rhetoric that’s either based on blatant propaganda created simply to slander her name, ridiculous conspiracies, or an issue where the person is woefully misinformed about the actual facts.

I probably won’t change many minds with what I’ve written here, but I felt as if these myths needed to be debunked. Feel free to hit me up on Twitter or Facebook and let me know what you think.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/debunking-anti-hillary-clinton-myths-lies-conspiracies/
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
wall_street_banksters_cartoon.jpg


Jesus-banksters.jpg




Wall_Street_Loves_Hillary_Clinton.png


War and Wall Street: Clinton's Bleak Record

by Timothy Scott | August 1, 2016 | http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37054-hillary-clinton-s-record-a-us-horror-story

If you choose to support Clinton out of fear of a Trump presidency, then do so without perpetuating the multitude of myths and lies that portray Clinton as a champion of equity and social justice.


This essay documents Hillary Clinton's history and record as an agent of Wall Street, war, racial violence and inequity, economic inequality and conservative ideology. While Clinton's early Republican Party history is well documented, it is unfair to judge her (or anyone) based on the political views of her youth. Like Clinton, all people are heavily influenced by the beliefs and values of their parents, local communities, religion, cultural and social identities as well as US dominant culture. Based on various factors, many people with conservative backgrounds are able to develop progressive and humanistic world views over time based on personal struggle, a capacity for empathy, and an expanded sense of consciousness through education and life experience. None of this appears to have happened for Hillary Clinton. Instead, she stayed the course as she and her husband pioneered the "New Democrat" (Centrist Democrats) movement and steered the party toward a neoliberal "Third Way" (dogmatic free-market and moderately liberal social policies). Yet, when it comes to the Clintons, many of their social policy positions are also distinctly conservative.

While incomplete, this post seeks to assist liberals and progressives in recognizing that when they support Hillary Clinton, they are in fact supporting violently oppressive and undemocratic interests. All of the information that follows is part of the public record.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Party's foreordained 2016 presidential candidate, is both a champion for -- and member of -- the top one-tenth of the one percent. As such, she is duplicitously held up by party leaders and supporters as an advocate of social equity and fair-minded economic pragmatism. As the first woman to be a viable presidential candidate (a second time around), Clinton promotes herself, along with other prominent white neoliberal feminists, as a status recognition trailblazer for all women; despite the fact that every position she has taken, or role she has been in, has disproportionately inflicted considerable harm to women across the globe (especially dispossessed Black, Brown and Indigenous women). In her Salon article titled, The unexpected side effect of Hillary 2016: How she transformed Democrats into "new" Republicans, Sophia A. McClennen writes:

…within the Clinton campaign there is a real issue with "the woman card." Of course, it is historic that she may well be the Democratic nominee. But that fact has nothing to do with whether or not she is feminist. It just means she is a woman who broke a barrier. Margaret Thatcher broke that barrier in her nation in 1975 and no one confused that with an advance for feminism… Having Clinton supporters like Gloria Steinem suggest that women who don't support Clinton are just looking for sex, suggests that the Clinton camp has some pretty confused ideas about what feminism means.

Hillary Clinton has a net worth of 313.3 million dollars and is a long-time darling of corporations and elite financial investors. Clinton served as a Walmart board member between 1988-1992, during which time she conspired with the company when it waged a major anti-union campaign against Walmart workers who attempted to unionize.

Her top contributors over the course of her political career include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, along with many other corporations and financial firms. During the 2016 primary election cycle, Clinton has portrayed herself as an advocate for income equality and an opponent of Wall Street greed. Yet, as the Washington Post reported in February 2016:


Even as Hillary Clinton has stepped up her rhetorical assault on Wall Street, her campaign and allied super PACs have continued to rake in millions from the financial sector, a sign of her deep and lasting relationships with banking and investment titans. Through the end of December, donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial services firms had given at least $21.4 million to support Clinton's 2016 presidential run.

Clinton's pick for Vice President is Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, whose campaign donors include the oil, gas and coal industries, the Israeli lobby, the finance and technology industries, defense contractors, agribusiness and more. He has thus been a champion of free-trade (TPP), bank deregulation, education reform (via EdTech), offshore drilling, hawkish foreign policies and union-busting. Kaine was also a supporter of a policy known as Project Exile, which was a federal crime and gun reduction strategy "championed by Republicans and Democrats alike and by both the top US gun lobby group and gun-control advocates." According to Nicole Lee, a Black civil-rights attorney, "Project Exile broke black families… This is not a benign thing to be for. These measures were not used against white kids in the suburbs with guns, they were used against black kids in the cities."

Clinton's current campaign manager, John Podesta, is an aggressive "corporate education reform" advocate and a long-time corporate lobbyist who founded the Podesta Group with his brother Tony in the 1980s. Writing in Salon in 2011, Justin Elliot reported:

The Podesta Group has been retained by some of the biggest corporations in the country, including Wal-Mart, BP and Lockheed Martin. After starting the firm, John Podesta went on to serve as Bill Clinton's chief of staff and, more recently, to found the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely associated with the Obama administration. The Podesta Group counsels Egypt 'on US policies of concern, activities in Congress and the Executive branch, and developments on the US political scene generally' according to forms filed with the Justice Department in 2009.

The Podesta Group also does PR work for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

After becoming governor of Arkansas (again) in 1983, Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to chair the state's Education Standards Committee, a task force charged with reforming Arkansas' education system. According to author Jeffrey Saint Clair, Hillary Clinton's law:

…showcased teacher testing and funding the schools through a sales tax increase, an astoundingly regressive proposal since it imposed new costs on the poor in a very poor state while sparing any levies on big corporations. The plan went through. Arkansas' educational ranking remained abysmal, but Hillary won national attention as a "realistic Democrat" who could make "hard" choices, like taxing welfare mothers.

The Arkansas Education Association (AES), unsuccessfully sued the state to overturn the law. Speaking of the law in 1983, AES president Peggy Nabors, claimed, "[t]he law was not designed to help, but was designed to be punitive in nature and to make teachers the scapegoat for education`s ills."

Clinton continues to have close personal and professional relationships within the education reform industry and with some of its key venture philanthropists. Yet, with growing national opposition to corporate education reform policies, Clinton is currently playing it safe on the campaign trail about her support for these policies. DLA Piper, a corporate law firm that represents major companies in the global education market is a major Clinton campaign donor. So is Walmart heiress Alice Walton (the world's 13th-richest person), who is a highly influential education reformer through her family's Walton Family Foundation. Clinton also served as a board member and a paid consultant for the National Center on Education and the Economy, a leading education reform policy advocacy think tank dating back to 1988. In a speech at the 1999 National Education Association's convention, Clinton asked of the union's leadership, "I also hope that you will continue to stand behind the charter school/public school movement, because I believe that parents do deserve greater choice within the public school system to meet the unique needs of their children." The charter school movement Clinton was extolling is instrumental in the privatization of public education via market-based education reform policies. Charter schools have been advanced by free market zealots and are currently being financed by billionaire venture philanthropists and hedge funders. Charter schools have also been instrumental in the resegregation of schooling in the US For more information about education reform, check out Education, Inc or this more comprehensive multi-media article. You can also listen to Education Radio.

