2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDUers Overwhelmingly Believe that Oligarchs are our Biggest Threat
Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 11:11 AM - Edit history (3)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027474777#opBigger than theocrats and racists combined, many times over. In fact, many DUers from this poll believe that racism and religion are the tools the oligarchy uses to divide us, and to conquer us.
And yet, we are supposed to embrace voting for the Oligarch Clinton. Why?
Ask why, and her followers will gladly confront you as a disloyalist, and accuse you of aiding and abetting a Trump White House.
And isn't that the game oligarch's always play? BOO! Racists! BOO, Fundies! Who will protect you from these horrors?
Don't ask yourselves who will protect you from the racist and theocratic GOP, ask yourself who will protect us from the 1%ers?
I can't see the answer ever being Hillary Clinton...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)So true. HRC is the problem, she is not part of the solution.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)Again, I say she is the only one. We lose, we suffer yet again if we think anyone else can defeat them.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)One Hillarry Rodham Clinton... UNQUESTIONABLY
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)And their second choice is the totally vapid Rubio.
Hillary will do Wall Streets bidding without instructions. She's one of them. With Rubio, they'll need a baby sitter to tell him what to do.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Perhaps she should have married in to their family instead of Bill.
And sorry, but working FOR expansion of "guest worker" (aka *indentured servant*) programs like H-1B is definitely NOT working for the middle class!!!
She can claim that she's protecting the "middle class" who have salaries between the current payroll tax cap (around $110k) and $250k slightly raised in order to justify not supporting a removal of the payroll tax cap to help social security and tax the billionaires APPROPRIATELY if that were done, but that's not going to wash with most voters who see through that line of crap!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Help
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)How does that serve the middle class! NOT!!!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)If Hillary were a royalist she would be a GOP person, they
are royalist:
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... if they didn't feel she was going to do something for them?
Today's Democrats are different than FDR's democrats. Economic Royalists using Citizen's United wouldn't let today's DNC centric Democrats to speak the way that FDR did. FDR's speeches of his day wouldn't be allowed by them today if he wanted to get campaign money from them. In other words, FDR if he were today would be more like Bernie.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)You know she is which is why, you're singing a different tune now.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Of all the corporations in the USA, Walmart?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She was on the board of directors
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Also is was good experience for Hillary to learn about a large company:
Sanders whole state only has 600,000. people. he doesn't have
chops to leader any management group, let alone the country.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)
Wow. What politicians need to do to get campaign money and influence these days!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hillary is NOT the answer to our problems.
ruffburr
(1,190 posts)It is not just DU'ers it's more than half of the country
daybranch
(1,309 posts)but what do we have to back this up?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)
people could quit the mindless cheering and sycophancy, it's as plain as her history .
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It isn't just redneck limbeciles who will vote against their own interests.
ValasHune
(38 posts)But we aren't going to let them have it.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)We can not afford the Republican voters that will come out in droves against her and destroy us down ticket.
We can not afford her even if she wins the GE and I think that would be a big if.
We need change and the spare change that trickles down from the top is not the type we're looking for.
Bernie 2016!
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)We will beat the GOP only with Hillary.....she has the political army to actually win. None of our other candidates have that arsenal of power needed to do the job.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)How ironic. 
Who has all the baggage? Hint, its not Bernie or Martin.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)ad nauseam. It's as though HRC's supporters need to convince themselves it's true.
A video of HRC's "lies" has gone viral, yet not one of her supporters from this forum has discussed with me what we must do to prevent the Republicans from successfully derailing her campaign using this and similar videos. If she wins the nomination (and, IMHO, that's a BIG if), we will have to contend with these and other issues, including the surveys that show that over 60% of those surveyed associate the word "liar" with HRC. That's just not going to garner support in the GE.
On the other hand, quite a number of people have become energized and engaged by Bernie Sanders' campaign. Senator Sanders has changed the political dialogue in our nation, and for that he has my undying gratitude. His awareness of the destructive and stultifying radical income inequity inflicted upon the vast Hoi Polloi by a handful of corporate hedonists (which for years has been a near constant concern for me and countless other US citizens, forced into marginalized existences by the corporate juggernaut) gives me hope that our nation can recover from this inequity, and provide a meaningful future for our younglings.
I consider this election the most critical one in my lifetime. Our younglings deserve a better future than the one we have thus far -- through action AND inaction -- bequeathed to them. I think Senator Sanders has a clear grasp of what needs to change, and I join the millions of other members of the vast Hoi Polloi in supporting him for our next President of these United States.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)Problem is, he can't win as he does not have; nor will he secure the power base to win this Election. You can't bring a fork to a gun fight and expect to win because you have the right goals.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)#2) Sanders has Cross Over Appeal from Independents, and even Republicans.
Hillary doesn't even have coat tails.
The other Democrats running in 2016 will be forced to run away from her.
Nominating Hillary would produce very LOW turnout, and be a disaster for the Democratic Party.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)to the activists in India who've stopped Monsanto's attempts to patent and control Neem seeds. Tell that to the activists in Cochabamba, who've stopped the privatization of water (including rainwater!) in their entire country.
As one Cochabamba activist said:
"One should never underestimate the power of the people."
