Keith Olberman is Back
Submitted by katie on Sat, 09/17/2016 - 11:15am
And he's done a great take down of Trump.
While I disagree with his slant regarding Clinton, Trump is obviously deplorable.
For me the most deplorable thing about him is his science denialism, as our planet just can not afford to feed into all those crazy fuckers who want to replace science with Christian fundamentalism.
I haven't decided how I'll vote.
Looking at all that has happened and continues to happen this election cycle is deplorable.
Clinton is deplorable.
But if we have a president who is a science denier, then I think I might kill myself in a deplorable fashion.
Comments
I'm glad that Olbermann is back.
His voice has been sorely missed. I don't agree with the way that he's framing this particular election, but nobody agrees with anyone 100% of the time. I'm just happy that the one of the first mainstream pundits to criticize Rumsfeld and fairly cover Occupy isn't stuck talking about sports anymore.
Keith inspired me
We need his voice.
Great video.
The political revolution continues
Hack hack, sweet has-been
Me to Keith:
Yes. You're a shill. You're shilling for a continuation of the one-party-pretending-to-be-two duopoly that is guaranteed to make things substantially worse for everyone not fortunate enough to be in your tax bracket. I have utter contempt for all the presstitutes like yourself who are desperately trying to perpetuate a toxic and morally indefensible status quo. Please go away now.
Too many characters for a tweet, alas.
inactive account
So, they got to you too, Keith.
Very sad, given that you once said a glimpse into Hillary's soul was a terrifying look at someone who has no capacity to be President of the United States.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I totally agree with you.
Bernie, Cenk, Keith, Mike Malloy, Thom Hartman - I don't care who the hell they are. I am not voting for Hillary, and I am not going to listen to them rant on. I turn them off just like I mute Hillary when the news or her commercials air her. I am sick and tired of these shills doing Hillary's dirty work. Instead of working for Stein/ third party/"the revolution", they're too busy peeing their pants over Trump. Cenk is the least awful of the group. He does it and at least acknowledges he is doing it and how much everybody hates it. The others are right and everybody who doesn't agree with them is voting for Trump - which might be the best strategy to kill off the neoliberals and the GOP in one blow.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Ack, Thom Hartman the shill
He interrupts people who call in, and talks over them. But if someone tries to get their point across by continuing to talk after he interrupts, he goes on for three minutes asking, "Can I finish?" And talking about not being able to make his point.
I stopped tuning in when I know he's on. I'd rather listen to static than him. Ack!
Et tu quoque, Stephanie.
Stephanie Miller, too. I used to love her show, going out of my way to watch it. But then she went all Hillary on us, and that was pretty much the end of her for me.
And Keith Olbermann. To get him back only to have him, too, support Ms. "Trump in a pantsuit". Where the F was he when Bernie was still running?
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
That's sad.
Nobody that believes in democracy should ever have the unmitigated gall to tell a presidential candidate to withdraw. That is simply unacceptable. As for me, I don't want Hillary Clinton to withdraw; I want her resoundingly defeated so the Democratic Party learns a valuable lesson about picking candidates.
Yep
I was following Keith on Twitter when he turned Hillbot. All his arguments were specious. Backing the candidate of the wealthy status quo when you are of the wealthy status quo is not surprising; disappointing, given his past acuity, but not surprising.
But that tweet to Jill Stein is when I unfollowed him for good. That is completely unacceptable, in numerous ways. It's undemocratic on its face, but it's also insidiously carrying water for the "Trump is unprecedented evil" meme, which is false. His overt racism is no different than party messaging for YEARS. You could argue that the surreptitious racism of Clintonian Democrats does people of color more more in the long run. Trump is unusual ONLY in that he is not of ruling elite, although wealthy, and he is running to Clinton's and the ruling classes left in a couple of important ways.
I certainly don't want him as President (although I'll take him over Clinton). I don't want the policies he's pushing. But they're bog-standard Republican policies EXCEPT for being against the TPP, talking about bringing manufacturing back to America, and suggesting maybe we should cut back on the war-making.