The Clinton Foundation (known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation until 2015) has a sordid history. It has been accused over the years of being non transparent on many levels, which include being a slush fund for the Clinton family and racking up conflicts of interest in its support of aid projects that serve the interests of markets over human suffering. According to the Clinton Foundation website:

Everywhere we go, we're trying to work ourselves out of a job. Whether it's improving global health, increasing opportunity for girls and women, reducing childhood obesity and preventable diseases, creating economic opportunity and growth, or helping communities address the effects of climate change, we keep score by the lives that are saved or improved.

The foundation is funded by a "who's who" of banks, corporations, venture philanthropists, trade associations, military contractors, oil and pharmaceutical companies and governments that are clearly at odds with foundation's stated mission. A very short list of donors includes the US Chamber of Commerce, Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Exxon, BP, Pfizer, Monsanto, Mars, Coca-Cola, and the infamous private security firm Blackwater.

In 1994, president Bill Clinton passed the deeply racist Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, of which intensified the criminalized Black and Brown Americans. First lady Hillary Clinton actively lobbied for the bill's passage, famously referring to Black youth as "super predators." With Hillary Clinton's active support, the bill increased prison sentences for nonviolent offenders, adopted harsh mandatory minimum sentences, encouraged police and prosecutors to be tougher on defendants; allocated $9.7 billion in new funding for the construction of prisons and $10.8 billion for 100,000 new police officers; attached the death penalty to more federal crimes; ended higher-education grants for prisoners; excluded ex drug offenders from food stamps and welfare; encouraged states to try more children as adults; facilitated the distribution of surplus military equipment to local police departments; and put time limits on death-penalty appeals. In just eight years following the crime bill, the prison population increased by more than 673,000 inmates.

Hillary Clinton was also an ardent supporter of the Clinton administration's Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform); legislation that disproportionately hurt Black and Brown women and children by dismantling the federal safety net program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In her 2004 memoir Clinton claimed, "By the time Bill and I left the White House, welfare rolls had dropped 60 percent." This fact was not due to a reduction in poverty.


In 2011 as Secretary of State, Clinton penned a Foreign Policy essay titled "America's Pacific Century." In it she emphasized the importance of "opening new markets for American businesses" through using "the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade" by locking "in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region." According to Clinton, this project will entail dispatching:

…our highest-ranking officials, our development experts, our interagency teams, and our permanent assets — to every country and corner of the Asia-Pacific region. Our strategy will have to keep accounting for and adapting to the rapid and dramatic shifts playing out across Asia. With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

The strategy that Clinton outlined is based on a familiar empire building formula that the US has utilized over the past half century. Multilateral institutions refer to development banks and other organizations that shape and protect inequitable neoliberal economies. Bilateral security alliances (see Afghanistan) means providing direct military support (troops and arms) to allied governments, often times violent dictatorships. Broad-based military presence is about maintaining US military dominance over an entire region by having a continuous and visible display of readily deployable forces and weaponry. Expanding "trade and investment" means ensuring that US based financial investors and corporations dominate markets, resources and economies byway of the aforementioned strategies. This is all part of an Obama administration plan called "pivot to Asia" that was developed in response to China's growing economic power and influence, which is threatening US military and economic dominance in the region. As retired US Army colonel Ann Wright puts it, "with the Obama administration's 'pivot' of the United States military and economic strategy to Asia and the Pacific, the Chinese have seen military construction in their front yard." Read more about Clinton and "pivot to Asia" here. When it comes to expanding and protecting US hegemony at any cost, it appears that Hillary Clinton has learned much from her close personal friend Henry Kissinger.

As First Lady, Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As a US Senator, Clinton had a chance to vote on ten free trade deals. She voted yes to six and no to two. She actively supported agreements with Jordan and Peru, but skipped the votes while running for president against Obama. Clinton voted against the Trade Act of 2002, which expanded duty-free exports from Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, because it gave fast-track authority to President Bush. During this time, free trade polled as being largely unpopular with the US electorate, so in anticipation of her 2008 presidential bid, Clinton voted against the 2005 Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. As did the politically ambitious Senator Obama, who up to then was a vocal supporter of free trade, with the caveat that they protect the rights of workers. As soon Obama became president, he forged ahead as an aggressive agent of free trade without concern for workers' rights. Secretary Clinton's recently released emails reveal that in 2011 she personally lobbied Senate Democrats to support three free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. While running for president in 2007, she claimed that she would oppose all three.

As Secretary of State, Clinton played a leading role in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). TPP is a widely unpopular free trade pact negotiated between eleven Pacific Rim countries and the US It is designed to maximize profits for global investors, while also advantaging the financial interests that are aligned with the US and its allies over that of China. Ultimately, coupled with "pivot to Asia," TPP is intended to be a financial weapon that is part of an escalating cold war between the US and China. As with other free trade pacts, Clinton has only backed off of her support for TPP during her latest bid for president. As presidential candidate Obama put it in 2008, Clinton said "great things about NAFTA until she started running for president."

In 2013 Bloomberg BusinessWeek reflected on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, claiming that "Clinton's corporate cheerleading has won praise from business groups." The article went on to chronicle how she prioritized State Department activities to focus on advancing US business interests and conducted herself as if she were a high-ranking business lobbyist, at times taking it upon herself to negotiate lucrative global contracts for US based corporations and military contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed, and General Electric. According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, "In one directive, called the 'Ambassador-as-CEO' memo, she ordered US embassies to make it a priority to help US businesses win contracts. Science officers now extoll American clean-tech companies. Military affairs officers promote US fighter planes." More audaciously, according to a 2015 International Business Times investigation:

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation…[and] authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation. American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements.

Clinton's State Department approved these arms deals even though many of them strengthened the militaries of authoritarian regimes with well-documented records of human rights abuses.

As a US Senator, Clinton voted for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which has resulted in up to 175,172 civilian deaths (from violence alone) and a total of 242,000 deaths when combatants are included. In 2011, during a roundtable event on investing in Iraq, which included senior executives from thirty US companies, Secretary of State Clinton declared "It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity." Iraq had long been considered a "business opportunity" by many US investment firms, corporations and political leaders. Yet, in her role as Secretary of State, Clinton was not obligated to take the lead in these matters, which are normally the domain of the US Secretary of Commerce. Representatives from JPMorgan, ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs were present, all of which (among others) received profitable US government and other contracts resulting from the decimation of Iraq (war profiteering). These four firms and others present during this 2011 roundtable were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

As Secretary of State Clinton was a forceful advocate for escalating US military operations in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. She also presided over the expansion of drone attacks that have killed hundreds, if not thousands of civilians (up to 90% not being the intended targets), while reinforcing US commitments to dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco and elsewhere. In a 2009 interview (two years before the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt) with the Arab television network Al Arabiya, Secretary of State Clinton was asked, "the State Department issued a report about criticizing the human rights record of Egypt. And what kind of -- in order for Egypt to enhance its record, what do you recommend or ask Egypt to do?" Clinton replied -- in part -- with the following:

We issue these reports on every country. We consider Egypt to be a friend and we engage in very forthright conversations with our friends… we look forward to President Mubarak coming [to the US] as soon as his schedule would permit. I had a wonderful time with him this morning. I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States.