Your "fork to a gun fight" analogy is sophomoric and overused. I have to suspect it's uttered so frequently by those who feel the most anxiety about the burgeoning support for Senator Sanders. It's okay, FarPoint, he'll be fighting for you as well.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)The reality is, Bernie Sanders does not have the needed support to be our Democratic Candidate....He brings a good message but is essentially an unknown beyond progressives.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)every time I see the massive crowds he's drawing.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No surprise there.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And I wonder how much she'll motivate the base when the base believes Bernie is more working for them than she is as opposed to billionaires.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)[url=https://imgflip.com/i/wcxx5][img]
[/img][/url][url=https://imgflip.com/memegenerator][/url]
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and what they are really about in terms of only working for the wealthy elite class!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) 
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I've known we live in an oligarchy for quite some time. My father, a successful industrialist but also a historian and anthropologist, used to speak to that as far back as the seventies. He said that that's where we're headed. The evidence that the influence and control of our government by monies interests, both personal and corporate, is undeniable by anyone employing critical thinking.
(Mardi Gras beads are more valuable.)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
On a different topic, every time I see your moniker, the novel One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest, comes to mind.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Soon after Nurse Jackie premiered, the New York State Nurses Association decried the unethical behavior of the title character, and the detrimental impression regarding nurses that such a portrayal could have on the public, stating, "In the first episode, Nurse Jackie is introduced as a substance abuser who trades sex with a pharmacist for prescription drugs ... She has no qualms about repeatedly violating the nursing Code of Ethics."
Nurse Jackie is an American medical dark satirical comedy-drama series
the character had "an occasional weakness for Vicodin, Percocet, and Xanax to get her through the days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Jackie
If that tells you anything
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)"This country is going to move so far to the right, you won't recognize it". As he was being led to prison.
Look where we are today. I can't recognize it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and campaign. Not doing that and not being involved is our own lazy fault.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Who have made it their life passion. Meaningless to the masses, that's fore sure.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that is just a word to use for the 1%, the corporatists and banksters and all the nameless villains that can be used.
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=205OVvSUEcSt-QGTt4T4AQ&ved=0CAQQqS4oAQ#q=oligarchy+definition
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
ejbr
(5,856 posts)wanted to hear before saying the opposite, or vice versa. It doesn't matter because poll numbers. 
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)are helping support the oligarchy.
Women, despite being 51% of the population, have never been represented in the office of either President or V.P., AND compromise only 1/5 of the members of the Senate.
Women are also grossly underrepresented in the leadership of large corporations.
People who profess concern about the oligarchy without caring about the patriarchy are -- quite literally -- missing half the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/upshot/fewer-women-run-big-companies-than-men-named-john.html?_r=0
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)You are dead wrong about the importance of oligarchy.
Putting women in power who have been vetted to have ideology sympathetic to the interests of the powerful rather than the masses helps noone but the woman in power and a few of her wealthy friends.
Why not vote for Fiorina if you are so concerned with getting female leadership? You wouldn't think of it, right? Because policy, right?
Policy matters, not just gender. Obvious to most of us.
I was a Warren supporter, would have loved to have supported a female candidate. But she isn't running, and Bernie is on the side of every underrepresented and underpriveleged group. The most informed and caring women I know all support Bernie. I hope you will reconsider your thinking on this.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that her vote will be helping to elect the first woman President.
Fiorina is a tea-party conservative and no progressive would vote for her.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)to describe herself. You can try to imbue her with qualities you desire but it ain't reality. To mention woman as you did in this case is gender bias, period. Hillary is no progressive. You should have just said I am voting for a woman who while calling them family issues is trying to turn women against men in the family.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Based on her Senate votes, "On the issues.org" rates her in the same category as Bernie, "hard core liberal."
I don't care what label she uses or doesn't use -- she's a progressive.
"while trying to turn women against men in the family" -- what a retrograde view of feminism. Wow. Some men ARE feminists, believe it or not. My brother is and my father was too, while he was alive.
ontheissues.org
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... is FALSELY labeled as progressive! It's pretty personal with us when someone that is interested in helping oligarchs wanting to pay for pols to help them in their race to the bottom as being "progressive".
It is all part of the effort to diffuse the term of "progressive" to try and render it meaningless, much like the Turd Way has also done this when they along with Obama formed the "Progressive Coalition for American Jobs" to push the anything BUT that label BS TPP free trade legislation. This group to go along with the Turd Way's "Progressive Policy Institute". If words are allowed to be misused, they then become useless!
https://ourfuture.org/20150311/a-trade-campaign-built-on-four-pinocchios
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The most recent reference I could find was in 2007, before the crash. And even Bernie supported them then.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... is a strength for her? She strongly supported H-1B back in the 2008 election. Why should we interpret that she's "evolved" on that when she hasn't spoken on this issue at all!
And why don't YOU put up some evidence of your BULLSHIT claim that he supports H-1B visas.
In fact in the first debate, he had to explain why he voted against that immigration bill because he was AGAINST the guest worker crap that was added to it then. Go back and watch his answer in that. He's on many occasions spoken out against H-1B and H-2B visas. I've posted links here many times. His stances against H-1B aren't too hard to find.
But you could help us if you find any more recent stances on H-1B by Hillary Clinton than the 2008 election, or any substantive articles showing that Bernie supported these programs. I'm sure some Clintonites will try to rationalize that his voting for some other immigration bills that also had guest worker amendments buried in them as him supporting those programs, but as with many other bills, he wasn't supporting the guest worker pieces of that, but on balance felt the need to pass the immigration pieces in those bills he voted for. It's interesting how Clintonites try to play both sides of these bills to characterize him one way or the other which he couldn't win with. If you had senators like Schumer actually put these H-1B and other guest worker programs in SEPARATE CLEAN bills, then we could measure truly what senators want and don't want, and not have it pollute their stances on real immigration reform.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)He doesn't support eliminating them. He is against raising the cap. Those are two different things.
