What's Missing From Hillary Clinton's `Hard Choices' (Portside)

https://portside.org/2014-07-18/what...s-hard-choices

Hillary Clinton is no radical. She uses Hard Choices to situate herself as a centrist Democrat - a wife, mother, and person of deep Christian faith who fervently believes in American exceptionalism. This mindset, that U.S. economic and military interests should trump the interests of other nations because, quite simply, we're an important imperial power, dovetails with Clinton's most deep-seated beliefs.

In Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest memoir, Hard Choices, the 67th secretary of state says that an ancient proverb from Sun Tzu'sThe Art of War guided her through four years as the nation's top ambassador: "When you are in a common boat, cross the river peacefully together."

The wisdom of this statement is obvious. How this philosophy plays out in practice, however, is not.

Clinton's enormous tome offers readers a detailed-but rarely reflective-overview of the 270 countries around the world in which the United States has embassies. Each country, she writes, poses its own challenges, whether in maintaining peace, promoting human rights, fighting terrorism, or because of constantly changing economic and social conditions. She calls diplomacy an exercise in "smart power" and writes that during her tenure "our expanded focus on technology, public-private partnerships, energy, economics, and other areas beyond the State Department's standard portfolio" complemented, but did not replace, the diplomatic tools and priorities of earlier administrations. At its core, she explains, diplomacy utilizes "hard and soft" tactics, the carrot-and-stick of "incentives and threats, urgency and patience, plus deliberate-and effective-misdirection." It's clearly not for the faint of heart.

Women's empowerment is key to Clinton's vision of progress, and she is forthright in supporting women's human rights. Indeed, she is outspoken in stressing the importance of classifying rape, domestic and sexual violence, genital mutilation, and child marriage as affronts to decency. Furthermore, she advocates "women's full and equal participation in the political, civil, economic, social and cultural lives of their countries of origin." Her reasoning rests on a practical-and not explicitly feminist-reality:

The places where women's lives are most undervalued largely line up with the parts of the world most plagued by instability, conflict, extremism, and poverty.

Conversely, countries that educate girls [1]; allow women to engage in public life, vote, participate in governance; and provide access to affordable health care and medicines are far more stable than those that don't.

That said, it is curious that the book fails to address maternal mortality, a topic of immense concern to the World Health Organization (WHO). Indeed, the WHO estimates [2] that 800 women a day die from preventable pregnancy or childbirth-related complications; in 2013 alone, the death toll hit an appalling 289,000 women.

It's a glaring omission-and is not the only subject you'd expect to see covered that isn't. There's no mention of abortion-legal or illegal. Likewise, contraception gets short shrift and the reproductive havoc caused by modern warfare is completely ignored. The latter is a particularly galling exclusion since even the U.S. Army Medical Department Journal has begun to pay attention to this issue and to the fury it arouses in those who have been affected. Indeed, the Journal's April-June 2013 edition reports [3] that during the first Gulf War, smoke from burning oil, diesel, and gas fumes and exposure to nerve and mustard gas led to adverse pregnancy outcomes in scores of Iraqi women-from stillbirths, to preterm deliveries, to an increase in congenital abnormalities. Whether Clinton was moved, or horrified, by this finding is anyone's guess.

She does, however, loudly and proudly champion LGBTQ rights and slams the anti-gay policies of the more than 80 countries worldwide-in the Caribbean, Middle East, and South Asia-that consider it a crime to be queer. Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, and Uganda are specifically called out for their homophobia...

To continue reading, click here

Sobering facts!

What are we to do in this country with no real Democratic alternative? Within the Democratic Party, is there an acceptable alternative to Hillary? And outside the Democratic Party, is there an acceptable candidate? Green? Other? No Republican candidate is acceptable to me, personally. And if it came down to choosing between Hillary and the Republican barbarian in November of 2016, then I will vote for Hillary. The sad truth is that this is more than likely what is going to happen, just as it has for hundreds of years in the US.

The system needs to change because changing the faces does not make the differences we need over the long haul. We need electoral reform. We need systemic change, not just changing the people in power because that's not enough. It never was and it never will be.

This is precisely the reason why so many liberals, progressives, leftists, Greens, unionists, etc, were so disappointed in Obama after voting for him in 2008--they made the fundamental mistake of trusting the system, which is fundamentally flawed. And also believing that one human being could possibly bring about all of the colossal changes the United States desperately needs.

As an aside, there are two main reasons why NO ONE elected to be president can bring about those massive changes we need and demand:

1. Any candidate radical enough to be willing to make all of those changes will never be elected in the first place because most Americans, both Democratic AND Republican will never vote for that person.

2. Even IF a radical were elected, the system will not allow that person to bring about those changes. The way in which our Constitution and other founding documents (e.g. Declaration of Independence, etc) designed American democracy make it impossible to bring about many profound reforms to our antiquated and obsolete system. Plus, there are many big, powerful interests that will successfully oppose and undermine a radical president.

If we want a series of major reforms, we need to start with the system first. Otherwise, we will continue to spend the rest of our lives voting for someone, like Obama, and getting disappointed. Or we simply will not even bother to vote at all--which is far worse (the last example of a Republican president was the worst president in US history: G.W. Bush, 2001-2013).