In 2009 the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was deposed by a military coup not long after he took a leftist turn, allying the nation with the Chávez government in Venezuela, while taking steps to pass comprehensive land reform legislation. Naturally, this course upset the nation's business elite and international investors. While much of the world expressed outrage over the coup, demanding Zelaya's return, Secretary Clinton (at the behest of president Obama) continued to fund Honduran security forces and proceeded to enter secret negotiations with the coup leader -- Roberto Micheletti -- to not return Zelaya to power and instead schedule new elections. The two subsequent "elected" presidents have since reinforced Honduras' grossly unequal and despotic neoliberal paradise for the business elite, while violently suppressing efforts for social, environmental and economic justice by the most impoverished Hondurans. Clinton and the Obama administration have shown both active and passive support for both post-coup Honduran presidents, primarily through the continuance of military aid.

In terms of Haiti, Hillary Clinton's record is consistent, "where she blatantly manipulated and threatened Haitian government officials to control electoral outcomes. In that country, too, she and her husband have led the way in promoting a sweatshop-led development model." Read more here.

Finally, in a June 2016 campaign speech immediately following the mass murder within the LGBTQ club in Orlando Florida, Hillary Clinton emphasized the need for an "intelligence surge." She went on to explain, "we will work with our" Big Data (technology) companies -- as the prevailing domestic surveillance apparatus -- to expand their existing practices of "tracking and analyzing social media posts" along with other digital platforms.

In conclusion, yes Donald Trump is a scary and unpredictable bigot who should never hold public office. Yet, Clinton is far from being progressive, let alone liberal, and in fact is an agent of the status quo: a nation of unprecedented social inequity, economic inequality, militarism and structural racism. Additionally, there is no evidence to support claims that Clinton will actively support "reasonable" gun laws, LGBTQ rights and parental leave. There is, however, evidence that she will perpetuate legal and institutionalized racial violence against Black and Brown people through the "war on drugs," mass incarceration, economic austerity, militarism, immigration policy, the ongoing subjugation of Native people and summary executions by the police. While Clinton may "heed" climate science, her past and present cozy relationship with the fossil fuel industry does not bode well for her taking a lead in advancing urgent solutions for climate change. Yes, she will support Obamacare because it is in line with her market-based worldview. Still, let's stop perpetuating myths about Obamacare. It is a highly inequitable and ineffective system that mandates people to buy increasingly expensive plans that provide extensively inadequate health care coverage from nefarious insurance companies. Under the reign of Obamacare, the less money you have, the shi**ier the health care coverage you get. We must only support candidates that will advance a comprehensive single-payer healthcare system. In terms of fear about Supreme Court nominees and the overturning of decisions like Roe v. Wade -- as with the 14th and 15th Amendments and the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision -- the age-old problem of federal enforcement and states rights have systematically been reversing Roe v. Wade, particularly within the last 5 years. Even if Clinton wanted to take such action (more than likely halfheartedly), she cannot do anything about those structural realities that impede lasting legal solutions that protect civil and human rights.

At the very least, if you choose to support Clinton out of fear of a Trump presidency, then do so without perpetuating the multitude of myths and lies that portray Clinton as a champion of equity and social justice.........the end



The film below should be watched by everyone, especially for those of you who don't read articles or books longer than 300 words. Just like Michael Moore's 2004 Fahrenheit 9/11 which revealed how the "Bush crime family" operated, the film below, Clinton Cash reveals the inner workings of the Clinton Foundation 501c3 international slush fund.
For those of you confused??? here's how it works— the reason the Bush or Clinton families don't sue credible documentary film makers who reveal their corruption is that a lawsuit would involve "discovery"— they would have to prove in court that the facts illuminated in the films are untrue. They can't do that , so they just stay silent, call the film a "conspiracy theory" and most importantly rely on the ignorance of the American sheeple to disbelieve what their own eyes and ears are showing them; this works 90% of the time.

Clinton_Cash.png








~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


ELECTION 2016
Noam Chomsky's 8-Point Rationale for Voting for

Hillary Clinton, the Lesser Evil Presidential Candidate

Critics of "lesser evil voting" should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted.


by Noam Chomsky | August 6, 2016 |http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-voting-lesser-evil-presidential-candidate

Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians. The position outlined below is that which many regard as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobson’s choice, namely the so-called “lesser evil” voting strategy or LEV. Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat.

Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the “electoral extravaganza” should be regarded as provisional. This is most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clinton’s foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.

In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump’s foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a discussion involving this statement. Furthermore, insofar as this is the fact of the matter, following the logic through seems to require a vote for Trump, though it’s a bit hard to know whether those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.

Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that the politics of moral witness can become indistinguishable from narcissistic self-agrandizement, this is substantially more harsh than what was intended and harsher than what is merited. That said, those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed “moral” basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case.

A third criticism of LEV equates it with a passive acquiescence to the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism, usually deriving from those who have lost the appetite for radical change. It is surely the case that some of those endorsing LEV are doing so in bad faith-cynical functionaries whose objective is to promote capitulation to a system which they are invested in protecting. Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of having made their peace with the establishment. Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the backlash decades to follow.

The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the “reasonable” alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.

A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.

Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest, but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle.

*****

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.


4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.
 
Last edited:

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Donald Trump tells white people that black people should vote for him because Hillary Clinton ‘panders to’ them

ap_logo_75x27.png

Donald Trump Asks For African-American Vote
AP

ap_logo_75x27.png

Autoplay: On | Off
Denis Slattery
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, August 17, 2016, 12:34 AM

Donald Trump told a roomful of white people in Wisconsin on Tuesday that Democrats pander to blacks — and that’s why African-Americans should vote for him.

The Republican presidential nominee made America gasp again, delivering a prepared speech in West Bend, Wis., a town that is 2% black, in which he denounced rival Hillary Clinton as being “against the police” and said the Democratic Party’s policies have “betrayed” African-American communities.

“We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes — that’s all they care about,” Trump said to his white audience.

The candidate was two hours late to the event, about 25 miles outside Milwaukee, where protests over the shooting of a black man by a black police officer have turned violent in recent days.

Donald Trump would pass the citizenship test ... but just barely!

“To every voter in Milwaukee, to every voter living in the inner-city or every forgotten stretch of our society, I’m running to offer you a much better future, a much better job,” Trump said.

usa-election-trump.jpg

Donald Trump, seen here speaking at an Aug. 15 event, spoke of the plight of the black community in a town 25 miles away from the city ravaged by protests in recent days.
(ERIC THAYER/REUTERS)
While the 70-year-old real estate magnate turned reality TV star attempted to appeal to African-American voters inside, Confederate flags were being sold by vendors outside.

The setting for the speech seemed bizarre given the heated atmosphere in nearby Milwaukee.

The city was hit with a wave of violence following the death Saturday of Sylville Smith, 23. Authorities said the cop shot Smith after he refused to drop an illegal handgun.

Trump to get FBI briefing Wednesday — and Christie will tag along

Protests in the following days have been rife with gunshots and destruction as cars and businesses were set ablaze.



74 photos view gallery
New York Daily News covers of Donald Trump through the years

Trump’s racist rhetoric throughout his campaign has earned him barely 2% of black voters' support in recent polls.

Trump's message of bolstering law enforcement with community outreach and more effective policing was well-received by the audience, which cheered when Trump said: "The war on our police must end and it must end now."

He has done little thus far in his campaign to court black voters, even declining invitations to speak at the NAACP, Urban League and the recent National Association of Black Journalists/National Association of Hispanic Journalists convention.