And I haven't seen any evidence that Hillary has favored raising the cap since our economy was crashing around the time Obama was elected.
http://www.newsweek.com/sanders-defends-immigration-stance-358473
Sanders also stood firm on his opposition to raising the cap on visas for highly skilled workers, known as H1B visas, something businesses and particularly the technology community strongly advocate.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)YOU were making the assertion that he supported H-1B Visas. He is against raising the cap, and given a choice, he'd probably want to eliminate these programs the same way that the original author of H-1B back in 1990 or so who has also seen its abuse also wants to see H-1B program taken down.
The H-1B program was originally created by the Immigration Act of 1990, who's house sponsor then, Bruce Morrison, now speaks out heavily against this program as being one that is being abused in ways that those setting up the program didn't see happening then.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/30/visa-program-has-been-hijacked-outsourcers/VAg6o9KgS2tuoZ3WbmaqeK/story.html
When the H-1B visa program was invented in 1990, no one expected that Indian companies would be its biggest subscribers. “Exploitation of the H-1B by outsourcers is a new abuse,” said Bruce Morrison, a former Connecticut congressman who authored of the 1990 Immigration Act, which gave birth to H-1B visas. Morrison said the law — which vastly expanded employment-based green cards — was designed to curb the abusive practice of bringing temporary workers to fill permanent jobs. He crafted the bill with different professions in mind: nurses, physical therapists, and mechanics who serviced data processing machines, many of whom were from Taiwan and Korea.
“Rather than increase H-1Bs, we need to increase green cards — and deliver them to new hires immediately,” Morrison said. That “would eliminate the disincentive to hire Americans.”
But some companies have become addicted to H-1Bs. For them, the visas created a dream workforce: Young people with no family obligations who feel grateful for the chance to work long hours for relatively low wages. Workers who literally can’t leave for better-paying jobs. Disposable people who go home after three years or six years — just when they start getting expensive.
While some temporary workers might be magical geniuses capable of saving the US economy, many are not. Jay Palmer, principal consultant for Infosys, describes in court documents how the company brought workers straight from school — “freshers” — who needed months, if not years, to get up to speed. Some were being paid in rupees sent to Indian bank accounts, according to Palmer’s lawyer, Kenneth Mendelsohn. He said they survived on a stipend paid through a debit card, as they worked for the oil-field services firm Baker Hughes in Texas. “Six or eight Indians were living in a two-bedroom apartment.”
...
It's purpose then was as a means to provide quick access to some engineering talent that had a unique combination of skills (perhaps certain technical skills as well as some foreign language skills) that couldn't be found here. Now, there may be some rationalization for SOME engineers to be hired with that, but as that author probably would note, that is NOT what the program is in effect being used for. It is used to help institutionalize a bottom here in this country for cheap labor to go along with the legislated "bottom" that our stupid "free trade" bills also put in place so that the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer as a result of that.
Why would Hillary be justified in "raising the cap" in 2008 when the economy was crashing? It was crashing because so many of our jobs had left this country and so many people were unemployed then and the LAST thing our economy needed was a greater influx of TEMPORARY labor that sends back all of its earnings OUT of our economy back to their family overseas, and eventually takes their skill set to help build that economy when they return home. Nothing of this program helps anyone in our country except the rich in control of our companies here who want to reduce the labor costs at the bottom so that they can take home more rewards at the top and for the investor class.
The tech community OLIGARCHS like Zuckerberg support it, but I as a member of the tech community, and many like me in it DO NOT feel that it works for us. Those like Zuckerberg gain from this. Most tech workers here lose. This business is now largely a contract business, where permanent jobs are a lot harder to get than before, and to many of this this is by design, so that they can quickly dump us if they can get the VISA cap raised or dumped to fill their ranks with cheaper H-1B indentured servants.
And one thing many of these articles don't note but I have gathered from those I've talked to over the years, is that India for example provides free college education for a bachelor's degree to its citizens. Therefore when many of them come here, they are only having to pay for a bachelor's degree to have equal footing with the FEW Americans that are able to afford to pay for both a bachelor's and equivalent graduate degrees here. Another reason for us to get Bernie's free college education reforms passed too.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You are free to try to read his mind, but it's not there in his record.
And at the point Hillary last spoke publicly about raising the cap, it was in 2007 BEFORE the economy crashed.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)But as I noted the original sponsor of the immigration bill that created this program has noted, this program has been abused OVER and OVER again over the years. Each attempt to curb the abuse has failed, so that many of us say that if the companies that feel they really need this program not to just get cheap labor really were serious about that original goal, they wouldn't have allowed it to constantly be abused over the last few decades... They should realize that if they want it to serve them in its original form, that ultimately if it is abused it will be shut down and they will lose that benefit, even if it might be justified.
In principle I agree with the original design of that program as well, but the way it has been implemented has me wonder if it is possible for our corrupt government to make it serve that purpose instead of the exploitation it has been used for so much over the years. I believe Bernie feels the same way. It has been his immigration platform that has said we need to raise the base wages of this program so that it is at or exceeding prevailing wages over $100k, which would force those using it to use it for its original purpose, or it wouldn't make financial sense for them to use it to get cheaper labor than Americans would work for.
