HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » delrem » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:12 AM
Number of posts: 9,688

Journal Archives

I wonder whether such a cold appraisal of the actual facts is even understood,

by Hillary's supporters?
I wonder if they are capable of processing information that isn't pre-spun by correct the record, David Brock, and the machine?

I tell you, it's weird politics. Denial of fact. Of history.
Invention of some puff-ball history where Hillary has shone w.r.t. cutting edge social issues, where she has "evolved" to actually be a "leader" now. Where she can sternly rebuke Xi Jinping and win acclaim in the MSM. So fuckin' EASY, while not having to do a bloody thing.

Where discussion of her term as SOS is verboten, because it's indelibly linked to PNAC and to the worst war mongers and war profiteers in recent history, and to the existing ME hellscape. Where discussion of her take home pay (and her husband's), in the hundreds of millions of $ for nothing more than rubber chicken dinner speeches to groups who profit from buying politicians, is verboten. Where discussion of past scandals and mindfucks w.r.t. her husband's administration, from actual policy betrayals happening in a rat-a-tat manner to "can't keep the fuckin' zipper up" crap, is all verboten. To be forgotten, to go down the memory hole.

What a weird campaign. What a weird primary,

They are distinct concepts!

There are parallel problems!
But they are not the same, and one isn't consequence of the other.

I think it's better to look at the problems as those of
-> economic injustice (rather than just w.r.t. capitalism)
and those of
-> injustices w.r.t. human identity (rather than just w.r.t. racial/ethnic identity).

The permutations are endless.

I think we can truly say that (injustice w.r.t.) economic/military power can forcefully impose or magnify injustices w.r.t. human identity.

The 21st century began with the USA introducing the world to a new US social program:

"preemptive war".

This is the idea - made into a reality - that a US leader, using the MSM, can simply make up shit about what any country in the world might do, what "threat" they might pose, and use that as excuse to invade and destroy that country. To destroy the physical-economic and social infrastructure of the people. And at the same time, to tell the whole world that it would be OK because, even before the preemptive war destroyed everything, no-bid contracts were being let to select companies, to make massive profits on a "rebuilding" that would make everything better, free and democratic. More than that, the USA told the world that this "rebuilding", these massive war profits, would be "paid for" by the USA acquiring rights to the natural resources belonging to the victims of these predations.

This program hasn't been challenged yet.

Just think about it. About how outrageously amoral the entire course of the "war on terror" in the ME has been.

Think about how the USA portrays itself as "the only world superpower" and as "the police force for the world", this last being justified because the USA claims to represent a perfect or near perfect set of "Western Values". The people in the countries that the USA destroys are described as being medieval and barbaric in all ways. When the US war profiteering doesn't produce anything of good, but only more war, it is blamed on the victims who aren't "evolved" enough to understand or accept the US's "gift of freedom", no word or thought whatever being given to the effect on the people of a country when their physical-economic-social infrastructures is totally, deliberately and with the utmost malice, destroyed.

It's so outrageous.

It isn't just "War is hell". It's also "The warmongers, the war profiteers, are Satan".

Sanders is certainly opposed to a world determined by unregulated capitalism.

Cheese is right that Sanders would rather be called a democratic socialist than a capitalist.
To understand what "democratic socialist" means one has to think about what kind of policy changes are required to set up universal health care, and so on, so they work smoothly from the start. As Sanders says, we have to look at how socialist structures, like universal health care, an universal education system, and so on, have worked in other countries that have tried them.

Because the US is a backward nation in these regards. It is not a world leader in matters of social and civil rights and well-being.

It's good at war, though.

People want to see a plan to implement it.

Like "single payer". A fucking no-brainer.

Except for Hillary.

Hillary who can't see a war that doesn't need starting. The candidate who dared to say she was running to the right of Ronald Reagan on military matters. Kissinger's BFF. Friend of the Kagan's. And this is on record.

No wonder they don't like to see contradictions between their phantasmic plans and their previous actual investitures.

Context is different. Too many people ignore context, creating false equivalencies.

I also say the context is different w.r.t. Kennedy vs Obama, as well. Kennedy was a proud Catholic, Obama has never been any kind of Muslim. People rightfully understand that "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama is a secret Muslim", or "Obama is a sleeper Muslim", hit on an entirely different level than "Kennedy is a Roman Catholic", "Kennedy might introduce Papal Law", etc. It's the difference between lies and truth, between war and peace.

The USA has been engaged in an open and declared War on Islamic Terrorism since 9/11. It didn't happen out of the blue, but the period since 9/11 can rightfully be said to be distinct. Starting out with an intent to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan, to bring the perp to justice, a war that destroys the entire social and physical infrastructure of countries has spread from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and can truthfully be said to now encompass the entire Middle East. Every hellfire missile fired seems to create another thousand "Islamic Terrorists", as people curse and fight back against their tormentors and are labelled "terrorists" for their efforts. The US is backing Saudi Arabia in a purely religious war between Sunni Wahhabist extremists (who are also the core component of ISIS) and a Shia population in a neighboring country (while intentionally ignoring al qaeda's conquest of territory, following their path). We still hear about this abomination in DU OPs crying out that cluster bombs are being dropped on Shia neighborhoods in Yemen - so even though the US MSM doesn't notice, we DUers should. Saudi Arabia is a infuckingcredible buyer of US military supplies. And UK arms. No bid contracts are let to "rebuild the infrastructure" even before the wars are declared and the bombs dropped - and those fat profits are in turn used to justify how the war will "pay for itself".

The USA certainly didn't have a relationship anything like that with the Vatican!

In this case, the neo-nazi presidential contender Ben Carson wasn't attacking an individual as being unfit for office. He wasn't attacking an individual like Kennedy or Obama. He was directly attacking *muslims* as such. So it's not only the context but the *substance* that differs in kind.

I have to get behind a candidate on economic and foreign policy issues,

first and foremost. And Hillary Clinton doesn't meet the test.
With respect to foreign policy, she was behind the destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and is a total hawk who hired Dick Cheney's chief adviser to be on her own team.
With respect to economic policy she's totally on the team of international investment capital. End of story.

I think the problem is deeper than that.

Hillary Clinton's accomplishments in the world of US foreign policy are Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and she's a total hawk, hiring Dick Cheney's principal aide for her own when she continued the PNAC policy.

And that's just the beginning of Hillary Clinton's accomplishments, that some of us look askance at.

This is really freaky stuff.

"I also believe that the president of the United States does have to be careful about what he or she says. And I do know that some people say that I'm careful about what I say. That's because for more than twenty years I've seen the importance of not only the president of the United States, the leader of not only our nation, but of the world, having to send messages that will be received by all kinds of people. Loose talk, threats, insults, they have consequences and so I'm willing to conduct myself..."

I tell you, I don't like it. I don't like it one bit.

The mockery is of the behaviors. Not of the individuals as such.

Chaucer presents archetypes of certain hypocritical cynical greedy ... behaviors.
But Chaucer doesn't present these archetypes just so we'll disregard them! He presents them in all their absurdity in his characters, so we can recognize them. When we recognize those behaviors in individuals, and especially if we recognize artistically similar visual patterns (and I mean, there are plenty here) reproduced in front of our eyes, we are prone to comment.
Go to Page: 1