Trump adviser repeats call for Hillary Clinton to be executed

“Law and order must be restored,” Trump said Tuesday. “It must be restored for the sake of all, but most especially for the sake of those living in the affected communities, of which there are many.”

590466846.jpg

While Trump attempted to appeal to African-American voters inside, Confederate flags were being sold by vendors outside.
(Darren Hauck/Getty Images)
He added that Clinton gave a supportive nod to “those peddling the narrative of cops as a racist force in our society.”

He said his opponent and her allies “share directly in the responsibility for the unrest in Milwaukee and many other places within our country.”

Earlier Tuesday, Trump met with Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and Inspector Edward Bailey after a tour of the county’s war memorial.

Former mayor Rudy Guiliani joined Trump for the tour and the sitdown.

With News Wire Services
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Quote below Originally posted May 28, 2016
http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?posts/16565834
"".......Billary wants to campaign in non specifics, her campaign slogan signs say "fighting for us"; what a bold face crock of Bullshit. Billary is fighting for Trans-National Corporations and moneyed elites worldwide who have dropped $$$$$$$$$$$$ millions into the Billary Foundation which is a massive 501c3 slush fund.
That is why she set up a private email server at her house; so she could control which emails went into the government archives. SHE LIES 100% when she said Colin Powell did the same thing; a complete 100% LIE.

Colin had a yahoo.com email account that he used sometimes for U.S. State Department business. ALL OF THOSE emails resided on yahoo.com servers. Even if Colin wanted to erase something compromising to him off of yahoo.com, he couldn't completely do it BECAUSE yahoo.com has redundancy servers all-over-the-world (cloud servers) that have copies of every email he sent and received. HE DID NOT have a private fucking server in his house where he would have total control and could destroy any emails at will.......""



August 22, 2016
Colin Powell is pushing back on reports suggesting that he might have given Hillary Clinton the idea to use a private email account as Secretary of State, telling media outlets that "her people are trying to pin it on me." Asked Sunday why he thought Clinton continued to compare her choices to his, Powell replied, "Why do you think?"
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-22/colin-powell-on-clinton-email-her-people-have-been-trying-to-pin-it-on-me


washington-post-logo.jpg

Why Colin Powell is a bad enemy for Hillary Clinton to make

Campaign_2016_Clinton_Emails-1676b.jpg&w=800


by Chris Cillizza |
August 22, 2016 |


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-is-a-bad-enemy-for-hillary-clinton-to-make/





washington-post-logo.jpg

Fact checking the Hillary Clinton email controversy

by Glenn Kessler | March 9, 2016 |

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ecking-the-hillary-clinton-email-controversy/



hillary_evil.jpg


2.27.12C.Plutocracy-1024x747.jpg




2.27.12C.Plutocracy.jpg



2894178_700b.jpg



 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

If you choose to support Clinton out of fear of a Trump presidency, then do so without perpetuating the multitude of myths and lies that portray Clinton as a champion of equity and social justice.

Hillary is seeking the endorsements of war criminals Henry Kissinger and Condi Rice.
Hillary already has the endorsement of war criminal and Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz.

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08...advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state/


Anybody still believing Hillary's transparently bogus public campaign pledge that she is a "Progressive"???


September 9, 2016
Hillary_Untrust.jpg



September 9, 2016
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Hillary Clinton
3 hrs ·

I just wanted to thank everyone for all the well-wishes you’ve sent and tell you personally that I'm feeling fine and getting better. (It doesn't hurt to be able to spend some time at home with my dogs.)

Like anyone who’s ever been home sick from work, I’m just anxious to get back out there. There's so much at stake in this election, and we only have 57 days left in this campaign. I want to make each one count.

To everyone who's had my back in this campaign, thank you for being the warmest, toughest, and most dependable team I could hope for. You've lifted me up, today and every day.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
hillary.png


Hillary is 69 years.
Her "real age" is probably closer to 76
Her body has "cracked" real bad
Due to a blood clot that could of killed her that she was hospitalized for in 2013,
she is permanently on blood thinning medication.
Such medication debilitates your strength & stamina and has other side effects.
It is highly doubtful that Hillary could lift 25 pounds over her head.
We all saw how a in-his-prime healthy Barack Obama aged during his POTUS due to the stress
Hillary can't handle that stress, even with her husband as co-president
She is not the first "sick" person to run for POTUS
John McCain was a "sick" mother-fucker; a 1200 page medical report, he consumed more than 20 daily prescription drugs, He might of won if he didn't pick Sarah Palin - scary thought.
All of this being said, a vote for Billary (Bill + Hillary) is the only sane vote one can make,

despite their hideous neo-liberal, DINO policies.
Donald Drumpf is a Sociopath and a Facist with NO clue how to run the America Empire; for him it's all about his ego, seeing his name in "lights". The President of the United States gets to choose every Federal Judge in the country, all 50 states, and of course the most important Federal court SCOTUS. There are another 4,000 Federal jobs that the POTUS selects. Every ambassadorship, the head of Homeland Security, Customs, Treasury, Justice Dept. Civil Rights head, CIA chief, etc.........and of course Commander In Chief of U.S. Military with 8,000 nuclear missiles on land, air and on submarines.





 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Since he won the nomination, over half of voters
have said Donald Trump isn’t qualified for the job




AAiQtf2.img

© Evan Vucci/AP Donald Trump


When The Washington Post and ABC News conducted a poll in May, they found that 56 percent of registered voters thought Donald Trump was not qualified to be president. Fair enough: This was shortly after the end of the contentious primary fight, and it may take some time for Republicans to come around. Perhaps that view was just a short-term thing.

It wasn't. The Post and ABC have asked this question about Trump six times, since September. At no point have more than 42 percent of registered voters said they think Trump is qualified. At no point have fewer than 56 percent said he is not qualified. That is a reverse of the numbers for Hillary Clinton, who has always been seen as qualified by at least 56 percent of voters.


AAiQtf5.img

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post


Three-quarters of Republicans think Trump is qualified for the presidency in the new Post-ABC poll; 23 percent do not. By contrast, only 7 percent of Democrats think Clinton is not qualified, and more than 9 in 10 say she is.



AAiQvI8.img

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post

This matters in part because there's (obviously) a correlation between the extent to which someone feels a candidate is qualified for the presidency and whether they will support that candidate. In other words, people who see Clinton as qualified mostly prefer Clinton's candidacy. People who see Trump as qualified mostly prefer his. Mind you, 11 percent of those who think Trump is not qualified for the presidency plan to vote for him anyway, suggesting either that they are in the group that views both candidates negatively or that they have a fairly loose definition of "qualified."


AAiQo3J.img

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post


A key split in this race is on racial and educational lines, with the heart of Trump's support coming from working-class whites (particularly men). White voters without college degrees are the only group in which a majority sees Trump as qualified for the presidency.


AAiQEi8.img

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post

That group is also the only one in which a majority doesn't think Clinton is qualified.


AAiQtfc.img

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post


To some extent, people are using the word "qualified" as a substitution for "good candidate." But unlike numbers on the candidates' honesty and trustworthiness, there's a substantial split between how the candidates are viewed, including by members of their own parties. It hasn't impeded Trump, to this point; he trails Clinton, but by only five points in the latest Post-ABC poll. Among registered voters, his support in a four-way race has never exceeded the percentage of people who think he is unqualified. Luckily for him, neither has Clinton exceeded hers.