Bernie also as noted here is against a lot of the rules of this program (like locking employees in to one employer)
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=434512383412139&id=256809727849073&comment_id=434595833403794&reply_comment_id=434681123395265&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D
Perhaps he doesn't want to kill the program, but he's got many of the same concerns I have and doesn't take money from the body shop industry the way that Hillary does in her more explicit earlier support for it and the more recent silent tacit support for it. With his points of resistance and support, he sounds a lot like the original creator of H-1B who thinks that it should be replaced with a means to expedite the green card process for these workers, so that a lot of the baggage that H-1B has in it can be thrown out. Read the quotes from that article quoted from Computerworld here on her:
“Republican candidates who are seen as supporters of a visa cap increase are former Florida governor Jeb Bush and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).”
“Hillary Clinton may be more aligned with Rubio and Bush than she is with Sanders on the H-1B issue. While U.S. Senator in New York, Clinton traveled to Buffalo in 2003 to mark the opening of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) office. That was 12 years ago, but the H-1B issue was very much a subject of controversy by then. TCS is one of the largest users of the H-1B visa.”
“The Clinton links to the IT offshore outsourcing industry have continued since then through the work of the Clinton Foundation, where Tata has been participating in its STEM education efforts. Former President Bill Clinton was paid $260,000 by IT services firm HCL in 2011 to deliver a speech.”
“What remains to be seen is whether Sanders brings up the differences between him and Hillary Clinton on the H-1B issue, and forces a discussion on the issue.“
...
Down further...
Hillary “Control Freak” Clinton: Grade F. Hillary has strong credentials in foreign policy and many other matters and is strong intellectually and policy wise in economics. In H-1B and for the defense of IT Workers, she flunks badly. She received contributions from Tata and the other Indian outsourcing companies, she has not said BOO about this matter as Patrick mentioned. IT Workers to HILLARY, GET WITH THE PROGRAM! GRADE=F.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and I do NOT favor increasing the cap.
Where we disagree is in your comparison of Bernie's and Hillary's records. Bernie hasn't said anything suggesting we should eliminate the program, just not raise the cap. And Hillary hasn't supported raising the cap since 2007. So their positions, in the context of today, not 8 or 9 years ago, are very similar.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and it's not just the cap as I noted in my posts here, as do so many of us here that have seen this program in action in the trenches and know all of the tricks that have been used with it to abuse both American workers and those that have been employed by it.
Hillary has not said ANYTHING as noted in the earlier post since 2007 and gets a grade F as noted too. The last time she spoke on H-1B in 2007, she spoke in FAVOR of expanding this program and has over the years along with Bill taken a lot of campaign contributions from companies like TATA that have abused this system.
Just because she hasn't been vocal about "raising the cap" since 2007, when she DID advocate raising the cap then, doesn't mean that she now wants to keep it from being expanded. She has said NOTHING to indicate she's changed her position on supporting this program being expanded. In absence of her saying anything about it, I think many of us will in effect assume that she continues to support expanding this program, much like she's avoided talking about the TPP and free trade recently until she knew it would be a topic in the debate too.
I think if she wants our support, it is up to HER to be more concrete that either she's "evolved" to take a better stance on this program, or that she still supports it in a consistent fashion to her earlier stance on it.
Whatever the case, you really can't say that she and the Bernie are the same on this program, when he's consistently advocated AGAINST expanding it, and she's not said anything about stopping expanding it since 2007, which means in effect they've never had the same stance on it explicitly.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)That sounds like being on fire and "solving" the problem by jumping into the niagara river 500 ft above the falls.
Your post is what I would consider sexist. I hope you reconsider your position, or if nothing else, your reasoning on how you get to your position.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to be one of a range of considerations.
And it would be great for a liberal female to be elected, just as it was for a liberal African American to be elected.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Gender and race simply are. Voting for a particular gender or is no different than voting against a gender or race.
I weep for our democracy if this is at all considered reasonable thinking. Sincerely.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)was elected President, and I realized what a great thing that was -- how much more of a role model he would be for minority kids than, for example, John Edwards.
Or even Bernie Sanders, if he had run then.
And HRC could provide the same boost to the aspirations of millions of girls.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Else, you are choosing an American Idol winner, not a President and Commander in Chief.
It's really pretty simple.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Though Article 2 does leave the door open to a woman being President, as unlikely as that would be without them being able to vote.
In any case, Article 2 doesn't prevent any individual citizen from having his or her own considerations in mind when choosing whom to vote for.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It certainly does not prevent an individual citizen from having their own reasons, I just want you to be aware and on the record that it is not aligned with the constitutional role of the Presidency.
Once you agree with that, you can vote for the candidate most likely to be a closet unicorn, for all I care.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Is there something about a mandate for standing in for men everywhere?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Fact: Neither race nor gender are qualifications nor hindrances for the capability to execute these duties.
Conclusion: Consideration of either characteristic in choice of candidates clearly is not a factor which can reliably inform the best choice for the office. See: Palin, Fiorina, as you pointed out.
Everything you want to know about the role of the President in our government is in Article II, for easy reading at your leisure. There is no mandate about men in the role of the president.
Our elections should not be about sex (or other such personal attribute); that you would desire to make it so is a sexist goal and is opposed by every true feminist.
Have a wonderful evening.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)But the people who wrote Article 2 also denied women the vote.