When I voted for Obama in 2008, I knew EXACTLY what I was getting. I knew who he was and what he was going to do. And in 2012, I voted for him again because I was not disappointed like everyone else on the left was. I voted for Obama because I did not want the Republican to win, which is ALWAYS far worse.

Voting for an alternative political party, whether it is Green or Libertarian or something else, is NOT the way to bring about the systemic change that we need. Alternative parties, at best, can be PART of the change but not the focus of it. They will simply disappoint us all over again. Remember, it's not the faces we need to change, it's the system. Then and only then will the faces be able to administrate the government in the ways that best serve the interests of the American people.

It's really, really hard for me to see any politicians words being discussed at face value as if there's actually any sincerity in them, let alone any real campaign or election, or glossy issues that will actually be followed thru on or that it matters who is the puppet of the real behind the scenes controllers that have not changed since JFK. The higher the level, the dirtier they are, and the bigger a liar and puppet, and any just-before-I'm-going-to-start-a-presidental-campaign book is surely a calculated, scripted fraud.

About this time 2 elections ago it was obvious to me Obama was being masqueraded into being a supposedly elected president. The same process has begun again.

So I'll declare now, though to me the propaganda is already in such high gear and so nauseating it's not really insightful to state the obvious. Hillary is slated to be installed as the next presidential puppet. Grooming is complete.

She was primed and the idea of her dropped into American consciousness two elections ago to give it some time to acclimate. She spent 4 years priming all the world leaders too as figurehead Sec of State. Her timing to 'quit' was long pre-planned to disappear to do final behind the scenes training and campaign facade planning. She has now been reappearing constantly all over the place all prettied up and presidential. Have you noticed that every appearance includes a giggly questioner pretending to be off the cuff ..."so are you going to run?" The response is a smiling, coy and uncommittal. But no interview, no news 'blip', no book release, no picture, no TV appearance, etc... has not been LONG scheduled, planned, organized and SCRIPTED to a T. They're in the slow ramp up stage now. Start noticing what memes they're going to start dropping here, there, here, there... seemingly occasional, innocent... that will become the slogans and frilly lie-promises that will repeat ad nauseum all campaign.

The next masquerade has begun. This is state of the art organized manipulation from many coordinated angles with more sophisticated tools than ever. They've got this game DOWN. Just have to drag themselves thru the theater presentation.

Want some real insight into how dirty it all is and always completely different than what any media tells you to think? I've watched countless interviews on many very challenging subjects, but this one creeped me out the most in some ways. It's one thing to hear scattered anecdotes and legends about power and impunity, it's another to feel the depth and pervasiveness of how corrupt it all is through someone else's eyes describing having his eyes opened. If it was already this bad, ugly and organized in the 60's/70's....:

Interview w/Neil Gallagher, Congressman (starts a little slow, but gets more and more direct as it goes along)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byul-xnPFCM

Hilliary who???

Oh, you mean the woman who was fired by the Democrats running the Watergate/impeachment investigation because she was a "self obsessed, un-ethical, bald faced liar with no redeeming character, or are you talking about Miss Whitewater, or the attorney that graduated near the bottom of her class and couldn't find a job until her husband was running for governor and begged the Rose Law firm to hire her?

No? Maybe you mean the woman Dick Morris admits to sending on vacations so she wouldn't embarrass her husband with her BIG mouth, or do you mean the woman who presided over the complete implosion of the Mid-east and our related foreign policy?

Her total accomplishments are failure after failure. Name one thing she ever did that actually had a net positive effect. If you can do so you have beat her own husband.

Minus Bill, which according to his doctors, she is soon to be, she is second only to Obama as the nation's least qualified candidate for POTUS.

The ONLY way I would vote for Hillary is if ten doctors all guaranteed on their life that Bill would live 4 more years without loosing his mind or his life, and they promised to cyrogenically freeze her until her term was over, and that is not because he was such a great President, he's just a puppet like everybody since JFK has been, but because it would piss off Obama so much.

So, I have two questions for you, Alexia:

1. Is there ANYONE whom you would vote for if they ran for election? Who would you support?

2. If you believe that the system is so absolutely corrupt that there is no one who is qualified enough to stand up to it, then what kind of a system or society or government do you feel would be a good one, one which should replace the society/system we have today?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

It's really, really hard for me to see any politicians words being discussed at face value as if there's actually any sincerity in them, let alone any real campaign or election, or glossy issues that will actually be followed thru on or that it matters who is the puppet of the real behind the scenes controllers that have not changed since JFK. The higher the level, the dirtier they are, and the bigger a liar and puppet, and any just-before-I'm-going-to-start-a-presidental-campaign book is surely a calculated, scripted fraud...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byul-xnPFCM

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

So, I have two questions for you, Alexia:

1. Is there ANYONE whom you would vote for if they ran for election? Who would you support?

---

There probably are many well-qualified and well-intentioned moral individuals I'd support in a different world but I can't play this game of suggesting there's anyone in shining armor that has any chance to rise to power and fix things in today's system. Anyone still even running naively well meaning suddenly find themselves in a dark world where they are instantly rendered powerless, outright killed or have an 'accident'.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

2. If you believe that the system is so absolutely corrupt that there is no one who is qualified enough to stand up to it, then what kind of a system or society or government do you feel would be a good one, one which should replace the society/system we have today?

