Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

51

Re: Trump

oh, obviously anyone saying shit like "she couldn't keep her man from straying" are sexist piles of garbage.  but that's coming from the right, not the left, no?

nguideau wrote:

the DNC is currently a total fucking joke. They underestimated the enthusiasm of younger voters. They underestimated the depth of the progressive shift that folks under 35 or 40 years old have taken these last 8 years (we have mimicked Obama's leftward shift with a powerful magnifying glass over it). They assumed that because that cohort was broadly supportive of Obama, that they could position a candidate as a continuation -- but they completely miscalculated the fact that we haven't all forgotten about the 2008 primary and we know that there are deep and significant differences between Obama and Clinton... differences that are more prevalent as Obama's presidency ran its course.

i think we disagree on just how progressive obama is/was.  it certainly seemed like he was a breath of fresh air when he was elected, but he really hasn't been any different than a clinton (either of them) presidency would be, especially when it comes to continuing Bush's erosion of rights and hawkish policies (for which Clinton was secretary of state for most of, which is the main reason i voted for sanders over her).

the boy your mother wanted you to meet

52

Re: Trump

also, i find it funny that the republicans basically created this situation (in both parties) themselves.  they've spent the last 8 years labeling obama a socialist (even though he's not), and while it did whip their base into a frenzy and win them the midterm elections to they could stop obama from doing anything, it also normalized socialism for the rest of the country.  that short term gain now means that when they scream "socialist!" at someone it's like, so what?  it's the boy who cried wolf syndrome.  what it also did was move their base SO far to the right that they'll basically never win another national election without a major overhaul.  all their own guys got stomped because they've been telling their voters that the government sucks and, guess what?  THEY'RE the government!  i don't know how they all got so blindsided by trump, when they should have seen this coming as soon as their guys started losing to fringe tea-party whackos

the boy your mother wanted you to meet

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Re: Trump

bob wrote:

oh, obviously anyone saying shit like "she couldn't keep her man from straying" are sexist piles of garbage.  but that's coming from the right, not the left, no?

nguideau wrote:

the DNC is currently a total fucking joke. They underestimated the enthusiasm of younger voters. They underestimated the depth of the progressive shift that folks under 35 or 40 years old have taken these last 8 years (we have mimicked Obama's leftward shift with a powerful magnifying glass over it). They assumed that because that cohort was broadly supportive of Obama, that they could position a candidate as a continuation -- but they completely miscalculated the fact that we haven't all forgotten about the 2008 primary and we know that there are deep and significant differences between Obama and Clinton... differences that are more prevalent as Obama's presidency ran its course.

i think we disagree on just how progressive obama is/was.  it certainly seemed like he was a breath of fresh air when he was elected, but he really hasn't been any different than a clinton (either of them) presidency would be, especially when it comes to continuing Bush's erosion of rights and hawkish policies (for which Clinton was secretary of state for most of, which is the main reason i voted for sanders over her).

I think we disagree, but not by that much. My point was that Obama's actions have become more progressive (though he's still very much left-center in the grand scheme) over the years, and I think the same is true of the base that the Dems need... except that the base has become more/farther progressive at a faster rate even than Obama.

I too voted for Sanders in the primary, FWIW.

- Nathan

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

54 (edited by kate h 2016-06-27 13:09:39)

Re: Trump

I have a few things to say on this matter, as always. And while I’m expansive I’m not (usually) bombastic, so I hope you’ll read to the end.

Trump is un-American in spirit (our ideals and the aim for social enlightenment) but he’s hyper-American in practice (bullying braggadocio and bigger than life, appearance over substance, abuse of the weak, etc.) His rise is the fault of his party’s long-standing dog-whistle racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

In fact he’s not a surprise.

But the GOP and the media are complicit with the way they’ve run (or covered) Republican primaries the past several cycles.

In the further past, the way politicians ascended to the national stage, and hence televised debates, was by having an active political organization, and it was in the party’s interest to limit that number to legitimately well-positioned candidates (at least as primaries moved forward) to keep funds from running thin, to preserve party unity, and to control the message.

Now the GOP has adopted a strategy (and it’s one I hope the Democrats won’t copy) of putting this ridiculously large number of candidates up and running an overload of terribly early and ongoing televised debates, almost as if to say “Look how many leaders we have in our party,” or “Look how our party is brimming with ideas.”

It was a waste of time in 2008, ‘12, and now in ‘16 it brought disaster.

Substantively the debates were a clown show that recklessly gave currency to wretched ideas and drove the image of statesmanship into the gutter. And for what? Donald Trump’s historic primary majority (albeit percentage wise it’s basically the same in a larger population) arose on the back of a bitterness and rancor that swelled beyond the usual levels, leaving a party already at risk of implosion and dissolution now on the verge of just such a collapse. That might be a satisfying and edifying thing to witness in our lifetimes (American political parties have collapsed and/or realigned or been born from nothing in earlier periods), but in the meantime the rise of a demagogue like Trump is not just a theoretical but improbable risk — his win, particularly in light of Brexit, is a real risk.

As for Hillary Clinton, there was a analysis piece that went around recently by Michael Arnovitz (which you can read here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11 … ever-seen) that traced back to the first time the phrase “congenital liar” was used in relation to her — it was 20 years ago and written by conservative writer William Safire who held a particular zeal for unrelentingly targeting HRC. And the phrase — congenital liar —  stuck. But Arnovitz goes on to chronicle numerous allegations against HRC that, when investigated, turned up nothing. But accusations alone can be enough.

