2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGomez163
(2,039 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Maggie Williams (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Williams
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Response to w4rma (Reply #71)
Gomez163 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)They seem more obsessed over Vince Foster than the right.
I guess it beats dealing with the issue at hand. Post Vince Foster and go into victim mode seems to be their MO.
MattP
(3,304 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-backed post-coup government rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries, opening the door for further violence and anarchy.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
Henhouse
(646 posts)Response to Henhouse (Reply #3)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)We were all new here at some time, my friend!
Baobab
(4,667 posts)years ago.
Which will heavily impact skilled jobs - Basically a huge guest worker program.
Henhouse
(646 posts)randr
(12,413 posts)You are transparent.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)I'm not finding too many people admitting they like Hillary and I'm in Missouri, where Claire McCaskill keeps getting re-elected.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I do "think election fraud and rigged DNC rules don't have anything to do with that".
Double negatives are not no fun!
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)No, I don't believe there has been election fraud. Not to say there hasn't been issues ... but the vast majority of issues that there has been, has affected BOTH Secretary Clinton and BS. I am VERY concerned about places like AZ in the General Election because of it.
Rigged DNC rules? Rules that have been around for decades? Yeah, they created SDs back in the 70s(?); set up the registration rules in NY decades ago; and everything else; because they knew that Secretary Clinton was going to be running against BS in 2016 ... and they wanted to screw him. How much tin foil do you require for that hat?
-none
(1,884 posts)You know the Florida democratic Senator in charge of the DNC? The one that backs Republicans over Democrats?
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)She has repeatedly supported Republican candidates over Democratic candidates time and time again down here. She is a progressive who lives in FL's nightmare.. But then again, the entire party "elite", is very, very DINO-like. AND look at how F'd up FL really is. Look at that freak of a Gov.
Now, if you are a wealthy elite from her neck of the woods, supporting predatory lending is probably just A-ok with everyone.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)As chair of the Red to Blue campaign for electing House Democrats, she refused to campaign against three Republicans in Florida because of prior friendships and their joint support for the state sugar industry.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24478039.html
''At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant,'' Wasserman Schultz said.
The decision comes as Democrats believe they have their best shot in years to defeat at least one of the Cuban-American incumbents with a roster of Democrats that include former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, outgoing Miami-Dade Democratic party chair Joe Garcia and businesswoman Annette Taddeo.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)The Democrats had no names for the challengers at that time. And DWS said she would sit on the sidelines and request the DNC get someone else to do that work, which means she wasn't campaigning for or against the Republican candidate. glowing's charge was that DWS was "supporting" Republican candidates. This doesn't show that in the slightest.
BootinUp
(47,177 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)300 delegates and 3 million votes is insurmountable at this point.
Doesn't MO usually go red in presidental elections.
-none
(1,884 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)Romney carried MO.
Obama still won.
Hillary will win with or without MO.
-none
(1,884 posts)Plenty of reason to do so.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Really grasping now.
It's over.
Hillary will be our nominee and the next president.
-none
(1,884 posts)She has too much baggage for her not to be impeached. Whatever, Hillary will at best (or worst) only be a one term President.
Both front runners are hated to much for either to actually win the General.
It is going to get interesting.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)The made up scandals won't stick any better than they ever have.
I expect she'll serve 2 full terms and continue
the progress started by President Obama.
-none
(1,884 posts)We need Someone like Bernie Sanders in there, to get a real recovery started. Not some 3rd Way Republican Lite, that the Republicans are starting to come around for.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)The voters disagree with you.
They want Hillary.
She's ahead by 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
The majority just didn't have any faith in Bernie.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Time to take another count.....
griffi94
(3,733 posts)He's still done.
I saw he got more delegates from Washington
it isn't going to make a dfference.
There aren't enough open primary big delegate states
left for him to make up what he lost in the south and NY MD PA.
Since none of the states are winner take all
the best he can hope for is to chip away her lead but
there are only what 8 more contests.
He's out of rope.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)It's going to be a contested convention.
Your "it'a all over" talk is naught but hot air and amateur psyops.
Because the superdelegates are going to break
for the outsider candidate with the fewest pledged delegates and less actual votes
just because his supporters really really really want him to win.
Hahahahahaha.
It'll be over on the first ballot.
To even get the superdelegates to consider flipping to Bernie he'd have to
be ahead in pledged delegates and votes.
Not going to happen.
He's out of rope.
840high
(17,196 posts)know any people who voted for her.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)uponit7771
(90,348 posts)BootinUp
(47,177 posts)unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)Truthiness definition: Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]
I have now seen this word used twice in support of Clinton, maybe you are right there is no logic or intellectual examination, or facts when it comes to her Policies.
I don't think you really understood Colbert.
BootinUp
(47,177 posts)apparently wasn't clear to you.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)"attempt at satirizing the OP" was just that an attempt.
