HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Maru Kitteh » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

Maru Kitteh

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 23, 2004, 10:06 PM
Number of posts: 25,682

About Me

Greetings from the last best place! The Crown of the Continent.

Journal Archives

Cops and soldiers, carpenters and welders!

In his dim-witted tirade today, Donald Trump was very specific about what kinds of people he claims are supporting him who were being insulted by Hillary's comment about a "basket of deplorables," and it looks like in his world - those are men.

Yes, most of the planet has grown enough to know that women are cops, soldiers, carpenters and welders. But in TrumpLand, I assure you, those are men. And the only ones that are any good, are the white ones.

So we have here yet another screaming dog-whistle of sexism. The castrating bitch who dares to criticize men. The femminazi who wants to sever your manhood by demanding you treat women and minorities as equals. Equals!

Look at any Trump rally as of late. It's almost exclusively white men. That is what they are insulted by. A woman who dared to criticize white men.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to need a bigger basket.



My 15,000th (and one) post! I love you guys :-)

When this board was kind of a mess for a while, the HRC group helped me keep my sanity and my focus. The joy and camaraderie here has been sustaining and helped make DU a fun place to be. The best information about Hillary and her amazing journey was always found in here - and it still is!

I'm looking forward to our experiences going forward as we watch our amazing candidate continue through the general election and her inauguration as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

So, shout out to you, HRC group! Y'all are the bees knees.


Go DEMS!

Brexit, Russia Today (RT) and Comrade Jill Stein, willing tool of a fascist autocrat.



Stein in Moscow
Jill Stein appeared to take immense enjoyment at engaging in her usual shtick of attacking our country and President Obama while she was in Moscow last winter, having a lovely dinner with Vladimir Putin and Trump's military advisor, Michael Flynn. Just look at that smile! She seems so pleased with herself. Very nice comrade!



Trump's guy Flynn is in the tux, seated to Putin's right. Stein is wearing a grey sweater.

Invited to speak by Putin's mouthpiece, RT or "Russia Today," Stein herself reports in a video she posted to YouTube that she used the opportunity to criticize US foreign policy and human rights. She apparently declined to bring up Putin and Russia's brutal record on human rights; killing journalists, poisoning dissenters, supporting chemical warfare, and the continued criminalization and state-sanctioned brutality and discrimination against the LGBT citizens of Russia and the Ukraine. Well done comrade!

http://americablog.com/2016/08/jill-stein-moscow-criticized-us-human-rights-said-nothing-russian-human-rights.html


Stein Campaign Ads
So much of what comrade Stein is up to these days points far away from any real concern for a progressive agenda, and more towards doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin and his fondest admirer, Donald Trump.

Stein's advertisements are concerned primarily with spreading lies and smears about our Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton; the only person who can keep Trump out of the White House and our country moving forward on the path of progress. In Stein's ads, the Putin-loving Trump is dismissed quite briefly as kind of a goof who has said terrible things, while HRC is instead painted as the baby-killing harbinger of the end of all life on the planet.

An Open Secrets report dated July 21 states that Stein had a mere $235,000 cash on hand and owed herself $40,000. But lately she's been running a string of ads seen across the country on both CNN and MSNBC. Who is paying for those ads?

It seems only prudent to consider who the ads will benefit the most. Next year, one of two people will be sworn into office. Hillary Rodham Clinton or Putin-loving Donald Trump. Even comrade Stein isn't so stupid as to believe she will win the election. Stein's commercials are clearly designed to weaken HRC, and as such have but one electoral goal - the election of Donald Trump.


Putin, Brexit, and How RT hearts Stein
When Great Britain made the shocking decision to leave the EU, Stein proclaimed the bigotry-driven Brexit an awesome victory! before she scrubbed her praiseful words and said she was against it.
www.forwardprogressives.com/green-party-jill-stein-busted-cover-up-praise-bigotry-driven-brexit/

Hmmm, that's weird. Why was she so happy about the Brexit passing? A weakened EU is beneficial to Putin, and it seems his network, RT did all they could to encourage the "leave" vote, while Putin himself of course, feigned neutrality.
While it is true that Russian state officials have carefully avoided any public comment, there is a clear pattern of agitation for withdrawal from the EU on Russia’s state-owned, English-language news outlets Russia Today, a television network, and Sputnik, a news site.

Analysis of recent news stories shows a clear bias towards quoting anti-EU campaigners in articles that claim to show balance. One news story quotes extreme right-wing Polish politician Janusz Korwin-Mikke, who says Britain would be right to leave the EU. (He also offers his support for Trump because “Clinton is supported by the Jews.”)