It was probably evident to the Right even way back during her FLOTUS years that HRC was a force to contend with and they were going to make sure they built up a gigantic stack of accusations against her so that one day, when she went on to other work post-FLOTUS that she was duly tarred and feathered. It’s amazing to many people today that the mere mention of her name incites such rage both Right AND Left.

For the Right one can understand why it was done and they can boast of their success. But for the Left it’s baffling in the extreme that they aren’t doing their homework on her record, achievements, positions, and statements. In the end, the fault of knee-jerk further left Leftists is that they understand the true nuts and bolts of politics as poorly as fellow extremists on the Right, both of whom make the good the enemy of the perfect, refuse compromise, and tar centrist positions with the same venom and vitriol as they view the extreme views of each other’s opposite extremes. My way or the highway.

You can look up for yourself on the non-partisan Pulitizer Prize-winning site Politifact the startling rankings of honesty and lies in this campaign among candidates — but in short, HRC is the most honest by all measures and the rankings, numbers, and spreads are actually saying something. Of course all politicians spin, hype, stretch...but she does this the absolute least, and comes closer to very truthful statements the absolute most by wide margins, especially against the TRUMPet.

You can also look up yourself her progressive and even liberal record (and ps, in the Senate she was only 10 points behind Bernie on positive liberal/progressive rankings). The very fact of her liberal positions and policies, and her progressive stance, is what made her so reviled by the GOP. And they have 20+ years of ammo on that because she’s actually done the work. But now the all-or-nothing Left has bought into the caricature that she’s a war-mongering, money-hoarding, diabolical plotter who has sold out for so-called “power” and position.

Actually, the fact that she’s survived this far is double-plus amazing because, as it is, in the face of grave institutionalized American sexism most women in the US have to effectively work twice as hard to get half as much, and even when we do, we’re ball-busting bitches if we ascend to boss-level heights, baby-haters and negligent moms if we pursue career also, bon-bon eating soap-opera watching losers if we don’t work outside the home, and uppity, dowdy, and dour if we go into politics (unless we happen to be hot, and then there’s some leeway).

So for HRC to have achieved anything in the customary US climate against women is one thing, but for her to have persevered in the face of strident GOP lies and abuse and obfuscation and derailment without going crazy, and still accomplished a great many things in the face of such undeniable forces purposefully arrayed against her on the other side AND on her supposed side is nothing short of miraculous. This is NOT the offensively-named “woman card.” It is the offensive-to-live "American female reality." Do you want this for your mom, wife, sister, daughters, friends? Poor Abigail Adams, it's nearly 250 years later and we still haven't remembered " the ladies."

And HRC has done good works. Look it freaking up. She has stood up for ordinary people, their pocketbooks, and their identities (on race, sex, sexual orientation, children, and the poor) time and time again going way back to high school on values she never deviated from, while slowly dealing with the realities of politics — namely that most things move incrementally slowly except in revolutions, which are rare, and witness Brexit as a sort of democratic revolution, and hey, it ain’t usually pretty and most of the time it’s bloody and worse.

But people don’t understand politics, and we certainly don’t understand the difference between election campaigns and governance.

All of us today have lived through the age of cable TV’s Hardball, and the Tea Party age of no compromise, so we want — demand — that our candidates promise to give us everything we want, no compromise, and bully the other side into submission with bare-knuckled fury, bald-faced lies, and the refusal to dig for our own evidence. By 2016 we largely despise candidates and elected and appointed officials who grasp nuance, understand the incremental pace of legislative and judicial change, and work within the arguably frustrating system with all its entropy, personalities, and Byzantine layers of bureaucracy. We are the "I want my MTV" generation and dammit, we want it now and plus, "none for you!!!"

We want all gain and no pain for us and us alone and the rest can eat their fucking cake.

Similarly, we don’t understand America’s “Deep State.” I don’t mean this in the conspiratorial sense, but much as Bill Moyers has described — the aspects of our foreign policy, FED, military, etc. that essentially is largely unchanged, no matter who is in executive power.

I can’t tell you how many rabid liberals have decried Obama to me over the last eight years as “the worst of the worst militaristic, dictatorial, drone bomb-dropping, blood soaked on his hands, ten times worse than Bush, killer, killer, killer...” because of what amounts to deep state type policies that determine our engagements in the world.

So when HRC is called out for her time at State, it is because she’s actually been there and engaged in deeply complex layers in international relations, and the swarm of advisers, and the layers of policies and protocol, you know, they just don’t change that much from administration to administration. The visible state, and our elected leaders we see, but the deep state is relatively hidden, albeit in plain sight. And anyone who thinks Bernie Sanders has the ability to rebuff all that and just do it all with flowers and sunshine is naive at best and dangerous at worst. And I love Bernie and on one level I think he’d make a fine president, but I can gwaruntee you he’s not going to escape all the deep doo doo that is our deep state’s approach to things.

Now when, as a Senator, she voted for war on Iraq that was unfortunate as the lies around Iraqi WMDs were painfully obvious and Hussein wasn’t the only violent and repressive dictator on earth and our wars are far too costly on so many levels. But that was about oil and the deep state wants to “protect our interests,” and the “American way of life” (hyper intensive consumption and the endless growth paradigm) “is non-negotiable.” These things upset me, too. But again, to expect perfection, it just seems we ought to be smart enough to know we’re not going to get that. We need to change, and we need to get both the deep state and the international elite economic/technocratic class to begin some downward adjustments to align with energy realities and resource strains and communication transparencies that today's electorate wants and if they’ve got any brains they’ll do it but if we have any brains we’ll keep up that pressure and shift the argument from Brexit-like nativism to “small is beautiful” style localism but with essential global infrastructural elements preserved — communications, transportation, sanitation, preservation of the commons, military/foreign policy realities, and legitimate trade.

