Hillary Clinton is American, owned by financial interests to whom she is completely in thrall, a rabid neo-conservative warmonger, completely uncritical of Israel and focused for any claim to be progressive entirely on identity politics. Which is also a precise description of today’s Guardian newspaper. The once august and intellectual title is now a shrill cheerleader for far right Blairites and wealthy American feminists.
The Guardian is as unabashed in its support for Clinton as in its support for the Blairites. The stream of “feminist” articles about why it would advance the cause of women to have a deeply corrupt right winger in the White House is steadily growing into a torrent. It is a perfect example of what I wrote of a month ago, the cause of feminism being hijacked to neo-conservative ends.
Bernie Sanders is not perfect – nobody is. But he understands that obscene and still burgeoning wealth inequality is the greatest problem of western society, and that the state framework supporting crazed banking structures is the root cause of this. The support for him is a sign of the inevitable popular reaction to the extreme inequality of society. Sanders is channelling that reaction effectively.
The establishment therefore circles its wagons around Hillary Clinton. The hope is that women can be persuaded it is an act of misogyny simply to stand in her way. The other great establishment hope is that the Democrat party machinery is so strong in black communities, that black Americans can be in effect ordered to vote for a woman who epitomises the system which disadvantages them, rather than an apostle of genuine change in the economic order. I retain hope the establishment may find that black Americans are cleverer than that.
The machinery used to manipulate identity politics – racial and gender – is all that Clinton has. If Clinton beats Sanders, it will be the perfect demonstration of the fact that identity politics has become the enemy of progress in society.
In the field of identity, Bernie Sanders would be the first non-Christian President of the United States. Would that not be wonderful in a country whose politicians feel the need to genuflect to swarms of religious evolution-denying nutters who believe foreign wars are good because they presage the Rapture?
And would it not be great if the first President since Carter not in thrall to Israel were Jewish?
I still think Hilary Clinton will defeat Sanders (mores the pity) and go on to be the 45th president of the USA.
I think the first part of RoS’s claim here is probably correct (what Martinned wrote about her cleaning up the superdelegate vote refers). She also bathes in Bill’s reflected glory as far as the black vote is concerned- Bill C was regarded as almost an ‘honourary black’- and Hillary’s spats with Obama in 2008 have been conveniently forgotten.
I have a few doubts about the 2nd part though; IF Trump gets the Republican nomination he could collect a big tranche of the hitherto stayaway voters (close to 50% of the total in recent US elections). Also his boorish debating style could so get under Hillary’s skin in any head to head TV debates that she gets sidetracked from her brief, screws up before the cameras, and hands Trump a most unlikely victory in the TV arena.
The peculiar representative system used in the USA is not very democratic. And it is certainly far from being the only alternative to a non democratic system. If you like I will explain this further, with reference to the Electoral College, the Senate, the enormous and gerrymandered House Districts, the funding system and the registration system which disenfranchises large parts of the population. But most people know these things.
Agreed, although the system for electing Presidents doesn’t exhibit most of these features, as long as you make allowance for the fact that in a Federal system it is not illegitimate to bundle votes together by state. I’d favour a national popular vote, but the formula for assigning weights to states that the US currently has is objective (because it’s based only on the population in each state as measured by the census) and results in a moderate amount of upweighting of small states only. States like Iowa and New Hampshire matter not because of any feature of the election system, but because of the voluntary choice of the Republican and Democratic parties.
You are arguing here, firstly that unelected members of the Convention are needed to ensure that the elected members do not make mistakes
No I’m not, I’m just arguing that primary voters have different interests than the party as such, and that it’s not illegitimate to place some weight on the party’s own interests.
@Habbabkuk,
My detestation of HRC has no lower bound, I’ll plumb the depth of hell in order to out her as the complete and utter nasty bit of stuff that she is. It’s also well known that the Clinton’s trawl the Zionists for their financial donations, hence the unrelenting support for Israel, which in all good Zionists view can do no harm whatsoever and is always suffering an existential threat – obviously ‘fuck’ the Palestinians!!!!
However, some of us are wise enough never to conflate Zionism with being a member of the Jewish Faith, one need not be Jewish to be a Zionist or Zionist sympathiser. And for me at least I conflate rabid Zionism with NAZISM and feel sorry for those Jews tarred by Zionism’s existence.
Obviously now I’m anti-Semitic, but once you label me that I rejoice and wear it as a badge of honour on these boards knowing full well that nothing could be further from the truth as I wish goodwill to all goodmen regardless of gender, race or religion – something to do with my Wesleyan Methodist upbringing – the history of non-conformity in my home country Wales being of interest to me.