How are we ever to escape the lethal embrace of the duopoly as they dance together ever-rightward, over increasingly high piles of the bones of their victims, if no one else is even allowed on the floor?
WTF. Olbermann Guzzling The Clinton Koolaid
Ugh. Et tu Keith.
I would not have bet on that one.
All the smart people are turning into Hellery Zombies. Maybe this is the Zombie Apocalypse.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
aliens at the phone company
As a long-term aficiionado of the old MS-DOS/Commodore 64 game Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders, I'm beginning to suspect that Hellery is in cahoots with an alien King who thinks he's Elvis, whose minions have taken over the worldwide landline telephone network to infect all humans with incurable stupidity!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Science affirmer vs Science denier:
For me, it might come down to this choice.
Haven't decided.
But I really don't think some are giving enough thought - no matter how they decide to actually vote - to the fact that science itself is under extreme attack from many corners, and what this actually means.
Given this, plus given everything else, I don't judge folks for how they decide to vote this election cycle - as long as they don't vote for Trump.
The window for acting positively in regard to rapid ecological collapse is rapidly closing. I notice that this is not an issue often brought up, even within the "left" media/blogs/etc....
It's being both overlooked by some, and minimized by most.
Think it shouldn't be minimized at all.
Hillary's record on climate change is hardly exemplary.
As Secretary of State, she went around the world promoting fracking. She also ran the Libya War, which created hundreds of thousands of refugees and killed tens of thousands of civilians.
Do you not believe that war is damaging to climate as well as to people?
Her record is deplorable, in fact. She does not, however,
claim that global warming is a Chinese hoax.
I think both Trump and Hillary (and Bill - who I dislike even more than Hill) are deplorable.
But then there is this huge movement towards science denialism and an attack on what is best in our Enlightenment heritage (which, however, has lots of flaws as well), especially the notion that we create our social world (as opposed to our social relations deriving from god or natural laws) and thus can both understand our social world and change our social world.
This key insight of The Enlightenment is being attacked from the Christian Right, from The Social Darwinists, from Mainstream Economics with their belief in Marginalism - the belief that the economy (invisible hand) rewards each according to their contributions to the economy, etc...
I really don't think we have the time to give our planet over to these regressive forces in the hope that after 8 years of anti-science and anti-enlightenment on steroids forces being unleashed that we can then somehow walk things back in time to save the planet.
True, saving the planet has a very low probability under Hillary, I'd say something like 1 - 1,000,000 or something.
The odds with Trump, however, is 0.
It's a deplorable situation. One which makes me embarrassed to get out of bed with a smile on my face. Now that's fucking deplorable.
I don't mean this in a shitty way--
because, of course, YMMV.
But I just don't give a damn whether Hillary believes in science or not. She believes in science, which is telling her that the use of fossil fuels and the subsequent pollution of the atmosphere (and the oceans) is going to transform the planet into a body which can support maybe 1/2 billion people or so by the end of the century. Which means somewhere around 7 1/2 billion to 8 billion people are probably going to die in the last couple decades of this century and the first couple decades of the next.
And that's being positive. It could happen a lot sooner.
So, anyway, back to Hillary believing in science. Science is telling Hillary an apocalypse is coming which will probably destroy human civilization, and might drive the human race to extinction. If anybody cares (they usually don't) it will also destroy around 80% of the rest of the life on the planet. Living world to mostly dead world, in 100 years. Awesome.
So Hillary believes in science, and science tells Hillary this apocalypse is coming, and Hillary...spreads methane wells across the face of the globe.
In other words, Hillary believes that she and her family will be in the 1/2 billion that survive, and she doesn't give a shit about anything that will die.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Are most people who hate everthing
the Enlightenment stood for more willing to vote for Trump or Hillary?
I'm not talking about only Trump vs Hillary, but a much broader point: I think finally unleashing these regressive forces just might make these enlightenment ideals loose hold of the cliff to which they are now grasping with finger nails.