---

Good question. What and how? You can't realistically start over therefore you're facing having to revise millions of already interwoven crucial parts involving millions of people/personalities separately running the millions of parts.

I'd do some serious historical research on what made the most stable societies successful, but off the top of my head if I suddenly found myself the leader of the free world and had to quick start somewhere...:

I'd divide the whole system into a huge number of sectors and create brand new separate think tanks for each and hire a team of the most intelligent, experienced, uncorrupted good Americans for each sector to analyze and propose massive improvements.

I started to write more specifics about reducing the military and aggression, guaranteeing healthcare, eliminating personal income tax, de-pettying laws/revamping the judicial system, limiting media ownership again, eliminating the FED/reinstating Glass-Steagall, making the American environment once again attractive to businesses and America once again stand for quality, freedom and fairness, ruling on the power of pride instead of fear, coming down the hardest somehow on any corruption.... but realized it's WAY too much to write here. Sorry! How to revise a country gone wrong in a million ways can't be summarized.

I really don't have any answers on how to begin to tip the scales with so many ugly beasts on them. I'm at least trying not to feed any whenever possible.

I'd also like to ask you to write some thoughts, Edward. Please describe for me what you think the corruption I'm talking about is, and who do you think would be "qualified enough to stand up to it". WHO do think needs standing up to? What do you know of the 'technology' that is part of what needs personal standing up to and who is running it?

Thanks for the discourse.

ELIZABETH WARREN
ELIZABETH WARREN
ELIZABETH WARREN

she's saying she's not running. she would never be a puppet.
will she be allowed to run? stay tuned.
or become part of a groundswell of support which would be unstoppable,
actual working democracy, to the extent we've still got some.
blessings on collective us - USA,
jude

within the first two sentences in the last paragraph of the article says what I have known about her for many years.

Quote:

---

Hard Choices is a fascinating glimpse into 21st-century politics that affirms Clinton as a conventional player whose administration-should she choose to run for president, and should she win-will be little different from the administrations of her male predecessors. Yes, she will face overt sexism, but when the chips are down, President Hillary Rodham Clinton will still beat the drums of war and will privilege private businesses over public interests.

---

I would not vote Republican but I would certainly NOT vote for Hillary Clinton either:fie:.

I have stated on several threads why I voted Green for POTUS so I won't go into detail on that here.
That being said, I would not vote for either H Clinton or Republican either no mater how much someone tries to talk me into it.

:2cents:Philosophically H Clinton is no different than a truly moderate Republican.

Although it is not obvious on the surface, she is definitely to the right by a country mile of Obama where it comes to the economy and the too big to fail thing etc..

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Voting for an alternative political party, whether it is Green or Libertarian or something else, is NOT the way to bring about the systemic change that we need. Alternative parties, at best, can be PART of the change but not the focus of it. They will simply disappoint us all over again. Remember, it's not the faces we need to change, it's the system. Then and only then will the faces be able to administrate the government in the ways that best serve the interests of the American people.

---

:goodpost::Thanks::thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

It's really, really hard for me to see any politicians words being discussed at face value as if there's actually any sincerity in them, let alone any real campaign or election, or glossy issues that will actually be followed thru on or that it matters who is the puppet of the real behind the scenes controllers that have not changed since JFK. The higher the level, the dirtier they are, and the bigger a liar and puppet, and any just-before-I'm-going-to-start-a-presidental-campaign book is surely a calculated, scripted fraud.

About this time 2 elections ago it was obvious to me Obama was being masqueraded into being a supposedly elected president. The same process has begun again.

So I'll declare now, though to me the propaganda is already in such high gear and so nauseating it's not really insightful to state the obvious. Hillary is slated to be installed as the next presidential puppet. Grooming is complete.

She was primed and the idea of her dropped into American consciousness two elections ago to give it some time to acclimate. She spent 4 years priming all the world leaders too as figurehead Sec of State. Her timing to 'quit' was long pre-planned to disappear to do final behind the scenes training and campaign facade planning. She has now been reappearing constantly all over the place all prettied up and presidential. Have you noticed that every appearance includes a giggly questioner pretending to be off the cuff ..."so are you going to run?" The response is a smiling, coy and uncommittal. But no interview, no news 'blip', no book release, no picture, no TV appearance, etc... has not been LONG scheduled, planned, organized and SCRIPTED to a T. They're in the slow ramp up stage now. Start noticing what memes they're going to start dropping here, there, here, there... seemingly occasional, innocent... that will become the slogans and frilly lie-promises that will repeat ad nauseum all campaign.

The next masquerade has begun. This is state of the art organized manipulation from many coordinated angles with more sophisticated tools than ever. They've got this game DOWN. Just have to drag themselves thru the theater presentation.