A certain commenter who has only once revealed anything he read — and those were several books about postwar France, none of which had been published more recently than decades ago — doesn’t like it when anyone else reveals anything he has been reading, or has read. Reading books is pretty obviously not for him, or at least has not been for the past couple of decades.
To maintain the current status quo and the rotten, corrupt, empirically failed and dysfunctional Rothschild bankster model. Thus oligarchs and plutocrats can only destroy, they have little in the way of competing in any of the fields of construction, progressive policies and innovation!
The anti competitive doctrine of keeping the most bloated, dysfunctional system afloat dictates the destruction of any competition! Hence the regressive reactionary destruction of the mid east and the adoption of the most anti science (nuclear industry, artificial intelligence, nano technology, etc) stance.
Hence sadly your contention obtains, unless the Europeans snap out of their stupor; drawing a line in the sand, and make a stand against the destructive concepts and policies of US.
What other contenders are debating….
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/09/gop-candidates-compete-over-who-will-commit-most-war-crimes-once-elected/
What other contenders are debating….
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/09/gop-candidates-compete-over-who-will-commit-most-war-crimes-once-elected/
Indeed, which makes me wonder why we shouldn’t give more weight to the question of which democrat is more likely to get elected.
@Republicofscotland,
I think we both share a similar opinion of the Clinton’s, whom in my book are just money grabbing scum, just like that other couple the Blair’s.
That said, strange is it now how backwards the USA is to the UK and Europe, at least in the UK we can console ourselves with the fact we have had both a woman PM and Jewish PM, we have yet to have a Catholic PM since the Reformation.
As such, I’d welcome Saunders as the next President of the USA, if only because he seems more concerned about domestic issues, rather than foreign policy. However, given the odds against him it would be a long shot for him to win the Democratic Ticket, but anything is preferable to HRC, even bloody the lunatic Trump.
While we’re on the subject of books, here’s a book I recommend on the subject of this thread, American presidential politics: Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny by Theresa Amato, who was campaign manager for Ralph Nader’s third-party run for the presidency in 2004.
While we’re on the subject of books, here’s a book I recommend on the subject of this thread, American presidential politics: Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny by Theresa Amato, who was campaign manager for Ralph Nader’s third-party run for the presidency in 2004.
There’s a question: Do we think the US is better off for Nader having run?
P.S. For those interested in voting systems, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a wonderful thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The Interstate Compact is a subtle nod in the right direction, but a complete re-boot is needed.
The 500 lb gorilla is money in the electoral process.
Publicly-funded elections with candidates awarded campaign funds from citizens chosen like a Jury Pool,
It’s the cash that fucks us.
Publicly-funded elections with candidates awarded campaign funds from citizens chosen like a Jury Pool,
It’s the cash that fucks us.
Well, something like that, yes. But given Buckley v. Valeo, etc, such a thing would require a constitutional amendment. It’s not Citizens United that’s the problem, it’s the prior holding that money is speech. And I don’t see any realistic chance of those precedents being overturned by the Supreme Court anytime soon.
(You might get five justices on the Court who will overturn Citizens United, given how new that judgement is and how contentious it is among Democrats, but Buckley is 40 years old and de facto untouchable.)
Martinned,
Whilst it is of no consequence to me, I assumed you were female, when I briefly came across you last week.
Personally, I think those who actually seek power, to be in control of others, are those who are the least suitable to perform that job well. In fact there is strong objective evidence that there is an unusually high percentage of psychopaths in such positions, who actually have no personal empathy for anyone, and certainly not for the population they gain control of. Their personal obsession is about power, and they gain pleasure simply because they can control others.
Whilst Democracy can work reasonably well, it only tends to do so in relatively small local groups where there is real personal knowledge, and a leader tends to emerge naturally, because they both come up with the best ideas, and work hard and communicate well consulting all those within their group – as well as forming contacts with others.
That’s how successful small businesses have tended to work, though they are not really democratic except in the way the best ideas (and people) are selected by the group on merit.
What we currently have now, bears virtually no resemblance to democracy, because although people can vote, they can only vote for pre-selected candidates chosen by an exceedingly rich and powerful cabal, who not only control the opposition, but also control the media through which the vast majority of the population receive their information (which can and is blatant lies and propaganda). What we in effect have is not democracy, but a centralised dictatorship
Arguably, even a system of hereditary monarchy can work better than this current dictatorship, because the leaders be they kings, queens etc – did not actually seek to be the leaders – but got lumbered with the job by birth – and had to do it by a sense of “duty”.
Even the Greeks recognised these problems, when they came up with the ideas re Democracy, and at least in part chose leaders by a jury system. I assume you know far more about that than I do, though I have served on one.