As far as things like the Goldman Sachs speeches go, if you’ve seen any of the research, it’s just a ridiculous “gotcha” request for her to turn them over. HRC (and rafts of other folks of her prominence and success) give immensely costly/profitable speeches to all kinds of groups and institutions. The Wall Street speeches are an unbelievably small number of high-paid speeches out of all the high-paid speeches she has given to all kinds of audiences and organizations in between being at State and running for office. And HRC has a legitimate defense for not releasing the transcripts of those (or other speeches at less “gotcha” places) — namely, why is she being held to a standard of release that other candidates are not? She’s followed suit on the precedent of releasing 40 years of tax returns, standard practice in the last half century, except for Trump, who refuses. Now here’s a new thing folks are demanding, these transcripts...but only from her. 

Here’s the deal and the rub. We like our candidates and presidents to be entertaining and affable, as good a campaigner as they are an executive. Wonkery is very un-American post Hardball when yelling, bombast, name-calling, and a race to the bottom makes for good TV. We’ve always had some of this in politics to be sure, but 24-7 in your pocket and on TV is a level of inundation with no counterpoint, making it all WWF chili cheese dogs all the time, no time to digest or have a good colon blow that cleans the pipes for a reset. So now we’re perpetually hung over but addicted to the next cage match.

When the candidates are passionate we think that’s great...unless they’re a woman, and then it’s “shrill.” Harvard just came out with a study showing that the media unfailingly favored Trump coverage over coverage of HRC in terms of sheer numbers, and favorably positioned him content-wise while being more critical of her — the study finding the disparity too glaring to ignore. Sexism? Probably. But also other motives, like entertainment and tawdriness being more click bait (remote control and mouse driven) and hence profitable than making a stable case for steering the ship of state through calm waters. We love to hate him, we just hate her in the background. Now if she were Sarah Palin...well a typecast sexy train wreck is always more fun.

The US has a lot of problems. And to his credit Donald Trump understands that at its core the biggest problem people are having is a displacement of identity. He's tapped into that but is wrongly and manipulatively, exploitatively, pitching this problem in racist terms, and blames the government for a net loss of jobs that is more properly on the hands of large corporate multinationals who race to the bottom of labor for their own bottom line. The government IS complicit in policies that favor the shenanigans of the oligarchy, but it is by no means a matter of “taking back the government” or “taking back the country” without a clear understanding of what needs to be “taken back” and what the short and long term consequences of such a realignment would be.

But we’re all suffering a rapid change in identity as the world shifts beneath our feet nearly continually. No historic time period has ever asked as much of any individual or group or society in so unrelenting a pace for such a marathon of time with no sign of a let up. Demagogues delight in such a wedge in which to gain a foothold. And HRC ignores the deeper (and multifaceted) strands of both those conditions (and the risk of slick demagogues) to her peril when it comes to politicking because THAT'S the time to connect.

Not only would Trump be a manifold disaster for the country in terms of just watching his freakshow life everyday, but his personality shows classic signs of isolated, dictatorial tendencies and an unwillingness to bend, no matter how well this dog can learn the new teleprompter trick. In the wake of Brexit he was asked (while in Scotland), Was he huddling with his foreign policy advisers to discuss the results? He replied first that there was nothing really to discuss...in other words, no implications of Brexit to consider. He followed that by saying advisers don’t really know anything, and anyway, people who are in the foreign policy advising class (if you will) aren’t doing anything right. He only wants to listen to new people. But, he said, he mostly wants to listen “to himself.”

Surreal doesn't begin to cover it.

It is fine to vote one’s conscience. To prefer, say a Jill Stein or a write in, or the Libertarian. That’s our right. And realistically (unidealistically) speaking, our establishment is just that..it is what is established. It’s slow to respond, vexing too often, regularly out-of-touch, and top heavy in the extreme. More power should be ceded back to the states and to local government, we should all shrink back somewhat, but not in an all-or-nothing nativist fashion.

But to posit the establishment as an undifferentiated failure across the board is nonsensical and shows a lack of understanding about government, politics, and process.

And equally wrong is to say HRC is the lesser of two evils. She’s not evil. She’s actually quite good. It’s just everyone has bought the very effective narrative hook, line and sinker.

Waking up and seeing our own role in a complex democracy, the role of the citizen in cutting through the dross, is the first step to really “taking back our country.” The second is to realize that that knowledge, wed to patience, is usually the best step forward.


Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

55

Re: Trump

if you care to actually address why you don't think she's a hawk instead of quickly dismissing it as "caricature" without further comment i will respond to that.  but as it stands 99% of your post consists of arguing against shit nobody here ever said

but this,

knee-jerk further left Leftists is that they understand the true nuts and bolts of politics as poorly as fellow extremists on the Right, both of whom make the good the enemy of the perfect, refuse compromise, and tar centrist positions with the same venom and vitriol as they view the extreme views of each other’s opposite extremes. My way or the highway.

is bullshit and is the reason this country has been moving steadily to the right for the last 30 years even under democrats.  republicans have successfully convinced people that the center is the left when in reality the "center" is so far to the right that 50 years ago it was the republican platform.  but every four years it's the same tired mantra over and over again, "we just have to beat bush he's crazy!" "we just have to beat palin she's crazy!" "we just have to beat trump he's crazy!" and on and on it goes while nothing of substance ever changes. 

but thanks for giving me permission to vote for who i want to!

the boy your mother wanted you to meet

56 (edited by bewls 2016-06-29 03:25:43)

Re: Trump

I agree with Bob that the center has been pushed way to the right, making the real center now quite left in the repositioning. However its not left at all. Nixon would be considered center or center left now, its just how it has been manipulated.
There are a lot of absolutes in the previous writing and seems like scolding as well. The establishment does not have to be acceptable just because its established. The point is, who is doing the establishing and how is the system influenced and controlled?
  HRC is a 'real politician' so that in itself lends to corruption and back room dealings. Trump is a high profile Biz man,which lends itself to corruption and back room dealings.
  I prefer Chomsky's reasoning to both of these 'players' just on rational thought alone so I guess you would put me in the far left lefties camp, however I am not an absolute 'my way or highway' activist. I accept that the system, which was created and progressed by men of wealth and power, has morphed into what it is by those with wealth and power. Its like a baton in a relay race.  There is quite an extensive reach and a lot of teamwork involved with the shape of it.  Although HRC 'stands' for more of what I hope for ( equality, environmental protection, blah blah), I think she uses these themes to harness her voting blocks. I also think she kind of believes in them but not at the expense of business and end game, which I believe is power.
Trump has painted himself as a clown and will get the clown vote or the anger and disgust vote. I can understand someone just tired of it all and wanting to change the entire roadwork but to think Trump is your savior is just numb.
  Jill Stein gets no coverage and that in itself is all telling as she gets swept to the side by these 2 major parties and that seems to me, a lack of democracy due to their domination. Its what we are left with and you want some kind of embrace of that. Its residual in way and I am under the belief that the government would like you less engaged and are finding ways to succeed. The 60s taught them a lot and think they have learned a better way to keep themselves in their seats.
2 rules to govern.
1) get the power
2) keep the power

I don't support this system due to its corrupt core and unjust history yet know there are positives within it. I just don't like that they try to sell it all as representing the 'people', which is always their mantra.
However, I will live with it and laugh at this whole 'yes, we can/ make america great again/ a change we can believe in/ etc..
There is no change except going back to the major party's coverage or cover policies...Bush was Reagan and Obama was Clinton but at least Malkmus is Malkmus and that is the saving grace.

Re: Trump

I'd like to ask a serious and maybe kinda dumb question: why is it so important to "vote your values"? I keep hearing this from people who are voting green. "Oh, so you want me NOT TO VOTE FOR MY IDEALS AND VALUES?"

Why is that considered to be a virtuous thing if it can produce outcomes that are in reality far worse for real people? (eg 8 years of Bush.) Why isn't playing defense against a much worse outcome not considered a genuine and sincerely held belief or ideal?

As someone whose ideals are not well represented in the American political spectrum*, maybe I'm not qualified to speak on this. The third party candidates aren't any closer to my ideals or values than Clinton is. But Clinton can actually prevent a far worse outcome from happening, and I happen to really genuinely fear for America under Trump, so how is that not in line with my values or ideals?

Something about the idea that your vote is a sacred thing that can only be given to the one, like your virginity or something, strikes me as being weird. It's not a religious or spiritual thing like that for me. It's just an item you're selecting from a menu. I like sushi best, but sometimes you realize that the restaurant you're in does better with fried chicken, so that's what I get.


*My ideals are: less economic protectionism (ie, moar NAFTA/TPP); less war/defense spending; stronger social safety nets to help those who are hurt by an expansion of free trade. I can at best only get 2 of these 3 options most years, which means I'm never really voting for my ideals or values.

We need the birds.
I understand, but the files are organized alphabetically.

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

58 (edited by kate h 2016-06-29 10:13:47)

Re: Trump

bob wrote:

if you care to actually address why you don't think she's a hawk instead of quickly dismissing it as "caricature" without further comment i will respond to that.  but as it stands 99% of your post consists of arguing against shit nobody here ever said

but this,

knee-jerk further left Leftists is that they understand the true nuts and bolts of politics as poorly as fellow extremists on the Right, both of whom make the good the enemy of the perfect, refuse compromise, and tar centrist positions with the same venom and vitriol as they view the extreme views of each other’s opposite extremes. My way or the highway.

is bullshit and is the reason this country has been moving steadily to the right for the last 30 years even under democrats.  republicans have successfully convinced people that the center is the left when in reality the "center" is so far to the right that 50 years ago it was the republican platform.  but every four years it's the same tired mantra over and over again, "we just have to beat bush he's crazy!" "we just have to beat palin she's crazy!" "we just have to beat trump he's crazy!" and on and on it goes while nothing of substance ever changes. 

but thanks for giving me permission to vote for who i want to!

I'm sorry if I seemed condescending to you or anyone on this board. That was certainly not my intention, truly. I wasn't actually referring to any specific or general board participants by using the term "far left leftists," but rather that element in the general populace and some extremism that has been its follow on. My analysis and comments were impersonal.

And I certainly didn't "give you permission" to vote for who you wished but rather acknowledged, I thought fairly, that this is a sacred right in the American democracy for the individual citizen. Casting a mere vote, however, differs from an analysis of what politics really is in its nuts and bolts from candidates to issues to citizen options beyond voting and what a truly engaged polity really means.

