How much to you really know about Hillary Clinton? A recent episode of Empire Files with Abby Martin sheds light on this Democratic contender:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI
Printable View
How much to you really know about Hillary Clinton? A recent episode of Empire Files with Abby Martin sheds light on this Democratic contender:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI
Well done info video.:thumbsup:
The so-called "anti-war" (ahem) "progressives" who are pro Hillary Clinton here on Waccobb should watch the video and seriously reconsider supporting Clinton and consider voting for Bernie Sanders plus also consider showing up in-person and vote for pro Sanders delegates in your district if and or when you decide you are fed-up and disgusted with Clinton-ism.
To the feminists (all sexes of 'feminists' I might add {FWIW, FYI, I do know there are males who are feminists}... ...Yes I do mean the 'feminist' heterosexual males too when I say this)... ...I ask that you consider bias in yourself as pro-woman leadership, and you favor Clinton because you are at least a pro-feminist if not all all-out 'feminist' and if you also considered the possibility that fact could be biasing your viewpoint when voting for Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders...
...If you watch the video and get info from it that you either knew already or weren't aware of and (maybe) after 'fact checking' (if you so choose to do so-as to be sure if the video's presentation is factual), (and) if you still choose to vote for Clinton over Sanders then I question weather you are really either 'anti-war' or truly a (left-winged) 'progressive'(?)...
....Also, if you do know if any of the statements in the video are untrue, than say so and state your sources.
It would be very helpful if those praising videos or other linked info would repost the link so that people like me, who somehow missed it the first time through can easily find it. Barry, maybe you could add it when this happens?
And following my own precept, here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI
Patrick Brinton
While a link is welcome, users can always goto our website to see the original post. I often trim quoted post content because it gets unwieldy, especially on phones. - Barry :waccosun:
Thanks for pointing that out pbrinton;:waccosun:
I usually just post the reply and leave the quote as is how the default of how the website system puts it, although for clarity, sometimes I do delete some of the quote in my reply.
lately my speech to text program weirdly puts some html coded tables in that I can't seem to be able to erase by themselves, so I have had to copy my typed reply and delete all the remaining text including the whole quote including any links within it.
I will be more diligent in preserving the quotes including the pertinent links within that I am replying to in the future when I notice that issue happens.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
I'm sure you realize that this video was designed to highlight the worst aspects of Hillary Clinton's career, and as such, is unbalanced and thus unfair. I didn't watch the entire video, but I have read about and witnessed the many things that Hillary has done in her career that I consider abhorrent. She has also done a lot of great things in her career, and as President would appoint liberal justices and serve as a counterbalance to the right wing Congress.
At this point in the campaign season, Hillary is almost for certain going to be the Democratic nominee, even without the super delegates. I am very concerned by the polls stating that 30% of Sanders supporters would not vote for Hillary, and see the potential for a "shoot ourselves in the foot" outcome in November on the order of the 2010 midterms when the Republicans took control of Congress and the states because progressives were too stupid to vote.
Ron
My personal feeling is we, as voters, have to stop voting out of fear and vote who we believe will be the best candidate, even if they happen to be a third-party candidate. I happen to believe the elections are rigged to scare us into voting the way "they" want us to vote. And it marginalizes very qualified third-party candidates. Again, I hope people truly vote for who they honestly think will make the best president. Until we voters actually vote for someone we believe in, instead of against someone, we will never get off this political merry-go-round. As I said before, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Could you perhaps list some of those great things she has done in her career, because I am having some trouble coming up with any. Certainly the video was very negative about her, but it seems to me like fair commentary. I see nothing that is not pretty common knowledge, and most of the scandals that have dogged her were not even mentioned.
Clearly the presenter is not a Hillary supporter, but presenting the case for the prosecution, as it were, is not unfair as long as the case is a truthful one. It is up to her supporters to present the case for the defense, and I do not see that you have done that.
Patrick Brinton
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
unbalanced?… … Yes; but so what?…… Unfair?… … I don't think so, mentioning actual facts about a leader in America who is running for the top office in the country isn't unfair regardless of who it is; Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, etc. doesn't matter as long as it is factual and within a reasonable context which, BTW, I think the video does have a reasonable context, whereas it mentions actual facts.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
Since when is mentioning actual facts, (not fallacy), "unfair"?...:hmmm: …??