Of course not everyone wants to – or has the capabilities of being a leader, but for those that do, once the psychopaths have been eliminated from consideration, (and I think it is now fairly easy to identify them) , that leaders could in fact be selected by a similar process as are juries.
What we have now is a bunch of insane psychopaths leading us to destruction. If that is the best “Democracy” can come up with, we need to think about alternatives.
from wiki
“The jury system dates back to 5th-century BCE Ancient Greece, where members of the boule, or council (and other institutions, such as judicial courts), were selected from the male citizenry by lot. This process had two distinct advantages: Firstly, all citizens were considered for socio-political purposes to be fundamentally equal, and, secondly, the process prevents corruption. The boule (and hence the jury) were at the core of the original Athenian democracy. The modern criminal court jury arrangement has evolved out of the medieval juries in England. Members were supposed to inform themselves of crimes and then of the details of the crimes. Their function was therefore closer to that of a grand jury than that of a jury in a trial.”
Tony
Personally, I think those who actually seek power, to be in control of others, are those who are the least suitable to perform that job well.
Agreed. That is one of the great paradoxes of democracy, that it unavoidably involves giving people who want it. By the same logic, similar to what you say about monarchy, one of the two arguments in favour of the House of Lords (or at least the old one) is that it involves giving power to people by chance, while still concentrating it among people who are most likely to have received the kind of education that you need to make sense of UK lawmaking.
(The other argument in favour of the Lords, according to legend, is that it ensures that idiots are represented in Westminster too. Not sure about that one.)
Yeah I love that convenient platitude ‘money is speech’.
It reminds me of Animal Farm with the metaphor ‘some have more free speech than others’.
That’s one good thing about Sanders getting into the WH. We need a sentry on duty when Scalia bites the dust.
“That is one of the great paradoxes of democracy, that it unavoidably involves giving people who want i” (power)
Shit floats and pot metal rises to the top of the crucible. The criminals and anti-socials are drawn to politics like blowflies to dung. If public service were the only advantage to elected office, a different type of person would be drawn in.
Another inconsistent measure of the greenback is SCOTUS’ implying that money is an entity…therefore sacrosanct.
Law enforcement has a different viewpoint. Money is property, like a house or car. It has no civil rights and therefore it is impossible to appeal asset forfeiture. They can steal your vote and your house…natch !
Whilst we are pontificating about HRC and lamenting the loss of integrity The Guardian once had by chance Richard Sale has posted an article on US foreign policy and the abject failure of one Hilary Clinton – no doubt Habbabkuk will find much to be critical of given the articles judgement on Hilary’s unrelenting support for Israel. Here’s the link and it fits in well with the dialogue thus far on this thread: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/02/ideology-and-hillarys-foreign-policy-by-richard-sale.html#more
Chris Rogers (16h10)
You haven’t answered the point(s) I was making, have you, but at least the tone and content of your non-reply help me understand, on the one hand, why you are no longer welcome on The Guardian’s blog and, on the other, why your arrival here was welcomed by several “commenters” (as Martinned’s arrival wasn’t).
Just for the record, I have no objection to people expressing anti-Zionist or even anti-Israel views and I haven’t implied you were anti-Jewish. So you can withdraw that particular straw man.
I wonder if you would care to answer the following, just to help me get the complete picture of your take on world affairs?
1/. Can you conceive of a more evil political or moral phenomenon than Zionism?
2/. When arriving at a judgement about a political figure, is your most important criterion whether or not that political figure is a Zionist or supporter of Israel?
Thanks.
I must have touched a (literary) raw nerve somewhere….:)
Yesterday, I came across this American girl Jessica Reznicek who is in jail liable to be sentenced for 20 years for breaking a window. I read a lot of what she has done, been and written about over the last few years. Very few other Americans have her courage. The Occupy movement of which she was a part a few years ago was brutally crushed – yet she still goes on.
People like her are America’s last chance. I think they have lost it. And yes, she does remind me of someone I used to know.
“Des Moines Catholic Worker – An introduction to Jessica Reznicek”
http://just.dmcatholicworker.org/
Habbabkak,
What points exactly are you making and why in heaven should i even bother responding to some of the discord you sow on these threads, you make multiple demands of others, whilst i make no demands whatsoever of you or others.
My opinion of Zionism is based on a moral imperative that to me all men are equal period and to engage in ethnic cleansing is to be objected too – the early history of the founding of Israel being that of ethnic cleansing, or am I making that up?
Further, when I see Zionists hound and close down any and all criticism of Israeli policy, thereby curbing freedom of speech and plurality of views one gets rather annoyed – the Zionist treatment of Norman Finklestein has been disgusting, and Prof. Chomsky too has been accused of some horrible things by Zionist zealots,
Now i don’t like Zionism, which was very much a European late nineteenth century phenomenon, which in many ways smacks of European imperialism that I’ve never been a fan of.
Now, are other political or philosophical movements worse than Zionism?
Well I can only answer yes to that, regrettable there are other movements that can be deemed worse, militant Islam being one of these.
In answer to your second question, yes its important to me to qualify if a person is a neoconservative, as illustrated in the link I’ve provided for a new article by Richard Sale that brings up a few of these issues.
As stated previously Israel exists, its existence owes much to terrorism and ethnic cleansing and its treatment of the Palestinians is disgusting, and has been since its inception. So, I’ll accept Israel exists, it has a right to exist, like the UK it has a chequered history, but could be a beacon of hope if only common sense prevailed between the Palestinians and present Israeli leadership.
Now, I refuse to answer anymore of your silly enquiries, I’m open with my views and don’t hide behind stupid ‘usernames’ and will as ever continue to struggle for a more just and equal society for all on this planet. Can you say that SIR?
The Occupy movement of which she was a part a few years ago was brutally crushed
Euh, if that’s what you think brutally crushed looks like, you may want to have a look at a few other countries. The establishment’s approach to the Occupy movement was pretty much the same as what the FBI did with those non-Oregon Oregon militia guys recently: ignore them until they get bored and go away.
“. . . why your arrival here was welcomed by several “commenters” (as Martinned’s arrival wasn’t).”
As usually totally false. Martinned was welcomed by Craig in almost the words “you are welcome to post here”. Nobody minds people making a point if it is made with respect, consideration of argument, lack of ad hominems, and politely, which as far as I can see Martinned has done, even though I rarely agree with the content of his/her comments. I cannot say the same for all who leave comments here.
I am sure though, if Martinned has felt he/she was unwelcome he/she can take solace from the fact that he has found a friend in Habbabkuk.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=pic+cop+pepper+spraying
@Martinned,
I suggest you do some correspondence with Prof. David Graeber on the US-establishments treatment of the Occupy Movement – he was effectively hounded out of New York for his support of Occupy and direct action. Indeed, I have the greatest respect for David for unlike others he just does not pontificate but actually gets involved – he’s been banged up a few times already in London for participating in direct-action protest. He’s good fun and bloody intelligent. Those being taught by him at the LSE don’t know how lucky they are.
I have a few stories I could tell, but that would breach David’s own privacy, suffice to say he’s a good one and America’s loss is the UK’s gain. Only wish Norman Finkelstein could get a post in the UK, even at 50 I’d love to research a PhD under his guidance given he’s one hell of an historian.
Chris Rogers,
I am convinced that “Habbabkuk (Are you a person of interest?)” is personally responsible.
It is him.
He is the reason why several highly intelligent people, who had a lot of very interesting, often very new information, no longer post here.
So he serves his purpose as a Censor by his very presence.
My wife suggested I use beer in the garden to deal with such infestations, as she doesn’t like to use pellets.
Incidentally – beer is very effective – yes a bit of a waste…but the slugs die happy.
Tony
Tony, you are a sensible and sensitive man. Your comments are often entertaining. Thank you for that.
Did you know that slugs are part of the chain? They clean up. They eat shit (literally) while the rest of us get it forced down our throats. 😀
Mr Goss
You really have chutzpah, don’t you.
““. . . why your arrival here was welcomed by several “commenters” (as Martinned’s arrival wasn’t).”
As usually totally false. Martinned was welcomed by Craig in almost the words “you are welcome to post here”.”
________________________
Craig is not a “commenter”, he is the blog’s founder and owner. Martinned got a kicking from a couple of commenters within a day of posting.
And continues to do so: “I don’t think that you are a democrat at all, Martinedd, just another law student rehearsing the reactionary snobbery so current in legal circles.” (from “Bevin”, today.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Nobody minds people making a point if it is made with respect, consideration of argument, lack of ad hominems, and politely..”
________________________
With respect, politely, etc, etc – all in your judgement, of course.
Speaking of politeness, who goes around calling people with whom he disagrees “fascists”, “supporters of torture”, racists”, etc…..?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I am sure though, if Martinned has felt he/she was unwelcome he/she can take solace from the fact that he has found a friend in Habbabkuk.”
__________________
See what I mean? 🙂
Chris Rogers
“Now, I refuse to answer anymore of your silly enquiries”
___________________
Have you answered any at all?
Or perhaps you think that “yes its important to me to qualify if a person is a neoconservative” is an “answer” to my question “when arriving at a judgement about a political figure, is your most important criterion whether or not that political figure is a Zionist or supporter of Israel?” ?
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
BTW: “I’m open with my views and don’t hide behind stupid ‘usernames’”
Was that addressed specifically to me or to all those on here who use usernames?