You can say all you want about what our elections "should" be about. It's just your opinion. My opinion is that helping to level the playing field for women is something that can be counted among the "positive" factors of voting for a female candidate, among other positives. It wouldn't be sufficient all by itself, but combined with Hillary's other qualifications (the ones you refuse to recognize) her gender would be one more plus.
51% is the majority. It's long overdue to be represented, after more than 200 years.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)However, it is still naked sexism.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)But I don't think supporting Affirmative Action programs are racist, or that considering HRC's gender to be a positive factor is sexist.
Just a way to help level the playing field. It's been tilted toward men for far too long.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I tend to believe that in the absence of systemic institutional discrimination against a class in that specific area (not society at large), yes, it is racism. Why? Just ask the Asian American Legal Foundation, who wrote an amicus curiae brief for the Supreme Court: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/11-345_resp_amcu_aald-etal.authcheckdam.pdf
They make a powerful argument that at least in the case of Texas affirmative action was being used for engineering the racial makeup of the class to be what they wanted rather than any of the purposes of Affirmative Action.
(There may be an argument to be made for Affirmative Action in Fisher v. Univ of Texas which I am very sympathetic to, which is that K-12 education systemically discriminates by race since schools are generally not the same quality across the state. I wonder why they didn't pursue this avenue)
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I don't trust them to make a fair decision about Affirmative Action.
But now that I know you're generally against Affirmative Action, I have a better understanding about why you're against individual voters choosing to view gender as one of the factors considered in electing a President.
I just disagree.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I did not say that I was generally against Affirmative Action, that would be a mischaracterization. Please read the conditions I laid out for Affirmative Action to not be racist; they explain my position. It is also the reason that Affirmative Action is allowed to persist.
I am also not against individual voters choosing whatever criterion they want, including the possibility of the candidate being a closeted unicorn, in choosing a President. I just think you're deluding yourself if you don't realize you're reducing an election to American Idol. Which is fine, as long as that's what you want.
betsuni
(25,544 posts)You're told by two people to reconsider your thinking/positions because you are wrong and they are right and anybody can see this, it is simple and obvious. Your unreasonable thinking makes them weep with frustration (they have tried to educate people like you before and yet you all refuse to listen -- they give and give and do you take? no, you do not). It is sexist to mention that women are 51% of the population but underrepresented in leadership positions. That is NOT the percent you must be concerned with. It is the 1%. This is the only important number. 1%. And patriarchy is the wrong archy. Oligarchy. Repeat after me: Oligarchy, oligarchy, oligarchy, oligarchy, oligarchy. It is simple and obvious.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I do not think it is sexist to mention that women are underrepresented in leadership positions. It is sexist to consider sex as a criterion for election to public office. There is a real difference.
I will note that I have not mentioned the oligarchy once (yes this OP did but I am not responsible for that), that was your invention and deflection. I was simply addressing the blatant sexism the poster was displaying by choosing candidates (at least partly) on the basis of gender.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)in leadership positions.
It's just sexist to consider gender as even one of the criteria for actually choosing someone for public office.
That argument was tried when Barack Obama was first running, and it was lost then. Millions of people were happy to help a qualified African American to be elected.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Is that lipservice or is that true equality?
Yes, it is sexism to do so. You may not like that it is, you may think it is in some sense justified, but it is still a fact.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)not the only factor, in a hiring decision.
So is it racist?
If Affirmative Action for black people is not racist, how is Affirmative Action different from considering HRC's gender as one of the factors in the decision to hire her for President?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)for national office.
No doubt she realizes the compromises that would be necessary. She wouldn't just be representing the liberal state of Massachusetts anymore, but a huge, diverse country.
You think you're open-minded, but you're only okay with a woman who lacks the ambition to be President. So I'm not impressed.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Sorry that was just too funny of a deflection you just made.
You have no idea why Liz Warren isn't running. Now you're making stuff up which even contradict each other. First she realizes the political compromises and avoids it, then she lacks ambition. Which is it? Nice guesses though, truly hilarious grasping for straws.
Want to know the truth? I am only interested in voting for the woman who has a shred of personal integrity and character.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Why don't you just come out and say it if that's what you think?
I am also sick of the gender card being played on DU. You have brought up the fact that President Barack Obama (who I greatly admire) was the first AA president and some voted for him because of his race and the fact that it was underrepresented:
That argument was tried when Barack Obama was first running, and it was lost then. Millions of people were happy to help a qualified African American to be elected.
Many did not vote for him because he was AA, his POLICIES were what made him the candidate of choice. The fact that he was AA was a secondary factor. My point is most people vote for someone based on policies not race, gender, religion, etc. Anyone who pushed that then like they are pushing the fact that Clinton is a woman is making a ridiculous argument.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But when the calculus still comes out with Hillary Clinton being bad for the United States, bad for our personal situations, then that portion of the criteria doesn't overcome the negatives. Fiorina, Clinton, Warren. Think about it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Warren even signed a letter urging her to run, but she likes Bernie, too.
They're not all that different in what they'll be able to accomplish -- though the election of the first woman President will have a ripple effect on glass ceilings everywhere. But both will be fighting the Rethug-dominated Congress, which is what makes the laws.
senz
(11,945 posts)How can you not see that, pnwmom?
Warren has spent the past 10+ years fighting Clinton's major supporters tooth and nail. Clinton's cronies dislike Elizabeth Warren just as much as they dislike Bernie Sanders.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)urging her to run. Here's more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/
Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 — the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.
"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.
senz
(11,945 posts)Purely political. No female Senator could have refused to sign that without stinking things up for herself bigtime.
If you will notice, Senator Warren has not endorsed Hillary. If she'd been such a big supporter, she would have done so ages ago.
Politics has its own rules.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I never claimed Warren has endorsed Hillary. I specifically said she likes both Hillary and Bernie. And I assume she likes Martin, too, and is prepared to support whoever is chosen as the nominee.
senz
(11,945 posts)What she said was devoid of content; it was an empty compliment.
Hillary stands for everything Warren is against, but there is no way she can come out and say it without hurting herself politically and risking the wrath of the Clintons.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And Bernie must be, too, since he's said lots of nice things about Hillary -- even during the last debate.
senz
(11,945 posts)Holders of public office do not publicly knock members of their own party and generally do not cast personal insults at officeholders of the other party. There is a certain decorum to the office.
Of course they can speak their minds privately with those whom they trust.
Pnwmom, I find it difficult to believe you do not know these things.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)who you were sure she strongly disagreed with.
You'd be saying she was phony and inauthentic.
senz
(11,945 posts)This conversation seems to have suddenly devolved into the realm of the personal.
Not interested, pnwmom. Have a good night and a pleasant tomorrow.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)reconciled so easily. Not enough unicorn glitter in the world to backfill that hole you dug.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)That's the effing point. Because she's a woman (or he's a man) is not a reason to vote for anybody. imho.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)wouldn't vote for Carly or Sarah.
But I think it can be ONE of the considerations which, when added to her liberal positions and very strong qualifications, tips the scale for me.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Of Sanders base. I didn't believe them completely. Over the months I have come to understand that what you typed is at the core of a majority of Sanders support. Not all. But a majority.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)He characterizes the state of American 'democracy' as "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery".
Just in case you want to paint them as loons for agreeing about the presence of an oligarchy. It is one of the great challenges of our time, acknowledged by one of America's great presidents.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Very blatant at that. Love Carter. Have spoken to him. Great man.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I wanted to be clear that some great Americans also agree. I really have no idea what the point of your post was if not to imply that Sanders supporters are, as a whole, completely off base.
senz
(11,945 posts)This one is structural. Rule by a wealthy few is NOT democracy. Without the democracy that underlies our Constitution, we, the people, are powerless. Oligarchy is not valid governance; it has no rules, is not elected, ensures no rights, does not need to listen to the people.
We must, absolutely must, place democratically elected governance over the power of wealth. Corporations should not be allowed to compete with governments; they should exist by permission of government as they did in the early decades after our country's founding.
Hillary supporters, try to understand this. Think about it. It is important that you, and everyone, do so.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)In your effort to paint me as condescending, you left out the sentence that followed:
I want EVERYONE in the country to wake up to this.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)won't be able to wave his magic wand and get legislation through Congress.
Anyone who's terribly disappointed by President Obama -- who, when he took office, took over an economy that was LOSING 700,000 per month -- will also be disappointed by President Sanders.
And I think it is important for you to realize that if Sanders is the nominee, the Rethugs will make mincemeat out of him. By the time they're done, Sander's honeymoon in Russia will have turned into a secret birth certificate in Russia and a communist implant in his brain. Because they don't care how many lies they throw at a candidate, as long as they win.
HRC has shown an ability to withstand their attacks. Sanders hasn't.
But that's just my opinion and I know you disagree.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Par for the course.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)treated like mindless zombies on DU by some
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)All they hear is Hillary Clinton first woman president (just like in 2008). Nothing else matters to them.
Uncle Joe
(58,367 posts)Thanks for the thread, demwing.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... of Democrats, no less the citizenry at large.
Therefore, what "DUers believe" is of no consequence in the real world whatsoever.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)The real world has places like TN where I live-it is nothing like DU I can assure you.
treestar
(82,383 posts)who rants that we are in thrall to the "oligarchs."
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Amazin', ain't it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)was going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Remember when DU was convinced that President Obama was going to bomb Syria over Assad's gassing his own people? Remember when DU was convinced of all the other stuff DU was convinced of ... that never came to pass?
Hell ... Remember when the majority of DU was right about ... well ... anything?
Neither do I.
randome
(34,845 posts)And who spells their name with two capital letters side-by-side? What's up with that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)jeez
demwing
(16,916 posts)more like mi tía loca
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that got people like Donald Sutherland involved who's always worked against the oligarchy like he did even in the 60's when in the movie FTA too.
Yep, you share a lot of opinions with them, but not with most Americans that obviously are reading those books and watching those movies that reaches them when it doesn't reach you.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And an opinion that most people don't share. Evidently you have a hard time understanding why we have a system called "democracy" in this country which this party is supposed to be strongly for, that supports the notion that a majority opinion is what should guide us in the right direction.
But... I guess you don't really like or respect the system of democracy much, do you! Gotta have Clinton in power to keep it from affecting us Americans too much!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I learned how not to contrive a plot.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)You need "reasons" to reject such a notion by the way. Not just a blanket assertion.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I reject them as they have no substance nor any resemblance to reality.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I don't need wild rhetorical devices to prop my reasoning for my political stances, not to mention a presidential candidacy based on those wild rhetorical devices with no valid reason for even existing.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Using wild rhetorical devices is what politicians do.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Perhaps you do not like to be confronted with the facts of how our government is run and congress bought off.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)When speaking politically, politicians will always resort to wild rhetorical devices.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 27, 2015, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)
Leopards do not change spots. Thanks for that bit of clarity
treestar
(82,383 posts)and probably an excuse not to contact them about issues.