SOURCE: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...the-job/ar-AAiQq9K?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


.
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator



Published on Sep 28, 2016
This dude is coming at me
I just smile and let him be
The dude brought your own rope
He put the bullet in the gun so
I’m just gonna shimmy

Shimmy Shimmy Shimmy Shimmy
HRC
Shimmy Shimmy Shimmy Shimmy
Hillary

He just keeps on shouting, “Wrong!”
So I’ll get my Jim Halpert on
He is a flightless bird
I think I’ll never say another word
I’ll justbe singing this song




Hi there! If you're new around these parts, welcome. I'm Jonathan Mann. I write a song every single day, and I've been doing that for the last 7+ years.

Through sick days, tired days, days with no inspiration, the death of my grandma, the breakup of a 5 year long relationship, the marriage to my wife and the birth of our son - I've never missed a day. This is my life's work.

You can see my most current song, as well as songs from year's past over at http://songaday.org

If you want to support me in my Song A Day quest, there are several ways!. I have many albums for sale on Bandcamp: http://jonathanmann.bandcamp.com

You can also support me in a more sustainable way by becoming a subscriber on Bandcamp or joining of 130 other folks and backing me on Patreon: http://patreon.com/jonathanmann

You can listen hear my albums on Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/artist/2JJuz...

And listen to all of Song A Day on Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/artist/4O4Rk...





giphy.gif
 

Camille

Kitchen Wench #TeamQuaid
Staff member
Angela Davis: ‘I Am Not So Narcissistic to Say I Cannot Bring Myself to Vote for Hillary Clinton’

Davis made her position clear today: The priority for black people in this election should be to stop Donald Trump.


images2Fslides2FAngela_Davis_1.png

Angela Davis (Michael Tran/Getty Images)
Angela Davis—scholar, freedom fighter, former political prisoner, icon and my personal hero—told attendees at the #BlackMatters2016 conference at the University of Texas, Austin, that she is not so “narcissistic” to say that she won’t vote for Hillary Clinton.

“I have serious problems with the other candidate, but I am not so narcissistic to say I cannot bring myself to vote for her,” Davis said.



The reactions on social media were swift and polarizing:










Davis also talked about the importance of this election, the need to stop Donald Trump at any cost, and that too much is at stake to not vote:


“Too much energy went into the struggle for voting rights not to go to the polls,” Davis said.




Davis has previously declined to endorse political candidates, instead staying true to an independent politic that centered the need to build a third-party that was dedicated to the liberation of oppressed and marginalized people. In March of this year, Democracy Now‘s Amy Goodman asked Davis if she would be endorsing a candidate. Davis responded:

Endorsing? I don’t endorse. But let me say that, well, to be frank, I’ve actually never voted for one of the two-party—two major parties in a presidential election before Barack Obama. I believe in independent politics. I still think that we need a new party, a party that is grounded in labor, a party that can speak to all of the issues around racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, what is happening in the world. We don’t yet have that party. And even as we participate in this electoral process, as it exists today, I think we need to be looking ahead toward a very different kind of political process. At the same time, we put pressure on whoever is running. So I’m actually more interested in helping to develop mass movements that can create the kind of pressure that will force whoever is elected or whoever becomes the candidate to move in more progressive directions.

Goodman also asked Davis how she felt about Hillary Clinton’s use of the word “superpredator” (I outline the history of the term and the Clintons’ racial politics in the ’90s here) and her impatience with black activists. Again, Davis responded:

I think it’s really wonderful that Black Lives Matter activists are participating in this electoral period in this way, forcing candidates to speak on issues about which they might not speak. And, of course, Hillary Clinton should have said, “Well, I was wrong to use the term ‘superpredators.’ What I know now, I didn’t necessarily know then.” There are many ways in which she could have disavowed it. And we know, of course, that the Clinton administration was responsible, at least in part, in large part, for the buildup of what is now called mass incarceration with the passage of the 1994 crime bill. It seems to me that if she’s interested in the votes of not only African Americans and people of color, but of all people who are progressive and attempting to speak out against the racism of overincarceration, she would simply say, “I was wrong then,” that “superpredator” is a racially coded term. It’s so interesting that she is—she tends to rely on a kind of universalism that prevents her from acknowledging the extent to which racism is so much a force and an influence in this country.

As I noted previously, Clinton did eventually acknowledge that “superpredator” was the wrong term to use and that the Clinton tough on crime policies of the ’90s had a traumatic impact on black and Latinx communities in particular. Bill Clinton, however, stumping for his wife in Philadelphia earlier this year, doubled down on the policies and HRC’s support of it:

“I don’t know how you would describe the gang leaders who got 13-year-olds hopped up on crack and sent them out in the streets to murder other African-American children,” said Clinton. “Maybe you thought they were good citizens, [Hillary] didn’t. You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter.”

Hillary Clinton did not distance herself from those statements.

Secretary Clinton has also voiced strong support for Israel, despite its violent occupation of Palestine. However, Davis, author of Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement, is committed to liberation for the Palestinian people.

Also of note, Davis began the evening acknowledging that they were assembling on “colonized land”—bringing the genocide of Indigenous people into the space. This was particularly powerful in this moment as the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other First Nations fight against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a hyper-capitalist project which threatens their water and desecrates their sacred burial grounds. The tribes and their allies have faced violence from security officers; yet neither of the two major-party candidates have even uttered their names.

These vast differences in ideology between Davis and Hillary Clinton seem as if they would pose a problem for Davis—and perhaps they do. But she still made her position clear today saying, “We should have learned by now … the arena of electoral politics militates against the expression of radical militant perspective.”

Davis seems to have joined the ranks of justice seekers and freedom fighters who believe that stopping Donald Trump—by any means necessary—should be the priority.


This, of course, does nothing to dismantle a political duopoly that continues to deprioritize and terrorize black, brown, Indigenous and poor people. But it is a perspective that is gaining louder support as November draws near: That this election is different—because Trump is different—and independent parties can wait.

Davis’ entire keynote can be seen here once it becomes available.

Make sure you protect your vote in this critical election for America. Learn more about how to register and protect your vote here.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/09/angela-davis-hillary-clinton/
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Angela! Been a long while since I've heard/read anything from her. I like her reasoning above.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Angela Davis: ‘I Am Not So Narcissistic to Say I Cannot Bring Myself to Vote for Hillary Clinton’

Davis made her position clear today: The priority for black people in this election should be to stop Donald Trump.


Few Words on the Blatant Disrespect Being Shown to Angela Davis
Let’s make this plain.


466125517-picture-released-on-april-2-1971-of-us-militant-angela.jpg

Photo released on April 2, 1971, of Angela Davis raising her fist in court during her 1970
trial in San Rafael, Calif. AFP/Getty Images


KWS3_80x80.jpg

By:
Kirsten West Savali
October 2, 2016


There have been intense, wide-spread and polarizing responses to my article on a statement made by scholar, freedom fighter, former political prisoner and icon Angela Davis during her Sept. 30 keynote address at the “Black Matters: The Futures of Black Scholarship and Activism”conferenceat the University of Texas at Austin.


During her address, Davis said, “I have serious problems with the other candidate, but I am not so narcissistic to say I cannot bring myself to vote for her.”