So somehow the abhorrent things don't count because you believe Clinton would appoint “liberal”justices?:hmmm:Quote:
I didn't watch the entire video, but I have read about and witnessed the many things that Hillary has done in her career that I consider abhorrent. She has also done a lot of great things in her career, and as President would appoint liberal justices and serve as a counterbalance to the right wing Congress.
You can count me as one of those 30%... ...I am privileged that I live in California, I know it wouldn't matter one way or the other because California is a winner takes all state and I know most of California's are not going to vote for a Republican for president.Quote:
At this point in the campaign season, Hillary is almost for certain going to be the Democratic nominee, even without the super delegates. I am very concerned by the polls stating that 30% of Sanders supporters would not vote for Hillary,And see the potential for a "shoot ourselves in the foot" outcome in November on the order of the 2010 midterms when the Republicans took control of Congress and the states because progressives were too stupid to vote.
Ron
If Clinton does get elected and proves herself worthy of my vote in the 2020 election cycle I would reconsider me not voting for Clinton for a second term, but I require proof of worthiness or knowing absolute destitute otherwise to cast my vote for H. R. Clinton.
If I lived in a different part of the country it would quite likely be a different story.
If people like me didn't make statements, like: I would not vote for so-and-so and then not back that up with action when it comes voting time then it would weigh-in even more towards the continuance of the abysmal amount of acknowledgment from the entrenched politics; (Democrat), and it would cause even more of that abusive treatment than we already have experienced for so many decades.
So, when somebody from the Democrat Party says something like: (they) 'blame Ralph Nader' for Al Gore's loss against George W. Bush in 2000; I say-- one- as far as actual vote counts actually were, that was not the case;
And two- that's a damn good reason not to isolate candidates like Bernie Sanders (behind the scenes) and further disenfranchise their supporters as what has been done for decades before the Bernie Sanders phenomena.... ...After all, there could be another Ralph Nader like phenomena in 2020 that could actually make a significant difference, and not necessarily in a good outcome sort of way.
I think the Democrat party has already repeatedly shot itself in the foot (or at least a toe or two) when they have so consistently poo-pooed the progressives within their own ranks and then veered so damn far to the right instead!:pullshair:
:2cents:If the 'Establishment Democrats' don't wake up to that fact, they are more likely than not going to get the shit beat out of them in future elections (like what happened in 2010), even though the Republican Party is not preferred by the actual majority, Republicans could conceivably win more elections and maintain the choke-hold on so much of everyone and everything.:2cents:
I hope the Democrat Party takes the Bernie Sanders 'phenomena' as a wake-up call and does better than it has in the last 25+ years, otherwise, the worst is yet to come.:shitstorm:
It didn't change my mind. I remember pre-politician Hillary when she wrote a book "It Takes A Village". She also attended the International Women's Conference during those years. HILLARY FOR QUEEN IN 2016!
I think one of the core differences between Bernie and Hillary is that Hillary tells you what you want to hear; Bernie tell you what you don't necessarily want to hear.
Hillary for queen?… Really?! … And then you even put that in caps!
Wow!…(:wow:) … I personally want a elected president (by popular vote, not some rigged Electoral College crap) not a king, queen, dictator, or even a figurehead for that matter either.
I think a couple of reasons why a lot of people that normally would not have voted did vote in 2008 who favored Obama over Hillary Clinton was in large part because he was male and also because he wasn't white.
I personally did not vote for Obama because I did not like his politics. Of course I did not vote for John McCain either:wink:.
I do realize that some people are tired of seeing old white men in high office positions (BTW, in some aspects I feel the same way about so many old white men in high offices too; the stodginess of that is horrendous IMHO); and...
...So...to many people, Hillary Clinton seems better than the stodgy, old, white men in office today, but her politics. IMHO, seem, for the most part, (to) boil-down into being the same old status quo business as usual that we are already getting too much of from the (stodgy) old white men, just a different face and some different angles, but is still the same general, 'upper economic class' favoring trend, with similar attitudes that the old white men have been dealing to us as far as I can tell.