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/08/why-putin-is-meddling-in-britain-s-brexit-vote.html

Comrade Stein is a familiar and regular guest on Putin's RT, where she enjoys fawning coverage of her rants against Hillary Clinton and her endless criticisms of the United States. RT speaks of Stein and the Greens in glowing and hopeful tones, stating that they are headed for "an historic election," while running headlines about Hillary Clinton like "NY Primary fraud details revealed, Hillary’s Money laundering," "Hillary is used to beating, kicking and abusing her own husband" and "Trump outflanks Hillary after Republican convention."

RT even hosted the Green Party "Presidential debates." I apologize for having no quotes from those debates, but truthfully, I'd rather chew on glass than watch that drivel.
www.rt.com/usa/342395-green-party-rt-debate/


Jill and Putin, Sittin' in a Tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g!
Jill Stein repeatedly claims she is not beholden to corporate interests. It has become remarkably clear however, who exactly she does seem beholden to. Her cozy and close relationship to Putin (the ultimate 1%er) and RT, her reticence to level any serious criticisms of Donald Trump, and her vicious, seething attacks against Hillary show her for what she really is. Jill Stein is the willing tool of a fascist autocrat; working to elect Donald Trump. And thus, henceforth, she will always be to me, Comrade Stein.





AntiVAX panderista, QUACK, & all-around hateful asshole Jill Stein just had a commercial on CNN.

Open Secrets says that she had $235,000 cash on hand as of July 21. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00033776

What right-wing group is funneling money to the Green party now to get them ads on TV? Karl Rove and "American Crossroads" again?

Rove's habit of giving to anyone he thinks can weaken Hillary Clinton is well-documented (note, this is NOT about the primary which is WAY over - this is about ROVE working to weaken our nominee)

American Crossroads and Bernie Sanders helped Nevada caucus-goers see right through Hillary Clinton’s manufactured zeal on immigration reform after spewing virulent Trump-like rhetoric—and that one-two punch shaved Clinton’s 50-point lead a year ago to a slim, single digit win,” Steven Law, Crossroads CEO and president, said in a statement.

Crossroads is one of several groups that has released ads that have been aimed at branding Sanders as the only true progressive in the race—a strategy the Vermont senator’s campaign also embraces.

“If it helps push the needle so that she loses a state, and she comes out a weakened candidate, then fantastic,” said Ian Prior, communications director for Crossroads.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/23/bernie-sanders-s-conservative-fanboys.html


[font size = 5] THIS IS WHY YOU DO NOT IGNORE THESE CRANKS AND LOONS![/font]

Stein and her band of puritopian jack-holes are not alone, and The Greens are NOT our allies.

Repub candidates have been pushed continually to the right; angrier, more extreme, more intolerant

Since the dawn of the century at least, Republican candidates have been pushed harder and harder by their electorate to embrace the angry and frightened (mostly male) white voter, with ever increasing displays of intolerance for the positions or plights of minorities, immigrants and women.

Accordingly and for obvious reason, their numbers among minorities and women have been falling like a stone. Who stays with the "binder full of women" party whose nominee this year says that women subject to workplace harassment should just get themselves a new career? Who stays to put up with a party that nominates a man found guilty twice of discriminating against black tenants and says that BLM protestors at his rallies should be "roughed up?" Who stays with the party who nominates a man who says that most people from Mexico are "rapists?"

I know we're not past this election cycle. Really I do - but I still have to ask; when Cheeto looses, who on Earth are these cretins going to nominate next? Will they have to just jump straight to David Duke in 2020? It's a scary thought.

How Hillary Survived a Gauntlet of Saboteurs and Scoundrels

https://newrepublic.com/article/135652/hillary-survived-gauntlet-saboteurs-scoundrels

Who says she can’t bring us all together? Hillary Clinton, in the middle of her glass-shattering ascent, found herself besieged on all sides as a cast of Batman-style villains from literally around the world sought to sabotage her convention.

Donald Trump, Julian Assange, Susan Sarandon, Nina Turner, Vladimir Putin, and Dr. Jill Stein—political bedfellows don’t get any odder than this.

The most infamous moment, of course, was Trump pleading with Vlad the Eavesdropper to further aid his ratfucking of Hillary by producing still more computer hacks. Trump had already exposed himself as a gushing Putin fanboy, even offering to turn NATO into a protection racket for the shirtless Kremlin tyrant.

<snip>

And whatever they invent will fall on wide-open ears in the Khmer Rouge faction of the Bernie-or-Bust crowd. More annoying than a stadium full of vuvuzelas, the Berners chanted and ranted and cried and cat-called throughout the convention. Almost no one was spared, with insults hurled willy-nilly regardless of who was at the podium or what they stood for.