Want some real insight into how dirty it all is and always completely different than what any media tells you to think? I've watched countless interviews on many very challenging subjects, but this one creeped me out the most in some ways. It's one thing to hear scattered anecdotes and legends about power and impunity, it's another to feel the depth and pervasiveness of how corrupt it all is through someone else's eyes describing having his eyes opened. If it was already this bad, ugly and organized in the 60's/70's....:

Interview w/Neil Gallagher, Congressman (starts a little slow, but gets more and more direct as it goes along)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byul-xnPFCM

---

Dear Alexia,

There is no human being, superman or superwoman, who can possibly tackle the entire system all by him or herself (Hence, the chronic naivety of the very good folks who are now chanting Elizabeth Warren's name for 2016). Back in the early 2000s, the progressive/liberal/left/etc block was chanting Denis Kucinich's name. Again, to no avail. None of these good candidates will ever be elected because the system will never allow them to be. People like to deceive themselves in thinking that it is a matter of supporting them and voting them into power and then we will all have the utopia we deserve. These well-intentioned citizens refuse to see that they are duping themselves, yet again, into believing that the system will actually work for them. But it doesn't. It is a difficult lesson to learn for most.

Regarding systemic change, however, that is a different story altogether. I basically agree with you but there is such a thing as reform (which is fundamentally different from revolution, which I do not support).

Remember the big reforms in US history:
1. The Bill of Rights, 1791 (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, promoted by Thomas Jefferson).
2. The abolition of slavery (the 3 Civil War amendments, 1865-1870).
3. Women’s right to vote (Constitutional amendment in 1920).
4. The New Deal (1933-45, and in some ways still continuing today, such as Social Security and others, but no Constitutional amendments, unfortunately).
5. Brown versus Board of Education, 1954, "landmark" SCOTUS decision.
6. The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
7. The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
8. Roe versus Wade, 1973, abortion rights for women.
9. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013, SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage (although there are other court decisions and cases regarding gay marriage).

And these are just a few institutional reforms that have fundamentally shaped the US to be what it is today. So don't give up all hope just yet! There was also the Progressive Era or Movement from the 1890s through the 1920s, which brought many, major institutional reforms. Just one example of which was removing the selection of US Senators from the hands of state legislators and giving it to the American people through direct popular vote. Etc, etc, etc.

Yes, it is possible to change the system; as I have referenced above, US history is FULL of examples of systemic reforms. But the problem is motivating millions and millions of Americans to support vast reforms and that is very difficult to achieve. The immense frustration is completely understandable.

Furthermore, the United States needs a new Constitution!
The current Constitution is obsolete and needed to be replaced before the Civil War (1861-1865). The current Constitution is a patch of rags sewn together over a period of 238 years. It needs to go. There are so many internal contradictions and points of unresolved tensions in our founding document that there is no point in trying to reform it any longer. We need a new Constitution yesterday. But most Americans have woo-woo ideas about the Constitution and treat it as if it is a Biblical document that cannot and must not be reformed, much less replaced; that the Constitution somehow has divine elements in it and must be maintained at all costs. Truly, most Americans have a "mystical" perception of their Constitution.

The US Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper written by White, male, slave owners over 2 centuries ago! It is old, obsolete, inefficient, and we desperately need to replace it ASAP. This would solve most of the major problems we are discussing in this thread.

With a new Constitution, we could inscribe an electoral system of Proportional Representation and a multi party system; this way, we could have Full Representation where almost all Americans will have political parties that will fight for their interests in the various legislatures throughout the Republic, including Washington D.C. We could also inscribe Ranked Choice Voting for single member districts.

This would change everything. But the downside is that there are powerful interests, not the least of which is the religious community in the US, which is huge, powerful, well-moneyed, well-organized, and which would probably impose absurd articles such as, "The US is a Christian nation, Abortion is illegal, mandatory church attendance, prayer in schools, bla, bla, bla."

Entire books, many of them, have been written on the issues that you and I are talking about. It is a worthy subject, reform; because it would provide a watershed of the real changes we need in the US, in the interests of the American people, not special interests.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

There probably are many well-qualified and well-intentioned moral individuals I'd support in a different world but I can't play this game of suggesting there's anyone in shining armor that has any chance to rise to power and fix things in today's system. Anyone still even running naively well meaning suddenly find themselves in a dark world where they are instantly rendered powerless, outright killed or have an 'accident'...

...I'd also like to ask you to write some thoughts, Edward. Please describe for me what you think the corruption I'm talking about is, and who do you think would be "qualified enough to stand up to it". WHO do think needs standing up to? What do you know of the 'technology' that is part of what needs personal standing up to and who is running it?

---

It is getting late in the day for me so I haven't read your whole post yet but I am going to comment on what I have read so far:

I can't help but notice some discrepancies in some of what you seem to me to be calling “reform” whereas I think you left out the Civil War!... ...Reform without revolution? Could the Civil War be called a revolution?:hmmm:

Well in the real world “Reform” has almost never been accomplished without a fight of some sort be it bloody or economic but usually it's both.:wrestle::spentmoney:

1- Independence (1776) to the Bill of Rights (15 years between those and now the “national security act” puts a damper on that to some extent).