Particularly considering whom she (and her husband too) has (have) historically hung out with; as the video so poignantly points out.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dorothy Friberg:
When was Hillary "pre-politics?' High school, maybe? She was certainly involved in politics when she wrote that book, I believe, and she's even more deeply entrenched now. Best to be up to date on who she has become, not what she once was or appeared to be.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dorothy Friberg:
As I frequent say, people will almost always believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence (even if it is overwhleming!)
usually I'm part of the side saying that reacting out of fear leads to worse results than confronting the causes of that fear. However, you could rephrase that. Voting to prevent a candidate from gaining power may be absolutely better than making a symbolic vote. That's not always the choice you're presented - but when you are, it's way the smart thing to do. Expressing your ideals may not always be a good way to achieve them.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by mrcharming:
Podfish,
I certainly understand your point. It's an argument that have been going on here for a very long-time. I want to empathize that I believe it far more important to look at the big picture, i.e. what is happening with our democracy, rather than to put effort into preventing someone from being voted into office. I don't necessarily see it as a "symbolic vote" by voting your heart. Looking at the big picture, I see more as a strategic vote; if the Democrats, that is the DNC, understands that we, the voters, are not going to vote for their favorite candidate just because the candidate is the lesser of two evils, then we might be able to break this sick cycle. As with every political party, the people of that party should choose their candidate, not the leadership of that particular party. Likewise, I think if people believe a third-party candidate is the best choice, they should vote for this candidate. We need to break this political game and make an effort to try to get our democracy back. That said, let me close by saying, I don't believe we voters choose our candidates; they are chosen for us. We do not have a democracy. What we have is an illusion of a democracy.
I watched half that video. What a crock. Hillary has only one main ambition, to be the best president this country has ever had, same thing goes for Sanders. If you make this primary in your own mind be about heroes and villains you deceive yourself. You may not agree on policy but to convince yourself she isn't a decent person is lame. I look at her political enemies and I would rather be with her than them.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by mrcharming:
You say you only watch half the video and say it's a crock.…
… Okay so you say "it's a crock".
Why is it that you think it is a "crock"?
On my first post in this thread, I asked:
...“if you do know if any of the statements in the video are untrue, than say so and state your sources.”
So far, there has been at least one apparent Clinton supporter, there may be others, but have been two that chimed-in 'against' the gist of what the video stated since I posed the question.
Anyway, I have yet to see an actual answer to that question ; and yes I did ask for sources, no answers, no sources as of yet… … Why am I not surprised?
I don't know about anybody else but I am not 'making' this about “heroes and villains”as you put it; I am not thinking of it in those terms..
Regarding:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Goat Rock Ukulele:
Goat Rock Ukulele, do you really think those of us that disagree with you here on this thread are “lame”?...Quote:
You may not agree on policy but to convince yourself she isn't a decent person is lame...
... I think it's a weak argument to use the word "lame"in the context that you have here.
Still, again; no answer to the question I asked(?); Also, neither has anyone named sources that would disprove anything that the video stated; but instead I see comments like: "to convince yourself she isn't a decent person is lame"... Furthermore, the term "decent person" is quite subjective terminology in this case, as such, anyone could also say same that about either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, etc.... ...too subjective of a statement, with too many variables for reasonable range of consistency, therefore, doesn't necessarily mean much...
...However, I think I do understand the gist of what you meant, but, FWIW, I don't vote for somebody for the president of the United States because they are a "decent person" per se...
And...
Goat Rock Ukulele, would it be accurate to say that you are a vote for the 'lesser of two evils” kind of a voter (in this case)?… … It seems to me what you said here could fit the description of that if you are in fact trying to convince anyone here to conceal, avoid knowing (IE: "I watched half that video."), or ignore, etc. the doings of H.R. Clinton's as stated in the video because you think she is a "decent person" which may be the prerogative of some here but it is not my prerogative.Quote:
I look at her political enemies and I would rather be with her than them.
...That being said, I do understand strategic voting, I have done it, but as I stated, I live in California; I have the 'privilege' (chosen prerogative) of voting for third-party candidate If Bernie Sanders is not nominated as democrat candidate for the general election just to make a statement without it having an effectual negative outcome.
As I said if I lived in a different part of the country the way I would vote would likely be different (strategy).
I certainly am a vote for the lesser of two evils guy. Those who did not do so in Florida when it was Bush V Gore and voted for Nader likely got 1,000,000 million and counting in Iraq killed. My brother in law was roommates with Bill at Oxford he knows the Clintons. He seems to think they are decent folks. Im just wondering if you have ever googled Hillary's accomplishments. I can only judge Hillary by her works. I don't give her an A but I don'g give her and F either. Ted Cruz already gets that F and Donald Trump gets something lower. Can you imagine how it feels to be muslim child or undocumented in America or be a Dreamer and watch Trumps rise? Hillary is on the side of American Muslims, Dreamers and The Undocumented, my friend Havi and Eddie and that's good enough for me.
