J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

No doubt. Should Clinton win, and Republicans retain the house, it'll be the same-old-same-old x10.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

[quote=jelun]This is actually quite amusing to watch the lovers of authority and chief cheerleaders of labels and stereotypes going to Marshall Law declared by the thinking man, the deliberative leader because the ideas that should make them wary are sending them into fits of anxiety because it doesn't appear to be decisive enough. And yet, they shake in their shoes that a decision has been made to enslave them. As if they are worth having as slaves, spoiled and privileged as they believe they are.
It reminds me of the anti-immigrant arguments that revolve around jobs.
The white guys love to tell those who are looking for jobs that those brown immigrants are stealing their opportunities to work.
I would posit that the thinking there is backward, nobody who has been here for generations wants those jobs as a career.

[b]It is the WHITE GUY who is robbing the BLACK GUY of opportunity to have WELL PAID JOBS.[b]
I think that those white guys need to be reminded more often that we know that. We know that if they stopped hoarding all of the education dollars those jobs would be within reach of all residents rather than just us pale folk.

Back to the elections, it certainly isn't just the conservatives who believe things are rigged. It seems to be people who believe they are entitled to win.
BernieBots are just as likely to scream "It ISN'T fair!" each time they don't come out ahead. All while, as it turns out, Senator Sanders' campaign lobbied for less polling places in Puerto Rico because he couldn't cover the original number. That was fair, I suppose.
I guess THOSE MINORITIES weren't interested in his free stuff.
Sorry, a bit of free streaming going on there.
My observation is that people who would screw others at every turn see people screwing others everywhere they look.[/quote]

It seems everyone believes they are entitled to win, and when they lose it is someone else's fault. Hillarybots are already blaming Sanders-supporters for not "uniting the party" and pulling the "fear-of-Trump" card. Trumpbots are doing the same thing in-reverse. And Berniebots are having a tough time accepting that Sanders won't get it, and that he will concede to Clinton and possibly encourage his supporters to get on board. That wouldn't be much different than all the "never-Trump" Republicans getting on board the Trump-train, however reluctantly, because these days it seems party comes before country, and power before the people, rather than TO the people.

jelun

As a mature Bernie supporter I absolutely hear what you are saying.
Now that Hillary has won it is time for unity.
And it is not Bernie supporters who are being chastised it is Bernbots...those who claim that they will stay home of vote for Trump. You have to admit that is just plain idiotic.

I keep trying to encourage people to give those supporters who, unlike me, base decisions on SCOTUS status more time and to be gracious in winning.
I have success with some and not with others.
As we used to be taught... You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

I understand the relevance of SCOTUS decisions. I agree voting for Trump is not so smart. What I don't understand is how anyone believes Clinton is much better.

jelun

To each his own, I guess, I don't understand people automatically dismissing the good she has done and accepting all the allegations as fact.

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

What good has she done pray tell?

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

Well, she hasn't done all that much good, despite being in a unique position to do so, and her "goodness" is rather marginal compared to her pro-corporate, pro-war neoliberal agenda that her and her husband have helped impose over the last generation. That she has and will continue policies that favor endless war and profits-before-people have come out of her own mouth and through her own actions. This isn't something one can put in any sort of positive light, as whatever good she has done does not begin to make up for the Clintons' complicity in helping to steer the country into oligarchy. People are fed up, justifiably, with the 2-party duopoly. They have given it the benefit-of-the-doubt long enough. Continuing to support it is acquiescence to a thoroughly corrupt system. It has to stop.

jelun

I am thinking that the children who benefit two decades later from having medical care would disagree. (SCHIP)
I think that the small businesses who received funds to rebuild after 9/11 would disagree with you. (20 Billion in redevelopment)
She helped to create the DOJ office of DV against Women.
Mrs. Clinton was involved in a reworking of the Patriot Act to improve civil rights under the law.
She has addressed human rights all over the globe.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

Which is all well and good; it is the least she could do after supporting policies that decimated these areas' habitats and economies through so-called "free-trade" agreements, regime-change interventionism, and perpetual warfare.
Her tendency to fight for women's equity is understood and perhaps even praise-worthy. Yet these women would not be in such positions of hopelessness and need were it not for the US's global military and economic hegemony in the first place, in which Clinton is a bona-fide champion of.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Let's not forget that these trade agreements are not the brainchild of the Clintons. It was President Reagan who started the process of executive authority for fast tracking trade agreements as Congress was unable to agree on trade policies. Republicans in Congress were the prime movers of NAFTA and President GHW Bush signed the original agreement, which was then ratified by the the Congress. Then President Clinton signed the final documents. Blaming Mrs. Clinton is for policies supported and pushed for by Republicans is disingenuous at best.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_History.htm

The TPP has a similar history: pushed for and supported by big business and Republicans, and accepted by Democrats who think free trade is the way to go. That these policies would cause so much hardship is only evident in hindsight, as most folks touted the hoped for benefits.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/5357495

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

You're right; and the only reason house-Republicans publicly go against it now is because Obama is publicly for it- partisanship theater at it's worst. In reality both corporatist parties are all for it.
And no, Hillary is not solely responsible for every piece of corporate-friendly piece of legislation that has gone through, but her support for them have been open and obvious because that's what she's all about- the Big Business-Big Government partnership that is the status quo.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Can't argue with that....Mrs. Clinton does seem to have an affinity for big-business. That's a fair criticism. Also in fairness, apparently Mr. Trump did not support Nafta in the 90s. So he is consistent. It's the members of 'his' party that now act as though Mrs. Clinton is at fault for those trade agreements who should be spanked for hypocritical thinking.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

Indeed. But you have to admit, its hard to know where Trump stands. There are but two things that he has working for him where Clinton does not, 1)knowing that the global trade-agreements (really just investor-rights hegemony) are bad for workers and nations' sovereignty, and has said so, and 2) the thing that everyone thinks he's insane for, but his suggestion the government-debt can be renegotiated, which it most certainly can. I do not endorse Trump at all, but I find it ironic that he's been the only one with the cajones to acknowledge that our debt-based currency regime is an anticonstitutional fraud- he would know. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich also alluded to this, and you saw what happened to their careers.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Again hard to disagree....not that I want to. I do think the Congress is at fault here though, as they have the responsibility for fiscal matters (both authorization and appropriation). Borrowing to spend is certainly not a conservative way of handling finances, and I'm not sure if renegotiation is a long term solution to our national debt. At some point I think both parties will need to bite the bullet: cut spending and increase taxes.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

Or, and more in line to their constitutional authority, they can reclaim the authority to create and regulate the nation's currency (see Art 1 section 8). Unfortunately they had abrogated this authority a century ago, much to the country's and its citizens' detriment. The same 21st they have abrogated war-powers via the Patriot Act circa 2001. In fact, today's Congress don't do their job at all. They don't even bring simple legislations up for a vote. They are puppets of plutocracy, little more.