“Her” being Hillary Clinton as opposed to white supremacist, fascist and completely disreputable Donald Trump. No, I’m not adding caveats here about Hillary Clinton. Check my record on that. Now, in this space, I want to clarify a few things that really should not need clarification.

Angela Davis did not “endorse” Hillary Clinton as some Clinton supporters have breathlessly claimed—and to claim otherwise is just as ridiculous as those small-minds who claim a vote against Clinton is a vote for Trump who, as Davis has previously noted, “traffics in white rage.” What Davis did is make plain her electoral strategy embedded within her broader commitment to realizing collective liberation for black people.

She did not say that she was “with her”; she said that she was with us.

As noted in the article, Davis is just as committed to independent politics and liberation from a white supremacist system as she has always been.



IUPRA‏@IUPRA_UT Sep 30


AD wants new political party that's feminist, led by POC, represents working class and LGBTQI, fights for animals... #BlackMatters2016


4:20 PM - 30 Sep 2016
9 retweets 12 likes


I absolutely believe that Davis is operating from a position that she believes to have the true interests of Black, Latinx, Indigenous, working class people and those living in deep poverty at the center—as she always has. I do not, however, trust the same to be true of most Clinton supporters who are now cheering Davis’ comment. In my experience, these are the same supporters pretending that the extensive damage New Democrats have done—by covertly rebranding themselves as Republicans with a heart—has not devastated communities of color.

Undeniably, Davis’ statement at the Black Matters conference carries tremendous weight—primarily because it creates space to discuss diverging and converging paths to freedom and liberation. As Davis said during her keynote, “We should have learned by now … the arena of electoral politics militates against the expression of radical militant perspective.”

According to attendees’ tweets, Davis also said that she tries not to tell young people what to do because she resented that when she was younger. That is important to note here because the conversations surrounding Davis’ comment have largely devolved into reductionist charges that she is trying to shame people into voting for Hillary Clinton. These discussions are dangerous, misleading and frankly, embarrassing.



Without question, using the term “narcissism” is politically loaded right now because that kind of argument—egocentric, immature, ignorant, naive, selfish, dangerous—is being lobbed indiscriminately by mostly middle-class liberals at anyone who isn’t voting for Hillary Clinton. There is a movement that is full of people who are not only saying what they want to see in concrete terms and presenting pathways to those possibilities, but actively divesting from politicians who don’t work toward those goals. That cannot and should not be reduced to mere “narcissism.”

Still, that in no way, shape or form should indict Angela Davis—Angela Davis—on charges of not being committed to us and fighting for us with the means that she believes to be most effective. Choosing to not vote for a third-party candidate is not synonymous with no longer being invested in the construction of an independent party; that struggle, as Davis has said, is an ongoing, urgent and strenuous process.

I have reached out to Angela Davis in hopes that she will sit in circle with those of us who have modeled her radicalism in our own lives so she may answer any questions that we may have.

But the truth is she owes us no explanation. She has placed her life on the line for us. She is on the forefront of emancipatory, intersectional black feminist thought and the fight for liberation for oppressed people around the world. And she has consistently called out the white supremacist project that is the United States of America for what it is.




Be clear: If we’ve reached the point in the ride where we cannot engage Angela Davis with respect, then we’re going in the wrong direction.

But let me also say to HRC supporters who don’t align with Davis’ radical politics (at all): back up with the “Look Angela Davis said it; my Clintonians and I are right and everyone else is ignorant” narrative. Give us 50 feet. Don’t hide behind Angela Davis to push neoliberal politics and your favorite. The brilliance of Angela Davis—and the love and care she has shown for oppressed people around the world—goes far beyond this election.

What she stands for, many of you have never and would never—even if gifted the opportunity.
In this election, the Who is just as important to contend with as the Why. This does not mean that we can not disagree with the Why; Davis has encouraged us to challenge our heroes, herself included.

Still, I will build on Davis’ statement here and say that it is equally as important that we challenge our comrades.

Going forward, it is my deepest hope that we all engage Angela Davis’ statement in the context that it was given, and engage her with the love and respect that she has always shown us and that she unequivocally deserves.

Editor’s Note: The Black Matters Conference was organized by the University of Texas at Austin’s Black Studies department. Davis’ entire keynote can be seen here once it becomes available.]

SOURCE: http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/10/angela-davis-hillary-clinton-2/


.
 
Last edited:

Camille

Kitchen Wench #TeamQuaid
Staff member
Few Words on the Blatant Disrespect Being Shown to Angela Davis
Let’s make this plain.


466125517-picture-released-on-april-2-1971-of-us-militant-angela.jpg

Photo released on April 2, 1971, of Angela Davis raising her fist in court during her 1970
trial in San Rafael, Calif. AFP/Getty Images


KWS3_80x80.jpg

By:
Kirsten West Savali
October 2, 2016


There have been intense, wide-spread and polarizing responses to my article on a statement made by scholar, freedom fighter, former political prisoner and icon Angela Davis during her Sept. 30 keynote address at the “Black Matters: The Futures of Black Scholarship and Activism”conferenceat the University of Texas at Austin.


During her address, Davis said, “I have serious problems with the other candidate, but I am not so narcissistic to say I cannot bring myself to vote for her.”

“Her” being Hillary Clinton as opposed to white supremacist, fascist and completely disreputable Donald Trump. No, I’m not adding caveats here about Hillary Clinton. Check my record on that. Now, in this space, I want to clarify a few things that really should not need clarification.

Angela Davis did not “endorse” Hillary Clinton as some Clinton supporters have breathlessly claimed—and to claim otherwise is just as ridiculous as those small-minds who claim a vote against Clinton is a vote for Trump who, as Davis has previously noted, “traffics in white rage.” What Davis did is make plain her electoral strategy embedded within her broader commitment to realizing collective liberation for black people.

She did not say that she was “with her”; she said that she was with us.

As noted in the article, Davis is just as committed to independent politics and liberation from a white supremacist system as she has always been.



IUPRA‏@IUPRA_UT Sep 30


AD wants new political party that's feminist, led by POC, represents working class and LGBTQI, fights for animals... #BlackMatters2016


4:20 PM - 30 Sep 2016
9 retweets 12 likes


I absolutely believe that Davis is operating from a position that she believes to have the true interests of Black, Latinx, Indigenous, working class people and those living in deep poverty at the center—as she always has. I do not, however, trust the same to be true of most Clinton supporters who are now cheering Davis’ comment. In my experience, these are the same supporters pretending that the extensive damage New Democrats have done—by covertly rebranding themselves as Republicans with a heart—has not devastated communities of color.

Undeniably, Davis’ statement at the Black Matters conference carries tremendous weight—primarily because it creates space to discuss diverging and converging paths to freedom and liberation. As Davis said during her keynote, “We should have learned by now … the arena of electoral politics militates against the expression of radical militant perspective.”

According to attendees’ tweets, Davis also said that she tries not to tell young people what to do because she resented that when she was younger. That is important to note here because the conversations surrounding Davis’ comment have largely devolved into reductionist charges that she is trying to shame people into voting for Hillary Clinton. These discussions are dangerous, misleading and frankly, embarrassing.



Without question, using the term “narcissism” is politically loaded right now because that kind of argument—egocentric, immature, ignorant, naive, selfish, dangerous—is being lobbed indiscriminately by mostly middle-class liberals at anyone who isn’t voting for Hillary Clinton. There is a movement that is full of people who are not only saying what they want to see in concrete terms and presenting pathways to those possibilities, but actively divesting from politicians who don’t work toward those goals. That cannot and should not be reduced to mere “narcissism.”