2- Abolition of slavery (1870) (79 years after the Bill of Rights).
3- Woman’s right to vote, 1920 (50 years after the bill of rights).
4- The New Deal (still bickering and politically fighting over that kind of “reform” which has lost ground in very recent time).
5- Brown versus Board of Education (to this day, is being severely compromised due to where the money goes and dosn't go).
6- Both the Civil Rights Act of 1964, & 7- The Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been decimated due to 2 recent decisions in the Roberts court (supreme court).

7- 8. Roe versus Wade, 1973, abortion rights for women (that too has been virtually repealed federally)... ...Need I mention Hobby Lobby, or Birth control coverage?

9- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013, SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage (although there are other court decisions and cases regarding gay marriage)
In other words: still pending (outcome still undecided, constitutionally).

The things in that you have listed that have been stable are: 1- some amendments based on the Bill of rights, 2- Woman’s right to vote.

and 3 (maybe), The slavery issue which is philosophically debatable (“Prison Industrial Complex” and the stranglehold the so-called “1%” has on the economy)... ...(79 years from previous "reform" on the list).

Look I don't relish raining on the gun-ho Democrat scene but I have to consider the reality of history in context of what has historically occurred; after all it did take a very bloody Civil War to abolish abject slavery, and that war was after a war to gain independence from England and both of those wars in large part had to do with economics.

And I don't forget about the Dixiecrats (historically speaking).

Today's Tea Party is more like the Dixiecras were to the Democrat party in 1950's through 1990's but has now morphed and is residing in the Republican party; (for now).

All the other “reforms” as you refer to them as that you mentioned are still in play and have not necessarily been solidly declared constitutional.

Democrats as a party are not as bad as the republicans are as a party but they (as a party generally speaking) are still less good than bad, and each of those 2 parties feed into more of the same old divide and conquer of the masses gaming that the families of the elitists have mastered so well throughout the history of civilization.
That's all for now, I am too tired to continue for tonight.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

...Remember the big reforms in US history:
1. The Bill of Rights, 1791 (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, promoted by Thomas Jefferson).
2. The abolition of slavery (the 3 Civil War amendments, 1865-1870).
3. Women’s right to vote (Constitutional amendment in 1920).
4. The New Deal (1933-45, and in some ways still continuing today, such as Social Security and others, but no Constitutional amendments, unfortunately).
5. Brown versus Board of Education, 1954, "landmark" SCOTUS decision.
6. The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
7. The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
8. Roe versus Wade, 1973, abortion rights for women.
9. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013, SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage (although there are other court decisions and cases regarding gay marriage)...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

... . None of these good candidates will ever be elected because the system will never allow them to be.

---

with that phrasing you're feeding those who imagine a small cabal directly choosing public officials and installing them in office, regardless of the will of the helpless populace. From other posts of yours, I doubt you mean that?

"The system" that I see is one of entrenched power AND average citizens doing what they can to preserve the status quo. Most people are afraid of change and suspicious of reformers. Those in power do their best to lead and mislead, but though I think 'sheeple' is unfair, it is true that the majority will prefer to accept the self-serving framing of public issues they're given. They're not forced to - many just won't spend the energy to inform themselves or take action, and others too uncritically respond to imaginary threats. I do think it's "our" fault - we're governed the way we deserve. Well, maybe that's too harsh - maybe better to say we've earned what we have.

I partly agree with you in the citizens' responsibility aspect of what you've written, "we've earned what we have." By looking at what some of the well intentioned Waccovites have written on this thread, we can see support for what you are saying. If I'm mistaken, please let me know.

You see, there is very subtle logical conundrum in all of this that possesses great stealth. In other words, this particular conundrum is very difficult to detect. For example, in what Hot Spring, Judith and others on this thread have stated, they are asserting that the solution to all of our problems will come by electing someone who is "truly progressive," such as Kucinich or Warren, etc. But the problem, the stealth problem, is that this thinking is within the box, so to speak. And the "electoral box" is fixed, quite literally, and to the great, unfair, advantage of those already in power (in my opinion those who are truly in power are the rich, the dominant upper classes).

By voting for ultra progressives such as Kucinich and Warren, we are falling into their trap, it's their game and we will lose every time we play it. That's why it is pure folly to say, "We can get what we want as long as enough of us vote Green or Libertarian, or for Warren, etc. The game is lost before it even begins and most progressives/liberals/leftists/Greens/etc are simply too blind to see it.

Now, I don't know if I have addressed accurately what you have said in your post, and please let me know because I will be very happy to respond strictly to what you have to say. But the truth is that the "failure" of the left regarding this issue is precisely in the mistaken idea that getting enough votes for the right person will change things.

We need systemic reform, despite what Hotspring has said in his post above. For example, he mentions the Dixiecrats, which was founded by an extremely racist man, Strom Thurmond. By this, Hotspring is trying to say that by supporting Democrats we are only supporting a reactionary political party. I agree with him. The point that I am trying to make and that Hotspring and others fail to see is that systemic reform can bring us Proportional Representation and a multi-party process.

With multiple parties we can choose alternatives to the bipartisan crap of the Demoblicans/Republicrats, which are ONLY TWO PARTIES! How would you like it if whenever you went to the store to do your shopping there were only two products of everything to choose from? That is how undemocratic our electoral system is.