You're correct that many things on the former Right have come to be establishment (though not necessarily Centrist) and the current Right is far more Tea Party-ish. I mean Nixon is the one who opened the US to China and passed things like the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, environmental and resource protections now seen as ridiculous on the broad Right and under constant threat to the Center, Center Left, and further Left.

One of the things that has been edifying to me is my husband Erik's own work in politics.

He first ran for state delegate under the Democratic ticket and lost decisively — we live in an area where many folks will literally not even shake your hand after asking you, "Are you R or D?" If you answer "Democrat," they will actually, physically turn their backs on you and shut a door in your face.

However after that he ran for City Council and won, and recently won re-election, so going into his fifth year serving in elected office.

Our Council has 7 members and we, naive neophytes that we were, thought things that we and our peeps wanted to happen would just happen easily because, duh, they're such good ideas! But this isn't Portland or Brooklyn or some other Liberal bastion and we soon learned far more about what it means to get something actually passed amidst a council of more than one and in the court of public opinion (less about leaders and more about citizens, about which I can say more later but am sorta working right now).

But in brief I learned more than ever before, and learned it in real-world rather than theoretical terms, about incrementalism, patience, critical mass (of people wanting something), compromise, and horse trading. It (along with a dedicated comparison to historic precedent) has informed my thought and practice most unavoidably, even though knowing/doing all of that STILL doesn't guarantee you'll get what you want or even ANY ASPECT of what you want.

As to hawkishness, the term implies an eagerness to shoot and kill, a hyper-readiness to not only back war, skirmishes, and agro confrontation, but to ACTIVELY COURT IT at the expense of all other approaches.

It is true that establishment US deep state foreign policy is muscular. That is realpolitik if you will, and almost unchanging from admin to admin. It is our ethos, our stance, the American way. The power of any one individual to change that amidst entropy, inertia, is a long shot.

But then again, boring diplomatic moves don't get much airplay, leaving us largely in the dark about those machinations unless we seek them out to inform ourselves. A subscription to Foreign Policy can help, as can reading online World sections.

There is a role for the citizenry much more critical than voting, and it is tough. Unrelenting Strategic Non-Violent Direct Action is a huge and important pressure on the powers that be, and it works, though usually quite slowly and with plenty of backlash. There's cohesion around that, say in something like the Civil Rights Movement under MLK JR. But when it gets more diffuse, like climate and energy, sexism, fighting anti-gay LGBTQIA sentiment, even hollowing out jobs, Wall Street abuses, or establishment double-speak, it's much harder to find a coalition of active and engaged folks who have the leisure or self-sacrifice to stay at it because articulating the problem is much more difficult, and this is made especially difficult when folks mistake the realization of their ideals for being the one, immediate path forward right NOW!

Immature folks not getting what they want right now leads to caricatures of decent folks working in systematic ways IN THE SYSTEM to achieve less idealistic results but some results nonetheless.

I know this only because I've lived it. Learning compromise, living compromise, is not necessarily the same as forsaking ideals. It's just knowing that you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you get what you need.

And then you get up the next day and try for some more.


Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

59

Re: Trump

the problem comes when people vote in the primaries based on stopping the other party instead of what they actually believe in.  it lead to john kerry being the nominee and we all see how he did anyway.  nobody is claiming the vote is "sacred" and as i already said, i'd vote for clinton if i lived in a swing state.  but, the republicans are always going to be "worse."  and that's basically all the democrats run on anymore, "hey, at least we're better than them!"  again, if that's all everyone is voting on every single time then why should we expect anything to change?

the boy your mother wanted you to meet

Re: Trump

Speaking for myself and not as a collective, I have stated and then deleted in a post, that if I lived in a purple state, I would probably vote for Clinton or Obama or anyone not GOP as they do scare the crap out of me and are very far from most of what I would like to see in power. Being registered in Mass, I vote green as it's a safe bet that it will go blue and that it what people care about in the end.
I vote green because my ideal is a planet to live on and air, water and all that and would like to have the Dems, who nod that way but don't go all out on it, to know that there is a block of votes for them if they pave that road. It's a message vote really to pay attention to these issues and not just vocalize a little and then after the election, rest on them.

My virginity was nothing special...my vote is nothing special..a drop in the ocean really but its kind of all I have. I think if the green party had a 10% block vote like the religious right does, then you would see some catering to those issues as you see the GOP catering to the religious block. That would be progressive in my opinion.


Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

61 (edited by kate h 2016-06-29 10:24:15)

Re: Trump

bewls wrote:

  I prefer Chomsky's reasoning to both of these 'players' just on rational thought alone

I accept that the system, which was created and progressed by men of wealth and power, has morphed into what it is by those with wealth and power. Its like a baton in a relay race.  T

  Jill Stein gets no coverage and that in itself is all telling as she gets swept to the side by these 2 major parties and that seems to me, a lack of democracy due to their domination.

Its what we are left with and you want some kind of embrace of that.

Well Chomsky, who doesn't prefer him. Deep draw on an imaginary joint, "Ah, Chomsky..." Didn't Woody Allen write something like that? smile

(LEGALIZATION NOW)

The US was founded on racism, sexism, and slaughter masquerading as enlightenment. Some folks say that our Founding Fathers were bound as men "of their times," but plenty of people, notably Mary Wollstonecraft, albeit a bit after the Revolution, Declaration, and Constitution, wrote that if such calls for human equality were to be real they would encompass all of humanity, not just white men of wealth, property, and power. (Of course American Abigail Adams asked for it at the time of the Continental Congress 15 or so years earlier and got nada.) In my view it's true that this shadow (power reserved for white male wealth and power) and its legacy lives on, even into today.