Inane cries of “Goldman Sachs!” greeted the Senate’s scourge of Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren, while chants of “Black lives matter!” interrupted Senator Cory Booker, the former mayor of Newark, and shouts of “No more wars!” stomped on former CIA Director Leon Panetta’s attempt to bring up Trump’s collusion with a foreign potentate. Much worse were the visuals of enraged, young white people, their faces contorted in hate, obliviously screaming invective through the speeches of older, African-American representatives such as Marcia Fudge, Elijiah Cummings, and even the 76-year-old dean of the civil rights movement, John Lewis.


The article does go on to point out "Just who these bravehearts were representing was unclear, since polls show that 90 percent of the Berners are already on board with Hillary."

I thought it was an interesting article, although I disagree with the author's characterization of the convention as "sterile" but for the President's speech and Michelle Obama.

I found so many of the speeches inspiring - but then again it seems the authors may have been watching the coverage on MSNBC. Which would explain a lot! I watched bobble-head free coverage on DirecTV #347 and chose CNN for post-convention analysis. So I saw the whole convention and made up my own mind about what I saw before hearing any talking heads opine.

Overall, they seem to give the convention, and most importantly Hillary herself very high marks. Worth the read.

Now ONWARD to go stuff that giant, poorly-aged, orange toddler back in his playpen!

[font size = 5] STRONGER TOGETHER [/font]

STRONGER TOGETHER sig line graphics

Unity Y'all! Let's lead the way.

We all know that 85+% of Bernie Sanders' voters are on board - including Bernie himself!

We know that the occasional dead-enders we run into here and more rarely, IRL, were most likely never Democratic voters to begin with. Their time has past. Time to move onward and forward now - Stronger, Together.














Uh. As you can see, I forgot to resize the first one but it's in my sig so - still works.

#4 is from a debate but is a nice photo of both of them and the point remains the same.




Sanders' demands & the path forward - What if it were two men?


Pardon my girl-dar, but I'm catching a little whiff of less-than-equal treatment and paternalism in the media's treatment of Mr. Sanders and his behavior since the end of the Democratic primaries. It saddens me to my core to say this, but I have come to believe that Mr. Sanders would not be making demands of his victor if he had lost the same contest to a man, and more importantly; I do not believe the media or so many others would be entertaining it with any seriousness were the contest between two men.

The content of the demands Mr. Sanders is making of the party he so recently joined has been noted and addressed by the media as transparently self-oriented. That's fine, but what about the very fact that this man who lost, is now not only failing to concede graciously in accordance with all traditions of politics and basic sportsmanship to the female who bettered him, but also making demands targeted most pointedly at powerful women (and fewer men I notice) in the party?

When Mr. Trump mused that he may remove the chairman of the RNC if he won his party's nomination, the statement was treated rightly as vindictive and childish; a threat to act as a spiteful and belligerent winner. Mr. Sanders is the loser, not the winner, and yet he has not merely mused upon, but demanded the right to oust the powerful female chair of our party and install his own choice.

Unless and until Mr. Sanders makes a gracious concession and changes his tone towards the nominee and the party he so recently hooked his wagon to, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party should quietly dismiss him. This is not an appeal merely out of reaction to discerned paternalism, but also a matter of respect for the voters, and the future of the party.

We should not set a precedent in this party whereby the runner-up gets to pick the platform, blame and subsequently oust the chair because they are mad about losing, and in short, demand that the party bend to the will of the losing campaign. This would make a mockery of voting. The voters choose a winner because they trust that winner and her/his vision to carry the party forward. The voters speak to endorse a leader who will shape the platform, the party organization, the process, and the Presidency. To cede leadership to the losing campaign is to disrespect the entire process and point of asking voters to make that choice.

That the winner of the process becomes the leader, that the victor chooses the path forward has never been a subject of question before, so why would it be now? On what basis might this man who lost feel entitled to dictate to women of power in this party what course they should take? I am a big believer in Occam's razor. Most often the obvious answer is in fact the correct one.

If someone can demonstrate an example of a time when Mr. Sanders lost to a man and behaved in a similar fashion I'm willing to look at it objectively and reconsider. We do have another example, curiously enough, of Mr. Sanders losing an election to a woman, and how he behaved then.
That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent
Some of the parallels are rather stark and a bit disquieting.

The two-term governor who defeated Sanders endorses Hillary.
When Bernie Sanders ran against me in Vermont
Again, if someone can demonstrate Mr. Sanders showing this kind of pettish fractiousness following contests with men, I will happily give it fair reading.

Any parts or points of Mr. Sanders agenda should be brought forth as a request, not a demand, in the spirit of cooperation. The Democratic Party, with Hillary as the leader elected by the Democratic voters, should then decide what points to consider or adopt as she sees beneficial to the party and her campaign moving forward. It's obvious to many that the changes Mr. Sanders is demanding for the party he just recently and only "kind of" joined, are not-too-coincidentally exactly the ones he thinks would have allowed him to win. It seems rather self-serving because it is; but nonetheless it seems likely the campaigns will search for common ground.