If we want good people like Kucinich and Warren in office then we need to reform the system first, then we will be able to get them into power. Until we accomplish this type of systemic reform we are wasting our time because we are playing THEIR GAME! It's fixed in their favor and the American people will continue to lose every single time.

By criticizing the idea of electoral reform, a person is essentially implying that the only solution is to use the current system to bring change and that is beyond absurd.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

with that phrasing you're feeding those who imagine a small cabal directly choosing public officials and installing them in office, regardless of the will of the helpless populace. From other posts of yours, I doubt you mean that?
"The system" that I see is one of entrenched power AND average citizens doing what they can to preserve the status quo. Most people are afraid of change and suspicious of reformers. Those in power do their best to lead and mislead, but though I think 'sheeple' is unfair, it is true that the majority will prefer to accept the self-serving framing of public issues they're given. They're not forced to - many just won't spend the energy to inform themselves or take action, and others too uncritically respond to imaginary threats. I do think it's "our" fault - we're governed the way we deserve. Well, maybe that's too harsh - maybe better to say we've earned what we have.

---

Yes there have been staggered, substantial reforms while everything else has slowly slipped deeper into hell, and it's probably right that short of revolution, it's all we can reasonably expect to continue.

Hasn't every failed society failed for the same reason - deterioration from the top down due to corruption until the people finally have had enough? I forget who said 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

I thought again about the question of what different society structure would actually work, and wondered if it comes down to that factor. The hardest thing for me to live with from Ravitch to Obama and all the cronies in between in military, big corporations/industry, finance, etc... is knowing that everyone at the level of money, power, or lawmaking/enforcement that directly affect my life and freedoms all abuse their power, can break any law they want and are accountable to no one.

Maybe the only thing that hasn't been tried yet is a system that includes some means of absolute accountability. It would be quite the deterrent to bad behavior of all kinds if there was no place to hide and would create a whole different feeling in society if everyone knew there was true fairness and equality.

It's a pipedream, but an idea for your new constitution, Edward.

Edward Mendoza, I finally had enough time to read all the way through your post. You bring up very well observed points that I basically agree with the tone of for sure.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

... ...But most Americans have woo-woo ideas about the Constitution and treat it as if it is a Biblical document that cannot and must not be reformed, much less replaced; that the Constitution somehow has divine elements in it and must be maintained at all costs. Truly, most Americans have a "mystical" perception of their Constitution.

---

Yes unfortunately that is true. So many seem to believe that “freedom OF religion” means you have to be religious, and that form of religion must be based on some form of 'Christianity' (Bible) as well; which is in my mind more like a caste system which makes the notion of freedom of religion in a literal sense more a moot point than a written in stone kind of thing like the ever so fervent people that insist on taking the constitution literally, word by word, the way they construe it to be etc...

...therefore I seems to me that, in many peoples minds there is no "mystical" aspect to the US Constitution, It means what it says verbatim (the way they construe it to mean).

Quote:

---

...piece of paper written by White, male, slave owners over 2 centuries ago!

---

Don't forget about the genocide part of the story (what was done to the indigenous population as a prelude to the conquering and taking of the land that we now call America.).

Quote:

---

With a new Constitution, we could inscribe an electoral system of Proportional Representation and a multi party system; this way, we could have Full Representation where almost all Americans will have political parties that will fight for their interests in the various legislatures throughout the Republic, including Washington D.C. We could also inscribe Ranked Choice Voting for single member districts.

---

Maybe in 2,000 years, if we have that long before we despoil resources to the brink of survivability; but without any "revolution" at all?...

...Using history as a guide, I don't think there is much of a reasonable chance for that much change barring extreme planetary disaster of epic proportion or some sort of a world-wide dosing of some sort, like a psychedelic spore-like phenomenon that dramatically changes our collective human way of thinking and the ways to think and cooperate with each other for problem solving to the degree that we permanently go in a different direction than war and emphasis on killer-like competition etc.;...

...whereas we collectively decide to try an agreed on thing or set of things to do (in a fluid sense not so rigid as we sometimes get hung-up with now) to solve problems or change or whatever it is that effects all of us and our environment and collective resources; "collective" as a planetary system not just selfish short-sited human interests without the whole, and be willing to do something else without the need for domination over the other or war etc...

...whereas, if any particular things don't work, we would not be so hung-up on a it to the point where dogma or "tradition" of "never give up" even if it kills us (or everybody/thing else) like we are so doing now.

Edward Mendoza, What I am trying to convey to you and others too is for what you stated you want or think we can do (to change the systemic Constitutional flaws) is not going to happen at all without radical change in the way the majority of people act on it collectively, even when there lives are on the line as a direct result of their actions.

Those kinds of radical changes will either happen at a geological pace (very slowly, almost imperceptible) or with what is commonly referred to as "revolution".

Since revolution is what you say is not except able to you, that is a conundrum of which is in itself 1 systemic impasse you have chosen. That's OK I am not really into violent revolution either, just saying.

I see only a limited number of ways to facilitate or at least participate in making the changes of which you seem to want to happen (for the most part anyway).

One can, use the system as best one can as a tool, and, yes, vote one's conscious because for me, by not voting for Hillary Clinton or Obama in the past is what I have chosen to do...

...To use the tools at hand albeit the end result is what it is, at least I did what I did so I can at least have some peace of mind within my own psyche.

So Edward Mendoza, in essence you are saying that we: (Hot Spring, Judith and others on this thread) are

Quote:

---

By voting for ultra progressives such as Kucinich and Warren, we are falling into their trap, it's their game and we will lose every time we play it

---

I am thinking that by stating that you, we, us, or whoever have to change the system first before we can have the changes we desire, possibly by voting for someone we can't stand, like Hillary Clinton or whatever Democrat the “rigged” system throws at us because the ones we like are too whatever it is (left maybe?) don't stand a chance for either getting elected or achieving anything substantial when in office because the system is rigged (that is a “trap”); (if that is what you have in essence meant, it seems to me it is. Anyway, tell me if I am mistaken on that).

If it is so “rigged” as you say and the über rich and such own the system and have god-like power within that system they possess then there are a limited number of ways to remove that power: one, the usual one is for the masses to collectively revolt, succeed and rewrite another “Constitution” and have the power to keep the “new” system together.

Without a “revolution” it takes a very long time and like geology, when there is a constant pressure in one direction and that pressure builds, it eventually moves; continents (tectonics).

Edward Mendoza, you are in the same “trap” as you state “Hot Spring, Judith and others on this thread” are in.

Quote:

---

The point that I am trying to make and that Hotspring and others fail to see is that systemic reform can bring us Proportional Representation and a multi-party process.

---

I don't “fail to see” that. I've known that for long time, what ever gave you that idea?... ...That statement considering what my input on waccobb over the years has been, including this thread seems convoluted to me, I don't get where you are coming from with that.

I have had many detailed discussions with someguy, Mad Miles, and others on that topic in the past, some of which I think you may have also been part of.

Edward Mendoza, I do not agree with your apparent conjecture that because voting “left”, such as Kucinich or Warren, or Green Party for that matter, and or “progressive” etc. that we are somehow making the Proportional Representation and a multi-party process fail.
I am not sure if that is what you are saying (I think it is though), if it is, that is patently absurd!

Hard-core Democrats, on occasion, seem to blame the Progressive left on what is actually their own failures particularly when they refuse to acknowledge their own responsibility, they resort to scapegoating the progressive left so as to continue on with the status quot.
I already know that's part of the “trap”. Edward, you have in the past stuck me with that, saying something to the effect that I was “wasting” my vote by voting for the Green Party candidate for POTUS instead of Obama in 2012 and by doing so I was essentially “giving” a vote away to the republican.

FWIW, I voted for Green Party candidate in hopes that enough votes (10% votes cast in primary nation wide; I do believe, or maybe it is for the following general election if that candidate gets 10% in the previous General election) would qualify that candidate to be in the televised debates for general election.

Anyone that thinks the 2 party system that exists today would approve of and vote for a constitutional amendment for Proportional Representation, with the 75% votes it takes in Congress is not paying attention, (never mind a multi-party representative system.) .

The changes we need to happen for Proportional Representation and a multi-party elections to become reality; which is of course not going to be gained by 1 progressive president but could only be by 75% of congress voting it in, or... ..?... ...Revolution?... ...I hope it doesn’t come to revolution.

I am not advocating revolution, I am saying that we have to use the system as it is as best we can and that is what I am doing as best I can as far as I can tell.

Baring particularly horrible candidate (on the far right or just crazy regardless of “side” of isle) and it is a close-call election situation, I simply won't vote for someone who I don't like the policies that person campaigns on, has record of having voted for, or has done.

I'll try to answer as much as I can. You have written a lot and I won't get to all of it.

I apologize if I came across as curt, critical, or otherwise. I need to practice my gentleness.

The Two-Party system sucks great big donkey dick and it has to go. Is that clear?

Democrats are a shitty party. The Republicans are usually far worse. Is that clear?

If we had Proportional Representation, I would vote for the Green presidential candidate every time. Is that clear?

I always vote for Greens whenever I get a chance, but I have never and will never vote for the Green POTUS candidate until we have PR and multi-party system. Clear also?

I used to attend Green Party meetings here in Santa Rosa, when they were being held at 4th Street. Clear?

When Democrats viciously reproached Greens for Al Gore's loss of the White House in 2000, I became angry with them and I in turn reproached them for their fucked up attitude. Is that clear also?

Green voters did the right thing when they voted they conscience in 2000. What is wrong is NOT that Greens vote Green during elections. What IS wrong is the electoral laws of our current system (hence, the need for system reform). Is that also clear as well???

Citizens of any country should have a constitutional right to be able to vote for a party that will fight for their needs in government and represent them in all of the legislatures of all jurisdictions. And the only way to achieve that is through Proportional Representation and a multi-party system. If, for example, 25% of American citizens vote for the Green Party, then 25% of the seats will be occupied by Greens.

That is the system that I want to see. That is the systemic reform that I advocate.

Does this make my positions clear? If I have left a stone unturned, and I'm sure I have done so with more than one, please tell me.