As to Jill Stein, and other parties, I've often said (and been derided for saying) that I would prefer the Parliamentary system to the two party system. It seems (at least on distant appearance) that the ability to form coalitions and craft new governments in a more agile fashion in response to the times offers a lower barrier to entry for those seeking currency for their ideas (though it carries its risks; witness Brexit).

There's no question in my mind but that Stein and the Libertarian (gosh I'm sorry I can't recall his name) should be allowed in the top level debates. Maybe even others if for nothing else but to broaden the conversation.

Acknowledging incrementalism is not the same as wanting or pushing for an "embrace" of it. Of course I want the world I see in my head because I am brilliant and enlightened, no? But if I accept incrementalism and compromise it doesn't mean my headspace has died and I've buried it.

The alternatives to accepting incrementalism are either "my way or the highway," or leaving the table altogether, or principled loserism ("I'll go for it but it is not incumbent upon me to build a backing,") which all fail to acknowledge historic precedent in political change and action, and fail to acknowledge all the others at the table who want something other than we do, even when they are cray cray.

Human relations (political relations) are messy. Admitting that, and even operating within that, doesn't make one either a sell out or a sell out's marketer.


Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Re: Trump

eddie wrote:

I'd like to ask a serious and maybe kinda dumb question: why is it so important to "vote your values"? I keep hearing this from people who are voting green. "Oh, so you want me NOT TO VOTE FOR MY IDEALS AND VALUES?"

Why is that considered to be a virtuous thing if it can produce outcomes that are in reality far worse for real people? (eg 8 years of Bush.) Why isn't playing defense against a much worse outcome not considered a genuine and sincerely held belief or ideal?

As someone whose ideals are not well represented in the American political spectrum*, maybe I'm not qualified to speak on this. The third party candidates aren't any closer to my ideals or values than Clinton is. But Clinton can actually prevent a far worse outcome from happening, and I happen to really genuinely fear for America under Trump, so how is that not in line with my values or ideals?

Something about the idea that your vote is a sacred thing that can only be given to the one, like your virginity or something, strikes me as being weird. It's not a religious or spiritual thing like that for me. It's just an item you're selecting from a menu. I like sushi best, but sometimes you realize that the restaurant you're in does better with fried chicken, so that's what I get.


*My ideals are: less economic protectionism (ie, moar NAFTA/TPP); less war/defense spending; stronger social safety nets to help those who are hurt by an expansion of free trade. I can at best only get 2 of these 3 options most years, which means I'm never really voting for my ideals or values.

Brilliant!

Re: Trump

excellent points, all.

Bob - one little quibble is that I think you're not doing the context of 2004 justice. The 2002 midterms were devastating, and people talked all the time about the notion that the democratic party might be on the verge of extinction...that plus the idea that people were so hysterical about 9/11 and security. I think it's one fundamental positive thing about democratic primary voters that they kind of want someone who will be president and palatable to everyone, or to as many as possible. Sometimes this leads to horribly flawed candidates like kerry but it can also lead to Obama, who has been a far better president than we have any right to expect a mainstream president to be. I don't think he's been perfect but man. He did a ton of big things. He did a ton of little things the right way - at just about every opportunity affirming the rights of marginalized and oppressed communities and telling them that his government was there to protect them too. (Think Loretta Lynch speaking to the LGBT community after the North Carolina bathroom thing.) I used to think this type of cerimonial/stylistic stuff didn't matter, but I think Obama's greatest accomplishment is restoring a fundamental sense of dignity to the office that we haven't seen since before Reagan.

But, Bob, I think you're making an excellent point. I totally caught myself a month or two ago thinking "wait, didn't i say the same things about other R's in the past that I'm saying about Trump now?" And of course I did. So I'm never going to do that again. The truth is I would vote Romney, McCain, even Bush if it meant stopping Trump. (As in, if Trump were the D, I would vote R.) I've never said or thought that before. When a major party elects someone like that, it falls on all of us to sternly rebuke that choice and that path, I think. I was wrong when I was hyperbolic about Romney and McCain, and I'll never use that type of rhetoric again, because I think now we've seen what the real villain looks like. You can buy it or not, but I don't think you can argue that Trump is somehow a logical extension of our politics. He may be a natural consequence of certain conservative institutional beliefs and practices, and lord knows Lloyd has tried once or twice on facebook to pin the blame for Trump on Obama, but again, I think something we've never seen before is happening, and I think stopping it is one of those crazy momentous events. I wish I hadn't been so dramatic in this past, but I can't really change that.

I know I feel differently about Clinton than my wife does, partly because I'm a man and while I may appreciate emotionally and intellectually what Clinton means, it'll be different from her. So maybe I feel differently about Trump and his racist/xeonophobic/nativist language because I'm a naturalized citizen. I'm totally willing to entertain that idea.

Bewls - thanks, and well put. If I didn't disagree with the greens on trade, who knows where I'd land.

