worst man in the world and the worst woman in the world being our only two choices.

anatta

100% recycled karma
Brian Boyko: Author, Campaign Finance Activist, Software Engineer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-boyko/i-am-currently-frothing-a_b_10403742.html

So, it looks like Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. There was some (super-slim) hope that the Democratic superdelegates might actually want to win an election and vote for the guy who can, but with Obama endorsing Clinton, that ain’t happening.

So now, I’m angry. Practically frothing at the mouth with blind, impotent rage. Impotent, naturally, because it’s very clear from the results of this election - from the process of this election, that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter what you do, American Democracy just doesn’t work.


It used to be a punchline on the Simpsons, now it’s political reality.

In America, the most corrupt are the most likely to get elected. Need we any other proof than looking at our two nominees this year?

I mean, for Bernie Sanders — Bernie Sanders for Christ’s sake — to have almost beaten someone with all the big money, corporate ties, name recognition of Clinton? Bernie Sanders should have been an also-ran, like Martin O’Malley or Jim Webb. But he almost succeeded, not just because there’s a sizable group of Americans who really do see how the one issue that is blocking progress on all issues is political corruption,
but also because Clinton is human garbage.


But that’s not what made me really angry. I mean, say what you want about Clinton, at the very least you could say that she won the popular vote, and despite all the thumbs on her side of the scale, it wouldn’t have been possible if Democratic voters were just a little more informed and a little more intelligent.

No, what made me really angry, what made me frothing at the mouth angry, what made me yelling at random squirrels angry, was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s endorsement of Clinton.


Especially since it would have been very easy for her to just not endorse anyone. Instead, someone who was once the “darling” of the “Sanders-Warren” wing, and someone who was my particular first choice for President, has betrayed everything we thought she stood for.
Her endorsement has done nothing to convince progressives that Clinton is in any way shape or form anything but everything we’ve opposed from the moment we got in politics. All it did was lower our esteem of Sen. Warren. I don’t mind that maybe someone working three jobs and raising two kids on a G.E.D. doesn’t have time to really understand the issues at play here. But Sen. Warren should damn well know better.


I guess I don’t understand why Democrats can call out Paul Ryan for holding out for weeks before endorsing Donald Trump, when we can’t even have our own people saying: “This isn’t right. She doesn’t stand for what the Democratic Party stands for.” Well, I guess that’s because, de facto, the Democratic party does stand for corruption, regulatory capture, graft, and cheating simply because you can get away with it. Just like the Republican Party now stands for overt racism, belligerence, totalitarianism, and the advocation of war crimes.


The problem is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party, the Establishment wing, has assumed that (like Republicans) all Democrats will rally around their candidate simply because the opposition put up someone completely unacceptable.


So, our choices this year are between a corrupt shill who has conned their way into the top levels of the public psyche while doing nothing to help people along the way, who will do anything and say anything to get elected, no matter who it hurts, who refuses to think the rules apply to them and who has a complete lack of common decency, someone who perfectly embodies everything I got into politics to oppose… and Donald Trump.:whoa:

This may just be the red-mist speaking, but I really don’t think Sanders supporters will show up at the polls for Clinton.
Sanders supporters wouldn't show up for Clinton if she were drowning and we were all holding life preservers.


Which probably means President Trump will have his hands on the nuclear button by this time next year.


At this point, I’m willing to listen to anybody who can provide a way out of this false dichotomy between the worst man in the world and the worst woman in the world being our only two choices. Amend the constitution sometime in the next couple of months to prohibit them by name from holding office? Give Alex Trebek unlimited power until we can re-establish a democratic form of government that works? Say: “Just kidding about all that Revolution stuff” and return all lands and holdings to our rightful dominion, the Queen Elizabeth the second of the United Kingdom?


Because if there’s one thing that this election year has proven, it’s this: We, as Americans, are incapable of the knowledge and wisdom it takes to govern ourselves.
 