Whoa there buddy....I was going to end my comments here...BUT your comment that those who voted for Nader in Florida got Bush elected is way out of line! It's been PROVEN that the votes for Nader DID NOT cause Gore to lose the election in 2000. Bush won because he managed to steal the election plan and simple!
I'm glad your brother-in-law thinks the Clintons are decent folks, but research tells me otherwise. That's just a matter of opinion...but an informed opinion.
Let me repeat...People will almost always continue believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence.
cool.. now we have the second pole necessary for good dichotomous thinking. And of course the truth spreads out along the line between. Like the great man said (well, not exactly what he said*) sometimes two opposite ideas can both be true.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Goat Rock Ukulele:
nothing's simple. It's been proven that if the election had proceeded honestly, the votes that went to Nader wouldn't have mattered. Not the same thing.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by mrcharming:
Thank you Podfish; I stand corrected.
hillary is a pragmatist & a visionary. sherrod brown & cory booker (perhaps our best congressional progressives) & the african american community likely support her because she doesn't promise the sky, & as much as anyone, she can get things done & is a FIGHTER.
have never seen any of her amazing accomplishments mentioned on wacco, so here's a peek into some of her early and contemporary life work:
“Hillary Clinton has been superb in shining a global spotlight on women’s rights and empowerment,” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof told The Story Exchange.
Clinton visited more countries than any other secretary of state – clocking in close to a million miles of travel to 112 countries* – and on most trips, visiting women’s projects, businesses and activists was a priority for her.
Kristof (co-author of Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide) recalls Clinton meeting sex trafficking survivors in Cambodia, a girl who had escaped a child marriage in Yemen, and anti-trafficking activists in India.
Although such visits weren’t widely covered by the media, Kristof says they clearly made a difference. “[The visits] galvanized those organizations and brought them to the attention of the US Embassy and local leaders..”.
Hillary has been a champion in this country for children, for the poor, and for the disenfranchised.
100's of stories about her early days of political activism as well.
have seen no signs of Bernie supporters wanting to have a civil discourse, & the usual response is ugly.
would you be surprised to know:
"Hillary Clinton's early work ...as a law student, she monitored the Black Panther trials for civil rights violations; she interned for civil rights lawyer Bob Treuhaft; in Arkansas she worked as a public defender and as Politico recently reported, Hillary worked in the 1970s to get a mentally handicapped black man off of death row. Few of these past efforts received much airtime during the years that Hillary‘s job was building support for her husband.."
do people remember "She was called Billary, Hellary Rotten Clinton and a Feminazi; she was derided for being ugly, for being mannish, for being frigid, and for consulting with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt. Her hair was a problem, as was her desire to keep her maiden name. The Hillary happy meal was two fat thighs, two small breasts, and two left wings. There were voodoo dolls, nutcrackers. She was told to run like a man, to run like a woman, to cut her hair, chuck her glasses, be less divisive, be less conciliatory."
i know that i am in the minority in west county on being humbled by her life's work, but the derision, in light of amazing accomplishments keeps me shaking my head, & usually quiet.
i spent an hour writing about no there there in Bernie's financial plans. I admire Robert Reich, but 5.%+ economic growth is unreasonable, & would be hugely problematic. (George Herbert Bush talked about 4% growth, so as no need for tax raises...you might remember the results).
Free college is a bad idea.
we need internships, technical schools, technology programs geared towards job placement introduced as pilot programs in the jr. high/middle school years (i am aware of one in west county). the list is long & complex in terms of addressing jobs, but college outside of a specific career that requires 3-5 years of university learning is not the key to a more prepared competitive work force.
hillary has actually addressed this as well, likely you might find it buried in some periodical.
college tuition is out of control, and college for all is not going to address this serious problem. (we need to zero in on the high acceleration of college tuition costs which is out of line w. other expenses as well as targeting some of the significant problems that now exist with student loans).
free jr. college for those who want it/need it, can make sense, but not alone. we must have alternative job programs to target the lack of prepared candidates for decent paying jobs which are now available.