I may have mentioned it here before, but I've never understood why conservatives view liberals a certain way until I questioned a couple of Sanders' positions. Man, did I get condescended to at that point. Was called a "democrat fanboy" and asked if I was getting paid by Goldman. A guy I know told a trans-woman that she was voting from a place of privilege (!!!) if all she cares about is domestic LGBT issues and not the poor palestinians who will be murdered by Clinton's drones. And I wasn't firmly in the Clinton camp, I just didn't think Sanders was the second coming and pointed out some things that I thought were obviously hypocritical, like people bitching about superdelegates while celebrating delegates from caucus states. (Neither is democratic, but apparently only one of them is evil, because only one of them hurt Sanders.) But I would gladly vote for Sanders too, even though I think it's terrible policy to roll back free trade agreements and hurt extremely poor people in countries who have benefitted from those trade deals. But if Sanders were the person in position to stop Trump, he'd get my vote too, despite not being particularly closer to my ideal candidate.

We need the birds.
I understand, but the files are organized alphabetically.

Re: Trump

*fist bump to kate h*

and would love to hear more about city council politics, to the extent that you're able to share, of course!

We need the birds.
I understand, but the files are organized alphabetically.

Re: Trump

I voted Bernie in the primary because that's a good time to make a statement about the direction and magnitude in which you want the party closer to your belief system to move.

If I lived in Mass like bewls, I'd probably vote for JS.

kate and ed make perfect points and perhaps the most perfect of all, in my view, is how damn much we should miss Muslim Socialist Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, in the grand scheme of U.S. presidential politics...

And oh, yes, Bernie's view on free trade is something I had to grapple with. It's not just a view I disagree with, it is empirically wrong and far removed from the pragmatic view of how our economy works and will continue to work, no matter revolution or whatever. I grappled with that the most going into the primary.

- Nathan

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Re: Trump

eddie wrote:

excellent points, all.

Bob, I think you're making an excellent point. I totally caught myself a month or two ago thinking "wait, didn't i say the same things about other R's in the past that I'm saying about Trump now?" And of course I did. So I'm never going to do that again. The truth is I would vote Romney, McCain, even Bush if it meant stopping Trump. (As in, if Trump were the D, I would vote R.)

Interestingly there's all this Manchurian Candidate shit going around about Clinton, essentially arguing that the "Corrupt Clintons" are in a deal with "Dirty Donald" to have him play the bozo for the GOP to ensure her the general election win. Talk about conspiracies that put the egg on her face.

What about the egg on their face?

It's every bit as Manchurian to have an #DumpTrump showdown in Cleveland only to put up a Cruz or Rubio or Bush. Doesn't ANYONE start to look reasonable by comparison? And if #Drumpf gets $20 or $100 million for playing his part, even if ousted, well, money talks and bullshit walks. Okay, that's theoretical and conspiratorial as well...but see how it works?

It's tough to believe anything we see or hear. It takes a lot of digging, a lot of sussing out. "Lots of details to discern, lots of details."


Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Re: Trump

nguideau wrote:

And oh, yes, Bernie's view on free trade is something I had to grapple with. It's not just a view I disagree with, it is empirically wrong and far removed from the pragmatic view of how our economy works and will continue to work, no matter revolution or whatever. I grappled with that the most going into the primary.

And I don't begrudge you that conclusion at all. I just don't like being told that I'm somehow morally deficient (as I've been told more than once) because I have my own doubts about how much of Sanders' platform would have been enacted.

Forgot to comment on this but I also think Bob's point about socialism and crying wolf is spot on. Lest we forget, the line separating unfettered capitalism and Stalinism during the 2008 election was drawn across the question of whether the top marginal tax rate should be 38% or 35%.

We need the birds.
I understand, but the files are organized alphabetically.

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

68

Re: Trump

i'm not denying that trump is on a whole other level from previous candidates.  i just find the line that "the only important thing is beating the republicans, so we have to put up a centrist who won't ruffle too many feathers" to be one that crops up every election and ultimately leads to the democrats moving further and further to the right to try to appease the center (which as i said before, is essentially the soft-right at this point).  i like obama well enough too, but i don't think anyone could deny that he didn't do enough to roll back the oversteps of the bush administration in the name of "security" (and in some cases, actively expanded them).  like, if bush had two more terms, do you think our foreign policy would have looked significantly different?  i don't agree with everything sanders says either*, and i don't expect to ever agree with another human being (let along a presidential candidate) about everything.  but for me, the most important issues right now are stopping the war machine, tighter regulation of the financial sector, and trying to slow/reverse climate change.  people are free to have different things on their top 3, but that's just where i'm coming from. 

*and yes, there's a very loud contingent of reddit user losers who were libertarians four years ago and suddenly love sanders, and yes these people are annoying and do more harm than good.  but, that's kind of irrelevant to the actual candidate imo

the boy your mother wanted you to meet

Re: Trump

From my point of view, which is Scandinavian, European etc..., to suggest that Obama's a socialist is ridiculous. Not even close. And I would say most parts of the world would agree....just sayin'...

"It´s a fine line between clever and..eh.. stupid"

Re: Trump

I'm on board with your top 3, bob. I think stopping the war machine will be hardest, to be honest.

For the people voting green, would Warren being on the ticket make you in any way more likely to vote D in the fall? Or how about Sanders being offered a very prominent role in the cabinet as secretary of, say, labor or treasury?

kate - I've seen A LOT of conspiracy theories, too. My favorite was when I asked someone, "well, but by what measure should Sanders be the nominee instead of Clinton? By the popular vote, which he lost by 3-4 million votes?" And what I got was, "Oh, I see. You actually don't think any fraud took place in the primaries. Here's 4 links that prove beyond a doubt that the Clinton campaign rigged those results."