Still, that in no way, shape or form should indict Angela Davis—Angela Davis—on charges of not being committed to us and fighting for us with the means that she believes to be most effective. Choosing to not vote for a third-party candidate is not synonymous with no longer being invested in the construction of an independent party; that struggle, as Davis has said, is an ongoing, urgent and strenuous process.

I have reached out to Angela Davis in hopes that she will sit in circle with those of us who have modeled her radicalism in our own lives so she may answer any questions that we may have.

But the truth is she owes us no explanation. She has placed her life on the line for us. She is on the forefront of emancipatory, intersectional black feminist thought and the fight for liberation for oppressed people around the world. And she has consistently called out the white supremacist project that is the United States of America for what it is.




Be clear: If we’ve reached the point in the ride where we cannot engage Angela Davis with respect, then we’re going in the wrong direction.

But let me also say to HRC supporters who don’t align with Davis’ radical politics (at all): back up with the “Look Angela Davis said it; my Clintonians and I are right and everyone else is ignorant” narrative. Give us 50 feet. Don’t hide behind Angela Davis to push neoliberal politics and your favorite. The brilliance of Angela Davis—and the love and care she has shown for oppressed people around the world—goes far beyond this election.

What she stands for, many of you have never and would never—even if gifted the opportunity.
In this election, the Who is just as important to contend with as the Why. This does not mean that we can not disagree with the Why; Davis has encouraged us to challenge our heroes, herself included.

Still, I will build on Davis’ statement here and say that it is equally as important that we challenge our comrades.

Going forward, it is my deepest hope that we all engage Angela Davis’ statement in the context that it was given, and engage her with the love and respect that she has always shown us and that she unequivocally deserves.

Editor’s Note: The Black Matters Conference was organized by the University of Texas at Austin’s Black Studies department. Davis’ entire keynote can be seen here once it becomes available.]

SOURCE: http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/10/angela-davis-hillary-clinton-2/


.



Yeah I didn't take what she said as an all out endorsement either. That's why I bolded what I did. Until there is another viable candidate, it's stupid, IMO, to put the country into the hands of a maniac, hoping people will learn a lesson or wake up. The damage that can be done is not worth it to me.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
The damage that can be done is not worth it to me.

And, without quantifying the full breadth of that damage, to me, the damage that can and likely would be wreaked upon the
Supreme Court alone (where there is currently one vacancy and likely another within a few years) could be devastating.
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Voters don’t want America’s nicest grandma. They want the wolf with bits of grandma in its teeth.
 

Camille

Kitchen Wench #TeamQuaid
Staff member
A Bernie supporter has a change of heart...


When this election began, I was like millions of millennial men: a "Bernie bro" rooting hard for Sen. Sanders.

Watching the candidate of my dreams get steam late and lose in the primary wasn't so different from watching my favorite football team not have enough energy to complete a fourth quarter rally. Hopeful, exciting, but ultimately deflating and disappointing.

When Hillary Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee, I was distraught. Months before I had written about her, explaining that I despised her not for her gender — as some of her supporters accused — but for her hawkishness, her center-left policies, her husband's crime bill that incarcerated so many people of color, her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and her inability to get progressive on climate change policy.

I've spent almost every waking hour of every day following this election, reading about Hillary, Donald Trump, both parties' platforms, and the under-qualified Libertarian and Green Party candidates running. During these months of obsessing over my choice, I've watched my position slowly shift. I've felt myself start advocating for Hillary more than advocating a vote against Trump, culminating in last night's debate when she finally, totally, completely won me over.

In an election that features one of the most well-documented liars and scam artist businessmen to ever run for public office, much of the attention has been on him — how we can't put him in office, give him keys to a nuclear warhead, trust him in the most powerful position in the world. Some of it has been more positive: how he'd turn the system on its head, be a Washington outsider, completely rewrite the script. While it's easy to make the case for voting against Trump, it occurred to me during the debate last night how much we've taken Clinton for granted.

Let's start with a simple but important position: Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to ever run for president.

Measuring qualifications, of course, is somewhat subjective. She's never served in the military, something previous candidates have done. But she was a secretary of state for four years, a U.S. senator for eight years, a first lady who lived in the White House, saw the challenges of being president up close and personal for eight years, a first lady of Arkansas, and a law professor and a partner at a law firm to boot. If she were elected, she'd be the first former cabinet member to become president in almost 100 years.

Just months before 9/11, Hillary Clinton became a U.S. senator in New York. She served for eight years in the city and was a key architect of the $21 billion federal aid bill that helped rebuild the city after her term started with the worst tragedy New York had ever seen. But perhaps what she is most remembered for is fighting for the health bill that served first responders in the first 48 hours after the attack. While Donald Trump bragged about his building now being the tallest in New York City, Clinton was fighting the Environmental Protection Agency to admit the air wasn't safe to breathe. That's why Clinton has the support of so many 9/11 first responders and survivors: they remember her work as a senator of New York.

But guess what? Google "Clinton health bill 9/11" and you'll find nothing but results about her nearly fainting outside a 9/11 memorial service, one she attended while diagnosed with pneumonia.

That wasn't the first time Clinton had advocated for a strong health care bill, though. In 1994, a universal health care bill that Hillary Clinton pushed for had failed as the Clinton administration came into office. Then Democrats lost the House and then lost the Senate for the first time in 40 years. Democrats had essentially given up on health care reform, until First Lady Clinton helped the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). She's largely credited with getting the bill into law, and it became the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance in three decades.

Today, the bill has resounding bipartisan support, and 8.4 million children — many of them low-income — are enrolled in its program.

As she mentioned in the debate, her time as secretary of state required everything from traveling to 112 countries and debating peace deals and ceasefires, to negotiating the release of dissidents — men and women who pushed back against authoritarian regimes. What she didn't mention was just how real that "stamina" was: she set records for travel as secretary of state.

But during Clinton's time as secretary, she also advocated a powerful, important worldview: that the United States could be a force of good and progressivism across the world, advocating for human rights, development, and equality in nations that may not know any of those things. She pushed for investment and accommodation with Asian powers such as China, who she knows we can share mutual goals with like preventing war in the Asian Pacific and spurring economic growth by investing in the future of technology.

In the beginning of her term as secretary of state, Clinton had to win over President Barack Obama — something that, at the time, was not guaranteed. They had a heated primary battle and many thought they may never mend those wounds. But today, Obama is one of her biggest advocates. Despite publicly disagreeing with her at times, most notably on the specifics of Syrian intervention, he's come to trust her counsel and had her present for some of their biggest moments in the situation room, such as when she helped him coordinate the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

9921f5b8-1591-4772-a146-780b66d95b83.inline_yes

Hillary Clinton in the situation room during a planned attack on Osama Bin Laden. WikiCommons
Perhaps Clinton's greatest blemish on her record is the destabilizing of Libya, which led to the Benghazi diplomatic compound attack. Certainly, it was one of the career bullet points that made me despise her. But despite $7 million dollars spent on Benghazi investigations, 1,982 published pages of reports on Benghazi, 10 congressional committees participating in investigations, 3,194 questions asked in a public forum, Clinton and her administration have been found guilty of zero wrongdoing. No "stand down" call was ever found, one of the cornerstones of the Republican claims. The family of Chris Stevens — the ambassador who became the face of the Benghazi tragedy after he was killed in the siege — has publicly objected to blaming Clinton for Benghazi.