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose
 
Because if there’s one thing that this election year has proven, it’s this: We, as Americans, are incapable of the knowledge and wisdom it takes to govern ourselves.

Ah, and that speaks to the wisdom of our founders, who greatly feared both despotism, and unabated democracy... voila!!! Representative republicanism.

The will of the people was designed to oppose any despotic tendencies. Yet, they also feared that the ungoverned will of the people could trample the rights of any minority, leading to a different form of tyranny. One where corporations become so powerful that they crush any ability of creative entrepreneurial spirit. They feared a charismatic leader that could so enthrall the majority, that they could oppose their own general welfare, for limited and short sighted benefits. The Supreme Court was instituted just for that purpose, to oppose violations of basic human rights. The bill of rights was added to the Constitution to make it clear what minimum rights were due to every citizen of this country.

I disagree with you, anatta, in the sense that I think this country is setup specifically to deal with a tyrant such as Trumple. If he should somehow bluster his way into office, I think we will witness a truly remarkable functioning of our founders' wisdom. If Trump moves to shut down his most loathsome press opponents, SCOTUS will bash him. If he tries to disenfranchise an entire religion, or ethnicity, or any minority group, I think both Congress and SCOTUS will hand him his ass. It won't be pretty, and it won't move this country forward, but it will definitely show the world what a great country our founders created.
 
Last edited:
Ah, and that speaks to the wisdom of our founders, who greatly feared both despotism, and unabated democracy... voila!!! Representative republicanism.

The will of the people was designed to oppose any despotic tendencies. Yet, they also feared that the ungoverned will of the people could trample the rights of any minority, leading to a different form of tyranny. One where corporations become so powerful that they crush any ability of creative entrepreneurial spirit. They feared a charismatic leader that could so enthrall the majority, that they could oppose their own general welfare, for limited and short sighted benefits. The Supreme Court was instituted just for that purpose, to oppose violations of basic human rights. The bill of rights was added to the Constitution to make it clear what minimum rights were due to every citizen of this country.

I disagree with you, anatta, in the sense that I think this country is setup specifically to deal with a tyrant such as Trumple. If he should somehow bluster his way into office, I think we will witness a truly remarkable functioning of our founders' wisdom. If Trump moves to shut down his most loathsome press opponents, SCOTUS will bash him. If he tries to disenfranchise an entire religion, or ethnicity, or any minority group, I think both Congress and SCOTUS will hand him his ass. It won't be pretty, and it won't move this country forward, but it will definitely show the world what a great country our founders created.
I always look forward to any discussion with you; whether we agree or not.
Trump 'de-credentialed" WaPo.
That's of course not shutting it down, it's removing automatic access to his campaign -perfectly Constitutional ( if stupid on his part)
WaPo is an incredibly biased Hilary shill -I saw it during the sanders campaign- every article belittled sanders chances
or made sure to spin for Hilary.

The courts are a different matter. I'm not sure of how you use "disenfranchisement" here- but immigration can be regulated.
The problem is Trumps wholesale lumping together of "Muslims" and as much as I've gone after Obama/Hillary's
use of "homegrown extremism" (Obama) and not using proper terminology.
Trump is guilty of linguistic over-reach to the point one needs an interpreter to try to discern his ideas.
Yes the courts would never allow a religious test for immigration -it's unconstitutional and un-American.

But the executive can set quotas by country.

Trump would be constrained by SCOTUS and even a recalcitrant Congress.
Clinton is a dangerous example of "post Constituional rule" -ever expanding the role of he executive (separation of powers)
and the federal government (balance of powers )

Both are clear and present dangers as the thread title "worst man in the world and the worst woman in the world being our only two choices."
aptly describes.
 
I'm not sure of how you use "disenfranchisement" here- but immigration can be regulated.

I said, "If he tries to disenfranchise an entire religion, or ethnicity, or any minority group, I think both Congress and SCOTUS will hand him his ass."