Off-topic: the missus and I keep talking about moving away from DC for a bit. I dunno, the thought of having a congressman to call and complain about gun control to sounds appealing. We're also kind of burnt out on a number of things around here. Where's good?

We need the birds.
I understand, but the files are organized alphabetically.

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

71 (edited by eddie 2016-06-29 18:50:57)

Re: Trump

swede wrote:

From my point of view, which is Scandinavian, European etc..., to suggest that Obama's a socialist is ridiculous. Not even close. And I would say most parts of the world would agree....just sayin'...

i think bob's point is that the fact that people who aren't socialists get accused of being socialists by the american right makes socialism way less scary to people who like the people being called socialists. So suddenly someone who likes obama and doesn't know what socialism is thinks, "oh, that's socialism? I dig that. I guess I'm a socialist too."

We need the birds.
I understand, but the files are organized alphabetically.

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 754

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/stephenm/stephenmalkmus.com/punbb/upload/include/parser.php on line 807

Re: Trump

eddie wrote:
nguideau wrote:

And oh, yes, Bernie's view on free trade is something I had to grapple with. It's not just a view I disagree with, it is empirically wrong and far removed from the pragmatic view of how our economy works and will continue to work, no matter revolution or whatever. I grappled with that the most going into the primary.

And I don't begrudge you that conclusion at all. I just don't like being told that I'm somehow morally deficient (as I've been told more than once) because I have my own doubts about how much of Sanders' platform would have been enacted.

Forgot to comment on this but I also think Bob's point about socialism and crying wolf is spot on. Lest we forget, the line separating unfettered capitalism and Stalinism during the 2008 election was drawn across the question of whether the top marginal tax rate should be 38% or 35%.

For sure, and FWIW, I didn't at all take your post as begrudging me. The fact is, voting in a primary and voting in a general are two different exercises -- that's to your point. In spite of the huge flaws in Bernie's rhetoric about trade policy, as a voter that supports things like health care as a human right and improved labor protections, I wanted to vote for a more leftward candidate to tell the Dems that this is where their demographics need to go over the next few elections. And I am cautiously optimistic that the relative success of the Sanders campaign has made that point and will continue to make it in 2, 4, 6, and 8 years on.

And ed, we'd love to have you in Michigan. You could live near Ann Arbor like I do. It's just enough city feel but otherwise a "slower pace" and a hell of a lot cheaper than the east coast, let alone DC. See ya soon. wink

- Nathan

Re: Trump

My wife's family is from MI (on her dad's side), so there are cousins, aunts, uncles out there. I've been there a few times and liked it, but not sure I can endure those winters again, after 4 years of Ohio winters in college...

I am happy that Sanders seems interested in a durable movement rather than a single campaign. One of my biggest pet peeves was the idea that there's somehow this broad progressive movement out there that's completely untapped. If so, let's forget about the presidency, which has limited utility anyway, and win back state legislatures, and governorships, and let's take back the Senate and make the House winnable again (through aforementioned state-level engagement). Until I see evidence that progressives routinely vote in midterms and local elections, the notion that there's this strong coalition out there remains just a notion to me.

Still hoping to hear from people on whether Warren being on the ticket would sway any greens toward the Dem side. My take on that a while back is that choosing Warren is a totally risk-free way for Clinton to seem bold and disruptive and that it's a no-brainer.

Also still holding out hope that Obama withdraws the Merrick nomination, puts his own name down for the supreme court, and that the senate hastens to approve him since they hate him in the white house so much, only to give this nation 7 months of a glorious Biden presidency. MAKE BIDEN 45 BARRY.

We need the birds.
I understand, but the files are organized alphabetically.

74 (edited by nguideau 2016-06-30 06:43:10)

Re: Trump

Thanks to global warming, southeastern MI winters are a lot more like DC winters, and our summers more like DC summers. You'd fit right in... tongue

You hit on another misgiving about Sanders' movement, which he fortunately has time to rectify. I understand wanting to influence the platform. But if Sanders' really cares about a progressive movement and wants to get young progressives to vote in 2 years, not just in 4, to say nothing of municipal ballots... he needs to leave the convention with a message of unity and a drive to push his grassroots ideas and fundraising power down ballot.

For any criticisms that progressives want to levy on HRC, she has funneled big bucks down ballot to a lot of liberal candidates and causes.

A ticket with Warren would be interesting, but I can't believe they would willingly give up that seat in the Senate. If they go that route, it is a huge statement about 1) just how concerned they are about Trump's ability to win and 2) just how concerned they are about Clinton's lack of typical political charisma.

EDIT: Oh yeah, my wife and I have joked since Scalia died that it would be like getting a new Sega Genesis on Christmas morning if Republican intransigence on the court pick leads to a Clinton presidency, the Dems retaking the Senate, and Obama -- lawyer and constitutional scholar he is -- being appointed to the bench.

- Nathan

Re: Trump

oh see, I don't think a Warren pick would signal desperation. Quite the opposite: we don't care that there are 2 women on the ticket. We don't care that neither brings a swing state to the table. We don't even care about the Senate seat, because we know we're taking it back in 2 years anyway.

And for Clinton, it shows some boldness and deflects some of her critiques from the left. Plus, she gets to say something like, "See? Having a woman president isn't about the same old conventional wisdom. You get real change."

I like Castro too. Would not like Kaine or any of that bullshit, tbh.

We need the birds.
I understand, but the files are organized alphabetically.