As an example, which is one of my favorites, In Germany, a red-green coalition of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and Alliance '90/The Greens led by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder formed the federal government from 1998 to 2005. These were 2 terms (European countries often have elections before the 4-year term is up). As a result, Germany became the world leader in Green energy (I don't know about today with conservative Merkel as Chancelor). No need to wonder why this happened. Germany became the world leader in both wind energy (windmills) and solar panels, although other green energy sources were also funded.

But the only way to get that kind of a government here in the US is through Proportional Representation and a multi-party system. The only way to get PR and multiple party representation is through systemic reform.

Using the current, rigged system will give us neither, and the possibility of a Green POTUS is practically and permanently 0%.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

So Edward Mendoza, in essence you are saying that we: (Hot Spring, Judith and others on this thread) are
I am thinking that by stating that you, we, us, or whoever have to change the system first before we can have the changes we desire, possibly by voting for someone we can't stand, like Hillary Clinton or whatever Democrat the “rigged” system throws at us because the ones we like are too whatever it is (left maybe?) don't stand a chance for either getting elected or achieving anything substantial when in office because the system is rigged (that is a “trap”); (if that is what you have in essence meant, it seems to me it is. Anyway, tell me if I am mistaken on that)...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

I'll try to answer as much as I can. You have written a lot and I won't get to all of it.

---

Seems you covered the gist of it quite well.

Quote:

---

I apologize if I came across as curt, critical, or otherwise. I need to practice my gentleness.

---

OK, understood.

Quote:

---

The Two-Party system sucks great big donkey dick and it has to go. Is that clear?

---

I got that, I get that, yes that's clear and I agree.

Quote:

---

Democrats are a shitty party. The Republicans are usually far worse. Is that clear?

---

Yes that's clarified now and is clear to me since you directly said that (thanks for saying that).

I agree that "The Republicans are usually far worse", but, with one caveat: all too often the "Democrat" candidate is, in a practical sense, not much different than their Republican opponent, and that particular election is more of an exercise in a showing of petty differences than anything substantially different between the two and any outcome regardless which one becomes the elected makes no substantive difference.

Quote:

---

If we had Proportional Representation, I would vote for the Green presidential candidate every time. Is that clear?

---

Every time? Wow, I wouldn't even go so far as saying that.

Quote:

---

I always vote for Greens whenever I get a chance, but I have never and will never vote for the Green POTUS candidate until we have PR and multi-party system. Clear also?

---

Who knows, if there were a Democratic or whatever other Party (or write-in for that matter) candidate for POTUS that I liked, I would vote for that person. The Green or any other Party has no absolute loyalest in me; is that clear?

Quote:

---

I used to attend Green Party meetings here in Santa Rosa, when they were being held at 4th Street. Clear?

---

Understood.

Quote:

---

When Democrats viciously reproached Greens for Al Gore's loss of the White House in 2000, I became angry with them and I in turn reproached them for their fucked up attitude. Is that clear also?

---

Interesting, I would not have guessed that from various posts of yours that I have read. Thanks for mentioning that.
Perplexing to me under the circumstances because you said:

Quote:

---

I have never and will never vote for the Green POTUS candidate until we have PR and multi-party system.

---

...I not sure if that is a way of protest on your part or exactly what your reasoning is... ...but i understand what you are saying.

Quote:

---

Green voters did the right thing when they voted they conscience in 2000. What is wrong is NOT that Greens vote Green during elections. What IS wrong is the electoral laws of our current system (hence, the need for system reform). Is that also clear as well???

---

Clear and acknowledged that we would be better represented with the electoral system reform like what you mentioned.

Quote:

---

Citizens of any country should have a constitutional right to be able to vote for a party that will fight for their needs in government and represent them in all of the legislatures of all jurisdictions. And the only way to achieve that is through Proportional Representation and a multi-party system. If, for example, 25% of American citizens vote for the Green Party, then 25% of the seats will be occupied by Greens.

That is the system that I want to see. That is the systemic reform that I advocate.

Does this make my positions clear?

---

For practical purposes I am more clear on where you are at. Once again, thanks for taking the time clarifying those things.

Quote:

---

If I have left a stone unturned, and I'm sure I have done so with more than one, please tell me.

---

I haven't noticed anything obvious being not mentioned.

Quote:

---

As an example, which is one of my favorites, In Germany, a red-green coalition of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and Alliance '90/The Greens led by ChancellorGerhard Schröder formed the federal government from 1998 to 2005. These were 2 terms (European countries often have elections before the 4-year term is up). As a result, Germany became the world leader in Green energy (I don't know about today with conservative Merkel as Chancelor). No need to wonder why this happened. Germany became the world leader in both wind energy (windmills) and solar panels, although other green energy sources were also funded.

But the only way to get that kind of a government here in the US is through Proportional Representation and a multi-party system. The only way to get PR and multiple party representation is through systemic reform.

Using the current, rigged system will give us neither, and the possibility of a Green POTUS is practically and permanently 0%.

---

It seems to me with the "current, rigged system" as it is now, that, actually getting PR and multiple party representation through systemic reform is no less likely than the likelihood of a Green POTUS with the "current, rigged" two Party system.:2cents:

Russell Brand On Why Obama Could Never Bring Actual Change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYXvnOhAoVY#t=14

To watch the full interview, click here: https://youtu.be/yhcW-b8SK7o