Even more lost in the Benghazi witch hunt is a simple reality: during George W. Bush's presidency, there were 13 attacks on U.S. embassies that killed 60 people. Yet his career and record were not marred by these. Despite that, Trump and his campaign still thought it should have been brought up in last night's debate.

Nothing on emails. Nothing on the corrupt Clinton Foundation. And nothing on #Benghazi. #Debates2016 #debatenight

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 27, 2016
Throughout her time in public service, Hillary Clinton has negotiated ceasefires in Israel, put the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act into law, authored the Pediatric Research Equity Act (which helped re-label drugs to keep millions of children safe), and she got the EU, Russia, China and other world powers to participate in the crippling sanctions on Iran that forced the country to negotiate its nuclear plan out of existence. All while enduring propaganda that thrust Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation — from which there's also been no evidence of wrongdoing, in fact, quite the contrary — into the public's mind.

And throughout all that time, Clinton has traveled the world advocating a better life for women in places where that concept wasn't even on the radar. She's pushed for paternity leave here in the United States, and became a symbol of women's rights and women's progress everywhere. Looking at Secretary Clinton and reading about her accomplishments, it's tough to think that it was just 100 years ago the U.S. elected the first woman to Congress. That 100 years later, she's our first female candidate for president to win a primary.

And what does she get for all of this work? As the debate wrapped up on Monday night, Clinton endured Trump's threats to mention her husband's adultery despite the fact he's had three marriages, and been accused of rape and adultery himself. As she eviscerated him on calling women pigs and dogs, Trump lied about his position on the Iraq War, lied about his reasons for not releasing his tax returns, lied about his belief that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese, lied about his feeling that pregnancy is an "inconvenience" for businesses, lied during his defense of unconstitutional stop and frisk, lied that crime is getting worse in New York, and then lied when he said his temperament was his greatest quality. And what did Clinton get?

On Fox News, they cut to their political analyst Brit Hume describing Clinton: "The TV audience saw the faces of the two candidates," Hume said. "And she looked composed, smug sometimes … not necessarily attractive."

All this work, and what did Clinton get? She got an actual smug, young journalist named Isaac Saul writing about how I despised her, when I hardly knew the depth of her accomplishments, when I was clinging to the pipe dream of a Bernie Sanders presidency that may have never been in the cards, when my own father got ignored while he tried his best to talk some sense into me.

Secretary Clinton, I'm sorry. And I retract my previous position of hatred and angst towards you. You have made mistakes, some of them grave, and some of them unforgivable. Unfortunately, that comes with decades of life in the public eye, pressure, and microphones in your face. But you have also accomplished far more in your life as a public servant than just about anyone that's run for this office, and certainly far more than I ever will. When November rolls around, you'll have my vote.

And you'll get it enthusiastically.

http://aplus.com/a/grain-of-saul-support-hillary-clinton
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
When Hillary Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee, I was distraught. Months before I had written about her, explaining that I despised her not for her gender — as some of her supporters accused — but for her hawkishness, her center-left policies, her husband's crime bill that incarcerated so many people of color, her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and her inability to get progressive on climate change policy.

I've spent almost every waking hour of every day following this election, reading about Hillary, Donald Trump, both parties' platforms, and the under-qualified Libertarian and Green Party candidates running. During these months of obsessing over my choice, I've watched my position slowly shift. I've felt myself start advocating for Hillary more than advocating a vote against Trump, culminating in last night's debate when she finally, totally, completely won me over.

These two paragraphs sounds a lot like another way of saying something I read recently on this board: ‘I Am Not So Narcissistic to Say I Cannot Bring Myself to Vote for Hillary Clinton’


.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

If you choose to support Clinton out of fear of a Trump presidency, then do so without perpetuating the multitude of myths and lies that portray Clinton as a champion of equity and social justice.



All of this being said, a vote for Billary (Bill + Hillary) is the only sane vote one can make,
despite their hideous neo-liberal, DINO policies.
Donald Drumpf is a Sociopath and a Facist with NO clue how to run the America Empire; for him it's all about his ego, seeing his name in "lights".
The President of the United States gets to choose every Federal Judge in the country, all 50 states, and of course the most important Federal court SCOTUS. There are another 4,000 Federal jobs that the POTUS selects. Every ambassadorship, the head of huge multi-agency Homeland Security, Customs, Treasury, Justice Dept. Civil Rights head, CIA chief, EPA head, etc.........and of course Commander In Chief of the $1,000,000,000 U.S. Military with military bases all-over-the-world and command & control over 8,000 nuclear missiles on land, air and virtually undetectable deep underwater nuclear powered submarines.




September 30, 2016 | Bernie Sanders says:

I’m a United States senator, and I have a responsibility to the people of my state—also to the people of this country. The first thing that I’ve got to think about is:
What does a Donald Trump presidency mean for the people of my state and for the people of this country? And for the people of the world? I think it would be an absolute disaster. It would be beyond a disaster. Therefore, as a United States senator, I’ve got to do everything that I can to make sure that Trump does not become president.

Now, do I have strong differences of opinion with Hillary Clinton? I think the whole world knows that. The goal here is not to say, “Hillary Clinton is the best thing in the history of the world—she’s great, she’s wonderful, she’s terrific.” What we should be saying is that if you look at virtually all of the issues of importance to the people of this country—issues like making public colleges and universities tuition-free—Hillary Clinton is now on record for doing that for people making $125,000 a year or less. You know what? That is pretty revolutionary. That will transform the lives of millions of families in this country. That’s what Clinton stands for.

Clinton is on record supporting a doubling of community health centers in this country, which will mean that tens of millions of people—poor people—will have access to health care that do not have it today. Is that significant? It is very significant. Clinton is on record supporting pay equity for women, so that women do not continue to make 79 cents on the dollar compared to men. I happen to believe that one of the great crises facing the planet is climate change. Donald Trump happens not to think that climate change is real. Clinton takes it seriously.

The point is not to say that we love Hillary Clinton or that we agree with her on all of the issues. The goal is to go above that and ask: Which candidate will do a better job for middle-class and working-class families? I think the answer is obvious.

The second point to be made is that politics does not end the day of the election. The day after the election, when Hillary Clinton wins, you can be assured that I and other progressives will be saying to President-elect Clinton, “Take a good look at the Democratic platform that you supported—because together, President-elect Clinton, we are going to implement that platform. We’re going to involve millions of people in the process who are going to break up the large Wall Street banks, who are going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, who are going to be very aggressive on climate change and transforming our energy system.”

But if Trump is elected president… I just don’t know what America looks like four years after his election, in terms of the kind of bigotry that will be erupting, in terms of the kind of divisiveness that we will see, the kind of demagoguery that we will see.

That’s where I am. I’m not going to sit here and say to you that Hillary Clinton is going to be great on all these issues with absolute confidence. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that on many, many issues, her views are progressive. In many areas, they are awesome. Where they’re not progressive, we’ve got to push her, and the day after the election, we will mobilize millions of people to make sure that we make her the most progressive president that she can be.


https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-thenation-interview/
 
Top