There is room on the path forward for Mr. Sanders, but there must be no doubt that it is Secretary Clinton, at the behest of the voters of our party who has been chosen to make those decisions great and small that will guide our journey.

Sanders' demands & the path forward - What if it were two men?

This is kind of an expanded x-post from a reply I formed in GD-P, but honestly it's a point I've not seen brought up yet.

Pardon my girl-dar, but I'm catching a little whiff of less-than-equal treatment and paternalism in the media's treatment of Mr. Sanders and his behavior since the end of the Democratic primaries. It saddens me to my core to say this, but I have come to believe that Mr. Sanders would not be making demands of his victor if he had lost the same contest to a man, and more importantly; I do not believe the media or so many others would be entertaining it with any seriousness were the contest between two men.

The content of the demands Mr. Sanders is making of the party he so recently joined has been noted and addressed by the media as transparently self-oriented. That's fine, but what about the very fact that this man who lost, is now not only failing to concede graciously in accordance with all traditions of politics and basic sportsmanship to the female who bettered him, but also making demands targeted most pointedly at powerful women (and fewer men I notice) in the party?

When Mr. Trump mused that he may remove the chairman of the RNC if he won his party's nomination, the statement was treated rightly as vindictive and childish; a threat to act as a spiteful and belligerent winner. Mr. Sanders is the loser, not the winner, and yet he has not merely mused upon, but demanded the right to oust the powerful female chair of our party and install his own choice.

Unless and until Mr. Sanders makes a gracious concession and changes his tone towards the nominee and the party he so recently hooked his wagon to, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party should quietly dismiss him. This is not an appeal merely out of reaction to discerned paternalism, but also a matter of respect for the voters, and the future of the party.

We should not set a precedent in this party whereby the runner-up gets to pick the platform, blame and subsequently oust the chair because they are mad about losing, and in short, demand that the party bend to the will of the losing campaign. This would make a mockery of voting. The voters choose a winner because they trust that winner and her/his vision to carry the party forward. The voters speak to endorse a leader who will shape the platform, the party organization, the process, and the Presidency. To cede leadership to the losing campaign is to disrespect the entire process and point of asking voters to make that choice.

That the winner of the process becomes the leader, that the victor chooses the path forward has never been a subject of question before, so why would it be now? On what basis might this man who lost feel entitled to dictate to women of power in this party what course they should take? I am a big believer in Occam's razor. Most often the obvious answer is in fact the correct one.

If someone can demonstrate an example of a time when Mr. Sanders lost to a man and behaved in a similar fashion I'm willing to look at it objectively and reconsider. We do have another example, curiously enough, of Mr. Sanders losing an election to a woman, and how he behaved then.
That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent
Some of the parallels are rather stark and a bit disquieting.

The two-term governor who defeated Sanders endorses Hillary.
When Bernie Sanders ran against me in Vermont
Again, if someone can demonstrate Mr. Sanders showing this kind of pettish fractiousness following contests with men, I will happily give it fair reading.

Any parts or points of Mr. Sanders agenda should be brought forth as a request, not a demand, in the spirit of cooperation. The Democratic Party, with Hillary as the leader elected by the Democratic voters, should then decide what points to consider or adopt as she sees beneficial to the party and her campaign moving forward. It's obvious to many that the changes Mr. Sanders is demanding for the party he just recently and only "kind of" joined, are not-too-coincidentally exactly the ones he thinks would have allowed him to win. It seems rather self-serving because it is; but nonetheless it seems likely the campaigns will search for common ground.

There is room on the path forward for Mr. Sanders, but there must be no doubt that it is Secretary Clinton, at the behest of the voters of our party who has been chosen to make those decisions great and small that will guide our journey.

The media "calling it" yesterday was good for nobody at all.

It set Senator Sanders back on his feet, kicked him when he was down and unprepared. It left him in a very awkward position, and a very defensive one. This was no benefit certainly to him, and I don't think putting him on the defensive did Hillary any favors either. I think it left his voters with an iron will to show up today. Not that that's a bad thing! Everyone should show up. Everyone should vote! I'm just saying, it seems to me like it's more beneficial to his turnout.

It also was terribly unfair to Secretary Clinton. It robbed her of a very important and special moment with her voters and with her volunteers. It probably depressed her turnout at least as much as Sen. Sanders. I think probably a little more. She should have been able to celebrate this milestone - earning more than half of the pledged delegates, with her voters, her volunteers, and her family. No matter who your candidate was, this night is historic, and it wasn't just taken from her, it was taken from all of us.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »