delrem
delrem's JournalHillary is bad news. A war monger supreme. In the pockets of investment banking interests.
She and her husband took in $25 million from speaking fees alone, direct to their private account, for 2014 and early 2015. So right until now when she's making her run they've been raking it in.
That's hard to write off as insignificant, esp. considering the hundreds of thousands of dead the wars that she supports produce - and the limited benefit to be had beyond for those in a select well moneyed crew.
This is a problem that she can't avoid, nor can the Democratic Party avoid it if they choose her to lead.
I wouldn't want to be a US American faced between a choice between Hillary and some Republican clone.
Forced to pretend that there's some real difference, beyond mere slogans. Trying to pretend that it's all worth it.
Nope. It's just an inference.
My bad!
eta: but I take them at their word, and they are universal in their acclaim for Justin Trudeau's political leadership and program as evidenced so far.
I'm amazed. It in fact is contrary to Hillary Clinton's "plans" in just about all ways. Justin Trudeau's Liberals are a little to the left of Bernie Sanders, and Stephen Harper was/is a little to the left of Hillary Clinton - IMO of course. If Canadians used mungy third-way words to describe politics, Trudeau would be "a centrist", as it's seen up here. Not exactly a "socialist", as per the NDP, or even decidedly "left" as the left is defined here. We're waiting to see and as someone said to me "He's a wild card. Look at his mother, first, then at his father."
But jeez, it's nice to be rid of Harper and that kind of myopic corporate extremism.
What this election did was put a STOP (sorry for the caps) to the "swing to the right" of Harper's Reform/Conservative rule, which ruled Canada essentially as a company town taking orders from absent owners.
A bit like Hillary will rule the USA, except only as an echo in comparison, I'm afraid to say. That STOP is something, but otherwise not all that substantive.
Substantive was that on his first day he contacted Obama to explain that Canada would no longer being doing bombing runs in the ME. On his FIRST DAY. I didn't believe it when I read it first on DU and said so, and was chastised when a few hours later I got "a better link". So I know about "proofs" and "links" - and that I got caught out badly in my wording of this OP.
Your OP claims that Canada has a "growing Jihadi cancer".
It claims that Canadian Muslims are secretly taught to hate Canada in their mosques.
It claims that Canadian Muslims are taught that it's forbidden to sing the Canadian national anthem.
It claims that the US/Canadian border is a problem because of a Canadian Muslim threat.
Your OP is written by a US American "journalist" based in Paris, France - who writes hearsay and totally made up nonsense in opposition to the direction our new Prime Minister is taking, starting the long process of ramping down the pro-war_on_terror hysteria that has fueled so much hate, war and death over the past 14 years.
I'm a Canadian and I live in a very multicultural (Canada is an explicitly multicultural country) area of one of our larger cities. I'm surrounded by Jewish/Muslim/Christian/Atheist/Buddhist/Jain/Sihk/etc. people, all of whom live and interact in harmony. I'm surrounded by Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, German, Norwegian, British, French, Iranian, Russian, Pakistani, Indian, First Nations, ...., people, all living and working together in harmony, making this a good place to bring up our families. When I knock on doors for my candidate at election time I'm met with grace by near all residents, regardless of their cultural background.
I totally resent your divisive, war mongering, fear mongering OP. Your portrayal of Muslims as secretly out to destroy Canada, as taught in their mosques. You have no idea how much I resent the politics of hate that brought the neverending Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, the war on Libya, on Syria, on Yemen, and I wince when people claim that the war isn't a war of choice and isn't already happening. Esp. when they post anti-muslim war propaganda while flying Hillary's banner.
I don't see why any Dem candidate should boast that they can get along with Republicans.
Republicans have never returned the favor, so at this point I think sucking up is overdone. Maxed out.
And how many hundreds of millions of $$ has another Dem candidate been bought for?
I think it's time to take the game to them.
I don't know how to discuss politics with you.
I didn't say that KM's endorsement proves something about the Black community, and I didn't say that it'll have some overwhelming effect on the Black electorate. That's your red-herring. Your avoidance.
I said that your suggestion that KM might endorse HRC was to laugh. And it is to laugh.
I didn't say that I knew of KM before this. In fact in other posts I've said to the contrary. But because of this now I have listened to his endorsement speech and a couple of his raps, and wow...
Chance of KM even considering endorsing HRC = 0.
Absolute 0.
In fact, I'm surprised he endorsed any Dem or any Rep, including Bernie Sanders. The fact that he did endorse Bernie made me listen closer to what he's saying and not go off like a half-cocked reactionary like I usually do.
The raps I listened to are incandescent.
I'll put it this way:
I'm white, Canadian, unaware unless my nose is pushed into it.
Bob Marley, MLK, have a "safe" way of expressing their message to my ears, and yes, my general agreement with that message (hey, I'm no rasta) goes little further than the weakest lip service because it's not my immediate world.
The KM raps I listened to were scary. The references to Malcolm X's statements and to immediate reality don't make for comfortable listening. In fact, as I said, scary.
I just listened to _Pressure_.
Nobody who wrote that would endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Not even close. Way better chance of me switching over to her team and joining you in the disparagement of "economic justice", in whittling down the well-known and applauded demand for a $15/hr min wage to $12/hr, the dismissal of universal single-payer health care as a ridiculous pipe dream, the dismissal of universal guaranteed public college education as too costly, and etc. in EVERY PARTICULAR. And that won't ever happen.
And if *you* were aware of his poetry and music before this, you'd know that.
So I really do wonder what you're about, claiming some identity with KM's politics and goals, because nothing you've written to disparage the politics of economic justice over the past few months is consistent with that, and in fact as I said is contrary of that.
True Democratic and progressive ideas belong on the main board.
They'll get a lot of flack.
Some will try to exterminate them. Like, they'll actually contend against a single payer health care system. They'll actually contend against $15/hr in favor of $12/hr.
Just because.
Hey, they own the Democratic Party.
I expect to be alerted on, now.
But I've learned certain lessons after posting a lot to DU and having posts hidden, having to go through time-outs where I took the time to re-think how I express myself.
My rules are:
1. be honest.
2. be unafraid to say the truth.
3. be diplomatic, but defend free speech, the free discussion of ideas, and push back against censorship however it is being pushed.
WillyT's point was entirely about politics. It wasn't "anti-LGBT" or "anti-" any identifiable group.
WillyT's post implicitly as well as explicitly criticizes HRC's so-called "evolution" from the HRC evidenced in her 2004 speeches (when she was 57 yrs old, so set in her moral compass), which proudly proclaim a faith-based Methodist absolutist moral judgment w.r.t. (in the words I grew up learning go together in perfect synchronicity) "the sanctity of marriage", to being a "progressive" who supports "marriage equality" in 2013.
Remember, HRC was 57 years old in 2004. When a person is considering retirement plans and whose moral compass is set by a long life. Then from 2009-13 she was Secretary of State, planning the future of the middle east with the "Friends of Libya" and "Friends of Syria", and doing other important things having nothing much to do with LGBT rights. When did HRC have time to undergo such a profound "evolution" with respect to her foundation principles of morality and ethics?
While claiming a leadership role regarding "progressive social values", HRC's campaign disparages a focus on "economic justice" and attacks "socialists" who want ponies, like single payer, a $15/hr minimum wage for federal workers, reasonable access to the kind of generic pharmaceuticals, at the bulk prices of a universal pharmaceutical plan coupled with single payer health logistics - as exists in other countries. However, HRC's only "reality based" argument against these public goods is that it'll raise taxes.
HRC and her husband took in $140 million, approximately, in speeches.
That is to be beholden, to be "compromised", in a way that's never before been seen in the history of western democracies.
I think WillyT's mention of the idea "Stockholm syndrome" is perfectly fine.
Indeed. A couple of those posters are far beyond democratic (small 'd') politics:
they admire what HRC and crew did to destroy democracy in Honduras, are fine with HRC's bff Kissinger and what he was all about in Chile and etc, they want to undo all that's been done for the people by the Bolivarian revolution in several countries and especially in Venezuela, and if a return of the death squads accompanies it then that's fine with them. Not a downside to them as it accelerates a return to the unbounded profiteering they anticipate.
I admire Judi Lynn, being able to handle that kind of pure evil. One of the finest posters I've ever encountered on the net.
The US has it within its power to put an end to its senseless war.
The US has it within its power to turn 180 degrees and become a force for the good.
I wonder, though,
why it is that bin Laden, a former CIA asset in the US proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan, turned coat and attacked the USA?
What could be gained by it?
Looking at this war 15 years into it presents a different perspective than immediately after 9/11/01.
I say that a person can't understand it without coming to an understanding of who profited from it.
So one looks at who are the investment bankers and war profiteers.
War profiteers need investment bankers, investment banking isn't the proximate cause, war profiteering is.
Once one understands it, one understands that the cause is so fundamentally amoral that it doesn't distinguish war in the line of defense from war of choice, of aggression, for private profit.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:12 AMNumber of posts: 9,688