BootinUp
(47,177 posts)unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)There is a reason grounded in actual facts as to why they are protesting. So no, your use of that term does not fit.
BootinUp
(47,177 posts)That poster does nothing but spread crazy conspiracy theories. I don't even need to look at it to know thats what it is.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)are one of the main reason I come here. I've learned more from your post than any others here. For that I thank you.
Peace
MattP
(3,304 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Originally, President Obama backed ousted Honduran president (supporters shown in civilian clothes below).
Secretary of State Clinton said, no, the gangsters are on our side, trumping Democracy and Justice.
Dancing with Monsters: The U.S. Response to the 2009 Honduran Coup
"A coup anywhere in Latin America is a very big deal.
By Alvaro Valle
Harvard Political Review, April 13, 2015
SNIP...
The U.S. Response
Latin American governments immediately denounced Zelayas ouster as a military coup. The United States was not quite as decisive in its diction, with the initial statement from the Obama administration merely calling on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms. Obama did go on to denounce the coup in the following days, but Frank noted that Obamas characterization of the government change was very important. He very clearly failed to call it a military coup. If he had called it a military coup, the United States would have had to immediately suspend all police and military aid, Frank explained. Eventually some money sent was suspended, but the vast majority was not.
Following the coup, President Obama called many times for the reinstatement of Zelaya. In contrast, Secretary of State Clinton made remarks that were far more equivocal. When asked if the United States had any plans to alter aid to the coup government, , Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. But if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome. Clinton seemed to prioritize having a stable regime over preserving democratic ideals.
As further evidence, Clinton wrote in her book, Hard Choices, In the subsequent days [after the coup] we strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot, revealing that even as the administration publicly advocated for Zelayas return, Clinton was not working to ensure that it would happen.
Pastor added that Clinton had personal connections with supporters of the coup government that may have led her to soften her stance. For instance, Lanny Davis, Bill Clintons former personal lawyer and a longtime Hillary Clinton supporter, lobbied in Washington for the Honduran coup government, Honduran elites, the Business Council of Latin America, and the American companies that took issue with Zelayas reforms. Bennett Ratcliff, another top Democratic campaigner with close ties to the Clintons, also worked for the Honduran coup government as a lobbyist in Washington. These personal connections to advocates for the coup government raise troubling concerns that political ties influenced Clintons stance.
In Clintons defense, these personal connections were not the only political forces supporting the coup. Levitsky noted that initial opposition to the coup in the United States may have given way because Republicans held a couple of major U.S.-Latin America appointments: the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and the Ambassador to Brazil. They held these positions hostage to a softening of U.S. policy toward the coup government.
CONTINUED w/ links sources etc....
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/us-honduran-coup/
Of course, it's plausible that all this just happened to favor Empire at the expense of Democracy. Then, it would be mere coincidence that today many if not most of the progressive -- socialist -- regimes in South America and Central America have been replaced by rightist regimes. Kind of reminds me of another time in history when the State Department/CIA made an end-around directives from the Oval Office.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)but hadn't read about Bennett Ratcliff or Bob Squier (in the second Guardian article you linked). Democrats with their hands in the third world cookie jar. "Who's in charge of US foreign policy?", indeed, an excellent question.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It was 1991, a short time after the generals, with the tacit approval of Poppy Bush, overthrew the first democratically elected leader in 70 years of the poorest nation in the hemisphere. I wrote about it 13 years or so later on DU:
Aristide told me the Generals ran Dope, Inc. on Haiti. Personally.
Posted by Octafish in General Discussion (Through 2005)
Sat Mar 20th 2004, 06:49 PM
Sorry if the following is an old read. The thing held true then and holds true still
I met Jean Bertrand-Aristide after he was deposed by the generals in the early 90s. He came to metro Detroit and spoke before the Cranbrook Peace Foundation.
The newspaper I then worked for didnt see any reason for sending me to cover Aristides speech. The editors werent BFEE, but the events on a Caribbean island just werent local enough for their budget. So, I went on my own time.
The Cranbrook people were happy to see me. They wanted, of course, as much coverage as possible. So, they invited me and the other interested reporter types to have at him for an hour before his address.
Im ashamed to report, at an important event in two nations larger media market, only a couple of CBC radio reporters out of Windsor and one local Detroit TV crew bothered to show. I was the lone print guy. Anyway
Aristide answered every question asked in English or French. He also told us about life in Haiti, where there were four doctors to care for 4 million people. Another interesting stat: One percent of the population own 99-percent of the property.
I asked Aristide what the United States could do to help him restore democracy to Haiti? Aristide said all Poppy Doc Bush had to do was pick up the phone, call the generals and say, Get out, and they would quit their coup and the first democratically elected leader of Haiti in 75 years would be returned to power. Bush didn't and Aristide wasn't until Clinton sent the US Marines, many years and many Haitian lives later.
The reason for Bush Senior's inaction? Aristide said he didnt know the answer, but he suspected Bushs politics favored the landowners over the masses. (Sounds familiar, I then thought and still think today.)