(with technology, we will have significant job shifts, which we need to have plans in place to deal with--the elimination of many jobs & the shifting new employment.).
there are paying jobs for which we need people, yet we haven't provided training. (this is would be in conjunction with looking at traditional, and more contemporary trade employment, another pool of important, & good paying jobs).
next time my frustration reaches boiling, will begin the analysis of faulty economics that underlie many of bernie's plans (based on the information that is on his website as methods to pay for tremendous costs, of his programs.)
economic growth, a strong dollar, & the long slide of our middle class (a trend with beginning in '74) are not easily made into sound bites, or campaign slogans. not fascinating or sexy. critical. you'll love it.:wink2:
(*one more area that speaks to grit!)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by mrcharming:
WRONG!!... ...Al gore did not loose the election to G.W. Bush in 2000 because of Ralph Nader voters in Florida... …
Oh yes that's right we should name or link to sources...
https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/...eenreform9.pdf
https://www.cagreens.org/alameda/cit...myth/myth.html
Again, more fallacy and blaming by someone who if not is actually a democrat party, business as usual insider, who, in my view is closed-minded and too suborn, and at least believes the incorrect blame-game rhetoric, someone who is unwilling to thoroughly, independently investigate into currently available information, someone who chooses to only watch some of the video, someone who has, as of me writing this not named ANYremotely reliable sources stating anything to the contrary of the video's claims...
...(Your brother in law, a reliable source to the general public? OK where is, if any, of his publications to back-up your claim here?)
...NO, instead your statements here plays into the blame the left-leaning independents and also the progressives within the democrat parties own ranks... ...and, as such, excuses one's self with the opinionated, rhetorical “good person” line instead of using sources to disprove the videos claims.
I get it, You like H.R. Clinton, that is your prerogative, I am not saying that by itself is either good or bad.
What I am saying (is) when someone says something is “BS” or a “crock” and does not even make any effort other than saying in your own way that you like and approve that politician shows me that you are more of a Home-Teem fan politico than someone who is into taking the effort to investigate very deep into anything that doesn't fit into your favored perceptions, particularly when things are presented to you that you would use against an opponent of your Home-Teem candidate if the situation was reversed. If that is the case, all I can say to that is that would be highly hypocritical and somewhat irresponsible.
Just as I suspected, same old status-quot BS which is primarily why I already know, if that self -righteousness and stubborn-headed establishment insider democrat business as usual games continues to stay same, :2cents:democrats will get the shit kicked out of them by the actually less popular republicans in many future elections.:2cents:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Goat Rock Ukulele:
Let's be practical here. Who do we really need for President? Ask yourself some of these questions. How is America going to feed, cloth and care for 7.5 billion people that are alive on this planet today? If the entire world decided to live in the US or if the US funded the entire world, can we sustain that? Hillary just wants more taxes to support her socialist agenda. Try socialized medicine. See how long you have to wait for medical services? Hillary just wants to feed her own ego and become the first woman president.
Socialism means that the government tells you what to do, how to do it and when to do it. You are not in charge of your own life. Most everything you earn legally goes to taxes. Is tat the kind of president this nation needs?
Hillary supports illegal immigration as it has been reported.Illegal/undocumented. Call it what you wish. It does not even work for the illegals that are vulnerable to harm.They can be beaten, raped, killed, tortured, used as slaves and forced to pay exorbitant fees for their entire lives to their masters. There are no traces of who they are so they do not even have any protection.
Hillary is just fine with fascism. She favors the corporations over working class Americans, the backbone of this country. The incentives for production will decrease so more of us will be standing in line for minuscule
government handouts.Fascism means that the corporations run the government. Our jobs are leaving this country.
We need a president that will bring our jobs back to the US and penalize our corporations instead of rewarding them with incentives to destroy our country and break down our systems.By the way at least 30% of the people who are already living in the United States are on government assistance, food stamps, are unemployed. many are homeless, many are ill, yet there are those that want to bring more people here to the US. Where is the plan to take care of the people who are here that are already suffering?
Drive around, do a little traveling. See what reality looks like in the streets all around this country, even here in affluent Sonoma county. Let's be real. How much food is anybody growing? What is Hillary going to do about these problems?
She wants to bring more people to the US and supports illegal immigration. Do we have a surplus enough to feed more people than we already have in the US now? How about the spread of disease? What are the plans to take care of the diseases that are coming into this country from the untraced? We cannot even handle the diseases that we have now with the people who are already living in the US, legal citizens or not. Ever hear of Zika or epidemics like Hepatitis C?