I hope you would agree with me that wanting to ban an entire religion from entering this country, is discriminatory. Okay, it's temporary. Okay, there definitely are members of the the vast Islamic religion that mean us harm. But, there are Hindus, Christians, Jews, not so much Buddists, but members of almost every single religion of this world who are crazy and could possibly kill us. Shall we ban them all? Only allow proven atheists to enter? And are atheists really safe?

Look, yes there are jihadists. I will even use Drumpf's term, 'crazy Islamic terrorists'. But he uses that term like the British used to call us 'revolutionists', 'terrorists', and 'violators of the crown'. THAT term is meaningless.

Drumpf wants to disenfranchise an entire religion. We are not simply talking about 'immigration', we are talking about every single member of one of the largest religions on this planet, Muslims. Drumpf wants to ban American citizens from entering this country, until they prove their fealty. How he would propose that they prove their fealty is open to question, and is really a stupid exercise in polemics.

Do you really think that it is constitutional? Would Mohammed Ali be banned after he won the rumble in the jungle?
 
I said, "If he tries to disenfranchise an entire religion, or ethnicity, or any minority group, I think both Congress and SCOTUS will hand him his ass."

I hope you would agree with me that wanting to ban an entire religion from entering this country, is discriminatory. Okay, it's temporary. Okay, there definitely are members of the the vast Islamic religion that mean us harm. But, there are Hindus, Christians, Jews, not so much Buddists, but members of almost every single religion of this world who are crazy and could possibly kill us. Shall we ban them all? Only allow proven atheists to enter? And are atheists really safe?

Look, yes there are jihadists. I will even use Drumpf's term, 'crazy Islamic terrorists'. But he uses that term like the British used to call us 'revolutionists', 'terrorists', and 'violators of the crown'. THAT term is meaningless.

Drumpf wants to disenfranchise an entire religion. We are not simply talking about 'immigration', we are talking about every single member of one of the largest religions on this planet, Muslims. Drumpf wants to ban American citizens from entering this country, until they prove their fealty. How he would propose that they prove their fealty is open to question, and is really a stupid exercise in polemics.

Do you really think that it is constitutional? Would Mohammed Ali be banned after he won the rumble in the jungle?
agreed it's not Constitutional to ban Muslims. I was saying POTUS can set limits - by country, it's done all the time.
Which is obviously not any kind of ban.
Look, yes there are jihadists. I will even use Drumpf's term, 'crazy Islamic terrorists'. But he uses that term like the British used to call us 'revolutionists', 'terrorists', and 'violators of the crown'. THAT term is meaningless.
agreed. Trump uses hyperbole when simple declarative is superior wording..

Drumpf wants to disenfranchise an entire religion
I think I get your idea. You use disenfranchise as deprivation of rights?
Yes. Trump uses a chainsaw when a scalpel is called for.
 
Riffing on a Monday evening true,
Wishing I had it all to redo,
I would say it is unusual
To be a toucan
but who can
 
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose

the real betrayal of warren is not in endorsing clinton after the primary.

It is in not endorsing bernie when he needed her most.
 
So the brightest outcome for intelligent Americans is a very early impeachment. The world would be laughing- if it wasn't scared.
 
Armed members of the Trumptard well-regulated militia would collectively exercise their individual Second Amendment rights to resist tyrannical attempts to thwart the will of the Trumptards, wouldn't they?
 
Armed members of the Trumptard well-regulated militia would collectively exercise their individual Second Amendment rights to resist tyrannical attempts to thwart the will of the Trumptards, wouldn't they?

Isn't that what the Second Amendment is for ?
 
I suspect Warren feels her work as a woman was appropriated by a ( I definitely should add here, a FAR LESS knowledgeable) man. I don't know. I hear from someone who does know that if Warren is speaking to someone she trusts she will "give them an earful about Bernie". But the person wouldn't get specific.

Whatever the details, she was never going to endorse Bernie.
 
Back
Top