Aristide said that the generals were deep into the wholesale cocaine importation business. Now who would be their partner in all that? Besides the wealthy landowners, for whom the Generals worked, I mean.
Original OP from 2004: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1257891&mesg_id=1259743
The Bushes and the people they front for are doing to the United States of America what the landowners of Haiti -- and those in Columbia and the other nations of the world where the small minority control the majority of wealth, land and resources. These undemocratic tools only work to enhance their own privileged positions and holdings. The rest of humanity could be cattle or piss-ants, for all they care.
You know I am a broken record when it comes to Nov. 22, 1963: The problems our nation and world face today -- from war without end to inequality and welfare for the wealthy to pollution and overpopulation to those who think "There's nothing we can do..." stem from that moment when the forces of totalitarianism took control of the US government from democracy.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)with great interest.
My memory for detail is not great, but I once watched (CNN I think, not sure though, could have been PBS) Judy Woodruff do a live interview with Aristide as he was being put into a U.S. helicopter to be taken off the island for his safety (so they said). It was so surreal, I decided Woodruff had to be working for the CIA, the questions were all something off a script about the dangers of liberation theology and how Aristide had not kept his word on bringing reforms to benefit the people, with the underlying premise that us good Americans were inconvenienced by having to escort him elsewhere for his safety.
It was clearly a coup, no matter how Woodruff spun it (I think it was the removal of Aristide after he had been re-installed as leader, not sure though), and contrary to the premise of the interview, he was desperately trying to communicate that he was being taken against his will, a message Woodruff danced skillfully around.
I used to sport a window sticker that said Cocaine Import Agency, with aligned text to emphasize CIA. That window was shattered, apparently by a baseball bat, right at the location of that sticker. Must have pissed off someone.
Keep up the broken record discussion re JFK, it was essentially a coup in our own nation, no matter how the powers that be portray it.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Unlike Bush, Clinton did try. He sent in the Marines to reinstall Aristide. On his second try, the generals stepped aside until Bush 2 in 2004. Then they helicoptered him to safety in South Africa. Now it's business as usual.
WikiLeaks details:
http://www.thenation.com/article/wikileaks-haiti-aristide-files/
Interesting times, these.
I hope she never makes it to the presidency.
Joob
(1,065 posts)She never chooses the right side first. Sometimes she "evolves" ...but at what cost do we say enough is enough.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)one is actual change the other merely disguising ones self to fit the situation
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)She seems to have never stood for anything.
Convictionless on legs.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)at least they found someone people dislike more, for her to run against.
good luck with that hills.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)but Berta Cáceres? Not so much.
Latin American politics may be a little (a lot) too messy for them. They can't even handle protesters passionately making their thoughts known re: Hillary's deadly policy positions. How are they going to endure the GE if it is indeed Hillary v. Trump?
Response to amborin (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)spoken. I swear to Dog that some of the crap I've been seeing recently sounds like it was written by Jones or Jerome Corsi. Paranoia, tin-hat conspiracy conjecturing, portraying themselves as 'champions of the downtrodden workers', absolute refusal to engage in any conversation that requires facts instead of their personal fantasies. When we see this shit on Free Republic or World Nut Daily we damn near pop a hernia pointing it out and ridiculing it. But when it's posted on DU, it suddenly becomes words of great import given by deep thinkers who, alone among us are special enough to uncover all these up to now hidden conspiracies. Wow.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Response to cantbeserious (Reply #53)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Response to grossproffit (Reply #59)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
amborin
(16,631 posts)MFM008
(19,818 posts)she shot Lincoln.
fizzlerynx
(13 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)him as the junior senator from Vermont, serving as minority member of the senate Committee on Landfills and Solid Waste Disposal.
eridani
(51,907 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)But it will be texted, tweeted, liked and shared. But only among those interested in the first place.
Democratic Divo
(64 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)is more of a reflection on you.
Response to B Calm (Reply #73)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)OhZone
(3,212 posts)as this goes on. Crazy conspiracy theories will be brought up more and more.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)It may be hard - Bernie himself needed to climb aboard the Democratic Party in order to even be able to be considered part of the Presidential primaries. His Democratic Socialist (or Independent, I can't tell from one day to the next) party doesn't seem to have garnered much support.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)from DU.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Now that Ms. Clinton is openly courting Republican leadership, what's stopping you all?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)get to call the shots.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)yeah, I didn't think so.
It's not over and she hasn't 'won'. Most likely it's going to be a contested convention.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)We don't care how many furiners she get killed or rightwing juntas she helps. Furriners dont vote!!!!
As demonstrated in this thread, Hillbots are morally and intellectually just a hair above Bushbots, maybe not even that.
Look for 4 very interventionist years if she gets elected.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)makes you believe somehow you help Bernie...just the opposite. People like Hillary more than Bernie which is why she won and he lost.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Why isn't Bernie winning?