How many people are letting the homeless and our vulnerable population live in their homes? Or do most people still think our government will take care of the entire world? Think about how much of your own money out of your own pocket above the taxes you already pay if you pay taxes goes to helping the helpless and the needy? How much do you want your taxes to increase to have the US government do what many people expect and still not have it done effectively or efficiently?
If anyone has a rowboat that only holds fifteen people and there are a hundred people swimming around you, do you put one hundred fifteen people in the row boat that can only hold fifteen so everyone drowns? Our country can only sustain so many people. We cannot take care of what is already here. That does not even include our old and falling down infrastructure that is in dire straits and dangerous. All of our systems are over loaded and collapsing now. What will Hillary do about these problems?
If we continue on this path, we will all sink. We do not need politicians that say what people want to hear so
they can get votes and become even more wealthy than they are already. Our politicians are supposed to serve the public not the corporations who do not pay much in taxes yet call the shots. If Hillary is President
she will empower the corporations to do more of what they are already doing. Ruining this country. Hillary supports corporate greed. Hillary Clinton is not going to solve our problems in
this country. She just wants as many votes as she can get. We need a president who is realistic and will address these issues. We do not need career politicians. Hillary Clinton is a paid off corporate lackey who knows how to say the right things because she has been doing it all of her life.
Look at what Bill Clinton did? He sent the US jobs oversees through NAFTA. He destroyed this country. Hillary will finish the job that Bill started because they are partners and money and power are their true ideals.
that's actually a good question. How indeed? that's a lofty humanitarian goal, and I hope you didn't just mean that rhetorically in a selfish way. You'd think more people in this oft-proclaimed christian nation would focus on that.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Stargazer:
you must have taken some interesting poli-sci classes, though it doesn't seem like your teachers were all that interested in accuracy.Quote:
Socialism means that the government tells you what to do, how to do it and when to do it. You are not in charge of your own life. Most everything you earn legally goes to taxes. ....
Fascism means that the corporations run the government.
we do, actually. We have a distribution problem. Because of the way agribusiness works, there's a glut in many commodities now.Quote:
Do we have a surplus enough to feed more people than we already have in the US now?
I'm glad to have a chance to get back to my traditional stop-acting-out-of-fear perspective, which I veered away from a bit on an earlier post in this thread. But your post is a litany of 'my god, bad things everywhere!' fears that are only faintly accurate and certainly don't need to lead to the isolationist, uncharitable positions you seem to desire. For example: "We cannot even handle the diseases that we have now with the people who are already living in the US, legal citizens or not". So, are we to not only bar anyone coming from overseas, but quarantine anyone who bravely dares to leave the safety of our borders and then recklessly desires to return home??
Just because you don't see food being grown doesn't mean it's not growing somewhere. When was the last time you saw steel being produced? Ships being built? You paint a very one-dimensional perspective of issues and politicians, and even of businesses. The thing I like about politicians like Clinton and Obama is exactly that not only are they multi-dimensional themselves, but they are able to see and deal with issues on multiple levels, attempting to understand and manage the varying interests of others who are also vested in the outcomes. "Winner" vs. "Loser" is nice (maybe) if you're going to always be the winner, but it's a weird way to engage with the world. Where's the idea of 'mutual benefit' or 'reasonable accomodation' come in? much less 'respect for others' ???
Personal attacks regarding someone's post is inappropriate and counter productive. I am very far from selfish. I pose these questions for people to think about the "reality of what is." I am not saying that I agree with any kind of suffering or slavery. How much charity do you do? Best to express your opinion, without attacking, specifically when one does not appear to understand the message that one is trying to convey.
Are you part of the solution or are you part of the problem? We need new and fresh ideas. Our systems are not working for most of us, unless one has lots of money. How did they get that money? Good question? Some have worked very hard. Others will steal and destroy. What are your values? Vote with your conscious. Interesting how some are so idealistic, yet do nothing to help others. Best not to make "Assumptions" Put your ideals into action. Walk the streets even around Sonoma county. Understand the magnitude of the problem. How many do you advocate for? Look at our systems. What needs to change?
Realism and action speaks much louder than calling people selfish and uninformed. Greed, fear and selfishness are causing the problems that we face today. It is not a question of not having enough. How much does it cost to house and feed yourself in today's world? Can most people afford the basics today? Corruption and accountability need to be addressed. Divided we fall. United we stand.