They have to win their elections. So they have reason to want to know what their constituents think.
I really doubt they consider only what the donors want and consider the voters to be dupes of the donors. That's just oversimplified.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)The straw men keep morphing into other straw men. It's hard to keep up.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)There are certainly many well known scholars that back the fact that an oligarchy DOES exist. If Clinton supporters adamantly support woman's issues would take the blinders off, they will see exactly how and why their issues aren't getting the attention they should. The oligarchy controls the money and power and thus what gets done. While I've seen Clinton supporters pay lip service to the overturning of CU, none that I have seen seem to understand that it is the money and power of those who control the nation prevent us from getting the things done that we need to.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)CT woo, nothing more.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If I had the choice of trusting what you say or what Secretary Reich says, I'd take Secretary Reich twice a day and five times on Sunday.
demwing
(16,916 posts)1. Do you believe that great sums of money are required to win a Congressional election?
2. Do you believe that Congress represents the will of the average American?
I believe that most Americans would answer Yes to the 1st question and No to the 2nd.
So lets consider that...
A few hundred congressmen and women--either wealthy enough to finance their elections on their own, or willing to accept donations from those who seek influence--decide what our Government spends or does not spend, where we drop bombs or do not drop bombs, and whose votes are counted, or are not counted. And as a group, Congress is notoriously distrusted as being more responsive to their donors than they are to their voters
So a few hundred individuals, on the strength of their access to large amounts of money, run the government and largely ignore the will of the electorate.
And you think that calling this an oligarchy is kooky? It looks, walks, and quacks like a duck...
What I think is kooky is the lengths to which people will pursue the pretense that there's no evidence for the obvious.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Congressional candidates have been capable of unseating incumbents with very little in the way of donations, and while there is no member of Congress that represents the will of the entirety of the nation, their are almost no members of Congress that do not represent the will of their districts.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)I'm not in the habit of defending things I didn't write/say.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)oligarchy
noun | ol·i·gar·chy | ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-
Simple Definition of oligarchy
1 : a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people
2 : the people that control a country, business, etc.
3 : government or control by a small group of people
Full Definition of oligarchy
plural ol·i·gar·chies
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
demwing
(16,916 posts)You obviously don't have to agree, but if you don't understand why many people here see Clinton's deep, well established, and long held financial ties to Wall Street, her reluctance to regulate the 1%ers, and her tradition of support for trade deals that benefit the 1% over the middle class as evidence of her membership in the oligarchy, then what else can I say to you?
Agree or don't, but I'm not going to rehash years of DU posts and threads that have already made this argument, and in a manner much better than I could ever do justice.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can still vote, campaign and exercise free speech. People in real oligarchies can't.
It's one thing to argue that there is too much influence of money in politics, but we can argue that, we have laws against direct bribery and most of us, we can inform ourselves and not be slaves to the things that money can buy campaigners.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)but electing Chamber of Commerce APPROVED "Democrats" will make that WORSE,
not better.
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)and make a few additional tweaks to certain proper nouns, this post really isn't that much different in tone and style from what you see on a typical pro- Ron/Rand Paul website.
There's always a bogeyman.
demwing
(16,916 posts)because Libertarians.
Got it.
DFW
(54,410 posts)I usually pass over ANY thread with the word "corporatist" or "Oligarch" in it, but what the hell.
I see our biggest threat as being ignorance. Deliberate, planned, and dangerous. Fox Noise is a big part of it, as FOX is so religiously followed, but the many God-Shop megachurches and Republican legislatures trying to eradicate secular education contribute heavily, too. It is no accident that the less educated a group or area is, the more they vote Republican. This, in turn, means people in the House and Senate (and, sometimes, White House, e.g. 2001-2009) denying climate change and supporting creationism. It means justices on the Supreme Court willing to negate abortion rights and voting rights. Ignorance means people voting for candidates who will deliberately try to worsen their lives.
This isn't Bernie Sanders. This isn't Hillary Clinton. This isn't Martin O'Malley. This is EVERY Republican.
I refuse to get caught up in the Fox Noise tactic of making up a label for everything and then demanding it be used, right or wrong. So, no "oligarchs" or "corporatists" for me. Just bad people, and THAT means Republicans*
*i.e. not us.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I think money in politics is the root of all evil. Yes politicians need money to run a campaign (a ton of it), but when it comes from people that pull the strings behind the scenes it generally works against what most of us want. One of the rare exceptions was the election of President Obama (yes, he did take PAC money but he also raised a crap load of money from individual donors).
My inclination is not to trust anyone, Republican or Democrat, who raises money primarily from large donors. The wealthy have had their way for a long time. Certainly it is way past time for the pendulum to swing the other direction. Societal problems like hunger, homelessness, infrastructure, health care (there is always room for improvement from what we have) need to be dealt with and in my opinion putting someone in the WH who is beholden to special interests will not do that. Neither will it help get rid of the money in politics, which is the bigger problem that most people on DU ignore (I know you know this).
Some people are happy to elect a candidate to the WH who will be business as usual and that is honestly what worries me.
DFW
(54,410 posts)I have advocated that since long before Citizens United. As long as that's the system, people will play by those rules. When the rules no longer permit it, a great mission will have been accomplished. It is perverse that good-minded politicians who want to change that rule can only get elected by asking for money, but that is the house we have allowed to be built. It only gets torn down by us, not by the Republicans whose lifeline to power is perpetuated by it.