Yes there is more than enough for everyone, so what is going on? Look at our court systems. Look at our jails. How much does it cost today for our children to get educated? Look at our medical system when many doctors over prescribe antipsychotics and dangerous medications with serious side effects to so many. Ask yourself, what is going on here? Look at the priorities and main motivators of today's culture and value system. What needs to change?
Who do you want to represent and fix these systems? Yes there are many well intentioned folks out there who do make a positive difference who are kind hearted and sincere in their efforts. I have much gratitude for individuals that can lead and make proper decisions that are based on common sense and reality. NOT for the money, the power or the greed but for the benefit of others.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by mrcharming:
personal attacks?? no, that's what "Jane, you ignorant slut.." (for those old enough to recognize..) prefaces. My post addresses your ideas, not you. And I stand by the assertion that the concerns you raise, and the solutions you imply are fundamentally selfish ones. It's a relevant observation exactly because it's not a personal attack - you're echoing a commonly-heard set of observations and attitudes in current political discourse, and I think the fact that those positions are based on fear, unwillingness to risk sacrifice when others are in need, and on demonization of others (corporations, 1%ers, Clintons) is worth pointing out. It's exactly because most people don't really intend to be selfish, and don't see themselves that way, that it's important to point out that those positions may well violate the ethics of those who hold them.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Stargazer:
I have alway found Truthdig to be a very reliable source for news and information. I would say they are one of the most trustworthy online news magazines I know. Their journalism and their journalists are impeccable. Here what one of Truthdig journalists has to say about Hillary Clinton:
https://www.truthdig.com/report/item...inton_20160424
Thank you for a very informative link, in addition to containing 10 hrs. of Hillary laughing.....creepy stuff!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by mrcharming:
Stargazer, personal attacks, put downs, and lack of respect can be seen in many responses, and almost always from a certain few. It's unfortunate, but as Barry said in his response to our recent post entitled: Unified Statement on behalf of the Non-Conformist Community & the Red Pill Roundtable, (which you've probably never seen, since it was hidden in a seldom used category-Help Desk and Feedback), "As I have posted before, WaccoBB is not a place for free speech. Not all speech is welcome." He doesn't go into detail about the kinds of speech that isn't welcome, but you have experienced some that is. Some of what is welcome and appreciated with "gratitude" are posts that seem to attack the poster, which hardly seems like conscious, non-violent communication. But it's Barry's call, and Barry's board. I usually don't respond to attacks, because that only encourages more, which is truly a waste of time, for some of us.
I've never seen an explanation of what is meant by "conscious community" on Wacco. It may be quite different that my perception. I've developed 5 guidelines for conscious community living, but I don't see any guidelines for postings. Maybe I've missed them?
I may not agree with all the points you mentioned, but I support your right to your views. If I judged that you were selfish, by my standards, I would still support your right to your personal thoughts and feelings. The difficulty in having a discussion on polarizing issues, is that we're emotionally invested in being right.
That was part of the value of the RedPillRoundtable. We were a group of open minded individuals, who questioned the status quo on various issues, and wanted a safe place to question and discuss, without the distraction of dealing with personal attacks and put downs, commonly seen on Wacco. Some people have shared with us that they have left Wacco because of this. We are "non-conformists", but that doesn't mean that we agree, only that we desire to learn more through questioning what is commonly accepted by the masses. We're in good company, with Martin Luther King.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Stargazer:
Thank you Shandi! I wish you would post this as a new tread. Although I have rarely, if ever, participated in the "Red Pill Roundtable", I have frequently read it.. No disrespect to Barry; WACCO is his baby and he can run it as he seems fit; however, I, too, often wonder what Barry means by "conscious community". With the exception of a few enlightened souls, I find most of the comments on WACCO to largely reflect conventional thinking. And that's fine...everyone is entitled to their opinion, and WACCO does provide a wonderful formate for people to express their opinions, as long as those opinions are not too far outside the box. Again, no disrespect to Barry or WACCO; it is what it is.
Like you, I would welcome a venue where thinkers who are, as you say, non-conformists can express their ideas. Now that Barry has decided to remove the "Red Pill Roundtable" from WACCO, I am hoping we can find another local online place for local non-conformists to share their views. I think you'll agree that there is so much more happing in the world and are local community than "meets the eye". I am interested in looking beyond the veil of illusion and learning from others what they are seeing beyond this veil. I am fortunate in that I do have community with whom I can discuss a lot of this "red pill" stuff, but I would welcome a local online format as well. I have neither the time or technical sophistication to launch such a project; perhaps someone else does. We must continue to QUESTION REALITY! Again, Thank you for your post!
this had digressed. is the Clinton candidacy part of this thread.
did you miss the NY Times article about Karl Rove & America's Rising supporting Bernie Sanders, in attempt to undermine Clinton, https://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...didnt-ask-for/
("All of it, of course, is intended to get under Mrs. Clinton’s skin and promote the Democratic candidate they believe would be weaker in a general election. Republican groups and super PACs have spent nearly $5 million targeting Mrs. Clinton so far this cycle. They’ve yet to spend a dollar on attacking Mr. Sanders.")
almost as interesting is Clinton's endorsement by Planned Parenthood & HRC:
“... endorsed by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund because of the work ..."(Hillary has done) "to defend women’s health and I was proud to be supported and endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign because of the work I have done to end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community,”
...she was “somewhat confused” by Mr. Sanders’s comments, which he made in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday, that the groups that had endorsed Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy represented the establishment politics he rails against.
heard nothing about violence against women, promoting women's rights in countries that are in a different era.
does anyone else care about these issues?
not one comment about Clintons' global work, or her historical work in the African American community.
Icssoma,
Of course most of us care about these issues. When I posted the Abby Martin video and more recently the Truthdig.com article my intention was not to really change anyone's mind about Clinton. I realize that most people are "dug in" to whatever they believe...as I said...People will alway believe what they want to believe. My intention was to expose people to news sources which they might not be familiar. When it comes down to it, it's all about who you believe, isn't it? I happen not to believe Hillary's rhetoric largely because the sources I have researched has brought me to this conclusion. I tend not to do watch or listen to mainstream media, and I seek out sources of which I BELIEVE are trustworthy. That's how I base my OPINION. However, it is not my opinion...it is fact..that almost all mainstream media outlets are owned by just 6 major corporations. Do think they might have a vested interest in the outcome of the election? I really don't care who you, or others support. As I said, I think it's all a rigged system anyway. I just want to expose point of views from sources that are not often heard.
hadn't seen anything on wacco, about her early or recent accomplishments. huge & important. this campaign has been pretty focused on us (the US), when we talk trade, the complexities of trade, & who they help, & who is hurt is rarely addressed. it is less about "taking away American jobs", and more about shifts in the economies of the world. (conditions in India, China, & many non european countries are often appalling), disciplined & vocal consumers should have a huge role in this change.
we need to shift our approach to jobs & corporations. both are difficult, layered and take a thoughtful, and tenacious process.
same with new approaches within the criminal (non) justice system. these can be addressed, the seeds can be set, steps can be taken, but changing these policies for the better, involves huge grass roots movements, and amazing leadership. (the Ella Baker Center in the Bay Area, Southern Center on Law & Poverty, & 50 other ngo organizations are best suited to lay out game plans).
just learned this weekend about Rove & America's Rising support of Sanders.
the next step may well be to have gracious looser to unify the democratic party (as Hillary did for Obama in '08.)
taking back the senate and/or house would be huge, as well having nominations confirmed on the supreme court, along with a plan to appeal the citizen's united ruling ( a new amendment).
demos have rarely been unified. republicans have done better on this front. perhaps we can switch those roles now, & take some critical actions.
hmmm. I wonder which of those two groups you'd assign me to. Well, never mind. I'm confused, though.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by mrcharming:
What's wrong with this as a venue where thinkers can express their ideas? Unless you're only expecting the "yeah brother, AMEN!" as a response??
and I'm crushed to be (maybe) considered a conventional thinker. But there's a cliche I like: the race doesn't always go to the swift, but that's the way to bet. And 'conventional' ideas are like fast horses; they've often survived challenges from other ideas on their way to becoming commonly accepted. Not from some weird random draw, but from a reality-biased competition of ideas. Now, 'superficial' is a more accurate critique of many ideas. There's a lot of that in many posts. Criticisms of Bernie's socialism, based on a generalized and shallow understanding of what socialism even means, are really common. Unfortunately, I find a lot of the criticism of what's conventional is pretty shallow too. Which is sad, because it's a target-rich environment. There's a lot to criticize, but attacks on a strawman representation of conventional ideas is kind of content-free.
It's pretty simple to me at this point. Do we want to turn over all three branches of our government to the Republican party? I for one do not.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Hallelujah!!!