"Business as usual" is a tricky phrase to use when referring to the White House. Our system of government relies on a certain amount of "business as usual" in that without a certain amount of consent from the House and Senate, a president's best intentions remain an unfulfillable list of presents requested on Santa's knee at the mall. We'll never get what we want overnight. The sooner we accept that, the better. Less money in politics means a better list of governors, reps and Senators for a Democratic President to work with. The rub is that the Republicans put in place the institutions best suited to perpetuate themselves, and Fox Noise reinforces that.
We need to reverse the steps in order. If we take the White House and the Senate, then we nominate Supreme Court justices who will repeal Citizens United, and uphold abortion rights as well as voting rights, civil rights. THEN we enact legislation with ironclad protection against Republican meddling, and have it confirmed by the inevitable (and failing) challenges to the Court. THEN we can build upon the foundation, but that foundation must be established first, or it will be so fragile that a filibuster or a wavering SCOTUS justice can block progress in its tracks, no matter HOW benevolent the president. Just ask Barack Obama.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I also agree that it won't happen over night. It probably won't happen a decade from now.
I'm hopeful maybe the next president will appoint Barack Obama to the SC as he could do some great work there. Hell would would make me really happy is if Scalia dropped dead, Obama appointed himself to the SC, and Biden finished out the remainder of his term allowing him a year as president. That would be a three fer.
DFW
(54,410 posts)Can a sitting president appoint himself to the Court? There's no real precedent for it, but nothing specifically forbidding it either. He'd still need to be confirmed by the Senate--McConnell's Senate, mind you. Of course, a president can't make a Supreme Court justice drop dead by executive order, either, so we probably won't get a chance to find out.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Especially right in the middle of a presidential campaign.
DFW
(54,410 posts)We don't get to find out. But imagine Obama writing opinions diametrically opposed to Alito. YUM!!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)But certainly by the time he leaves office a SC justice could die and the next president could appoint him. Either that or Ginsberg could decide to retire and Obama could be nominated for her seat.
I bet you know the answer to this one. Who was the last former president to serve on the SC after his presidency?
Number23
(24,544 posts)And also explains the clear and serious lack of (racial) minority posters.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)The term oligarch as a description of our government has really only been used for a short term. So, would the average American say that oligarchs are the biggest threat to us? Maybe not. However, the average American would say that money has corrupted our government and the majority of Americans don't vote because they feel the government does not represent their interests. So, whether the average American would use the term oligarch or not the average American knows that their government does not represent them and therefore the majority of them don't vote.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)number one threat is whatever you believe it to be. Is that it?
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Arguments designed to elicit "the feels" reminds me of FOX HATE NEWS' approach to politics.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)not voting for Hillary will result in total domination by Republicans and the destruction of this country are not "eliciting the feels"?
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)I'm very glad the most qualified candidate is a Democrat. The only time I got into my feels about voting for a president TWICE was for President Obama. I've been voting for years so this is not a new process for me. That fear mongering meme you mentioned in your post is for another demographic. I'm African American and that sort of madness doesn't work on me.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)experience and record.
senz
(11,945 posts)and carpetbagged, at that. Two terms.
Bernie was the Mayor of Burlington, VT for several terms before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and then the Senate. He has served honorably and well in the legislative branch for a quarter of a century.
HRC does not even come close to Bernie's experience.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)US senators are elected. HRC won two terms as the senator from New York, which is a one of the populated states in the country. Yes Bernie served as an independent for 25 years in the House and Senate. That lengthy time has not translated into political power, major signature legislation, or relationships that would allow him to get his proposed legislative agenda through in a projected divided Congress.
He became a Democrat in 2015 so he could use the Democrat machine so he could run his presidential campaign. And now he is suing the DNC.
HRC was SoS for 4 years, the ultimate national security and foreign policy experience. The only thing better would have been the vice presidency.
senz
(11,945 posts)They won't discuss the very real threat to democracy; it does not interest them. All they want is to push their candidate into the presidency, the American people be damned. If their attitude were held widely throughout the populace, there would be very little hope for the nation.
It has been amazing and heartening that so many turn out to hear Bernie and how enthusiastic people are about his message. But it is also amazing that some, at least here on DU, ridicule and disparage those who agree with Bernie.
None of this is real for them; all that exists is their candidate. I think our best bet is to set them aside and move onward.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)I was thinking the same thing about Bernie supporters.
demwing
(16,916 posts)There are 2 or 3 Hillary supporters on this thread that really fit the description you gave ("None of this is real for them; all that exists is their candidate"
They all happen to be on ignore, and I didn't see their comments until I signed out of my profile and checked the thread. Their mentality is stunning...they come off more like sports fans than like political junkies. All that seems to matter is that their franchise wins.
Someone needs to buy these people some peanuts and Cracker Jacks, 'cause they are definitely "out to the ballgame..."
senz
(11,945 posts)The ones I have on ignore are the nasties. So far, I've allowed the non-thinkers to come through, but it's becoming difficult. 
However, maybe it's good to see what they say (in small doses) just to keep from overestimating the possibilities of advancement in our species. We homo sapiens are, as always, a mixed bag.
So, please accept my apology, demwing. 
And please, fellow readers, take these little editorials in the right spirit, which is:
demwing
(16,916 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They are complimentary struggles, and never at odds with each other.