Does that mean someone should vote for Hillary?
In my opinion, I have no opinion - I'm ambivalent.
But really don't think some folks are taking this into enough consideration.
Or maybe they have a more positive take on the status of our Enlightenment heritage than I do. I view it as barely holding its' head above water.
As far as I can see--
Trump is attacking the "reason" portion of that heritage more strongly than Hillary; Hillary is attacking the "representative government/rule of law/Bill of Rights" portion of that heritage more strongly than Trump; all of it barely has its head above water, which puts it roughly on a level with my birthplace.
I don't care which direction they're attacking truth and justice from. But I understand that we attack Trump here less fervently than Clinton, mainly because Clinton is the preferred candidate of the people who are hurting us--and I understand that must be frustrating to you, given that Trump is assaulting values you hold dear.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I disagree with you for the following reasons:
You can not have the notions of representative government, rule of law, or the Bill of Rights while attacking Reason.
Without valuing Reason, you don't get the rest. If Reason falls, so falls the rest.
Valuing Reason is the foundation of valuing Rep Government - where its' argued that there should be rep government because all humans are endowed with Reason.
Period.
You can attack the notion of rep government without attacking all notions of the idea that all humans are endowed with reason. But you can't attack reason and then somehow get to the ideal of rep government.
You can't attack reason and still value
the concept of the rule of law.
The idea that humans create laws by exercising their reason (rather than law being handed down by god) and can understand those laws precisely because we create them, thus can interpret those laws (judges) and follow those laws through the use of our reason (stopping at stop lights because we understand the law) flows from valuing reason.
If you don't value reason, then there is not ideal of the rule of law.
The Bill of Rights is built on the foundation
of our belief in the proposition that we all have rights due to the fact that we all share equally in that which makes us human: Reason.
Get rid of the Enlightenment ideal that we are all equally human because we all posses reason, then there goes the bill of rights.
Katie, that ideal was NEVER fully honored
in this country. It isn't honored now. Rights are "privileges" that the underclasses and the not-white-skinned people do not have and cannot be allowed to have. And we are told so quite bluntly, in so many words, from the "left" AND from the "right".
Trump is a boogeyman, and he is very successfully scaring you - because you are allowing yourself to be scared. Where's your fluffy blankie to throw over his head? Nothing scares a boogeyman worse than that.
Or if you prefer, he's a boggart, and you need to see him as "Ridikkulus". Whether it means mentally putting him in your granny's nightgown or stripping him to his BVDs in public - try it.
He sucks. She sucks. We're screwed either way. Situation hopeless but not serious.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I'd prefer that you show me enough respect to not
assume that I'm either ridiculously naive or ignorant.
Setting that aside:
1) Of course the promise of the bill of rights have never been fulfilled. I'm not so ignorant as to believe otherwise. I don't know what your point is?
Should we give up on fulfilling the ideals expressed in the bill of rights?
2) I'm not easily scared.
The attack on reason and our enlightenment heritage should be frightening in my opinion. If it doesn't frighten you, that's fine. Why doesn't it frighten you?
It frightens tons of very smart people, from scientists to philosophers to historians, etc.... Tons of folks who do value some of the key insights of our enlightenment heritage -- especially the insight that we create our sociel structures, thus can know our social structures because we create them, thus can change our social structures.
Giving up this key insight is frightening, I think objectively so, given history.
You don't.
Why?
And no, I don't need a soft blanky. But thanks.
You've
been TOLD this:
You might have seen "some people that you respect" being scared. Perhaps they're reading the same Boogie Man crap that you are, and buying it because they're as human as you are. I devour tons of print on a daily basis, and I have yet to see "tons" of these people saying much outside the bullshit News outlets.
In the meantime, I am human too, but I can see who the bigger fascist in this scenario is, and it is NOT Donald Trump.
I don't read mainstream news.
I read alternative media, including 99%
Aside from that, I read specialized stuff - philosophy blogs, economics blogs of the non-mainstream sort, etc...
So, um, maybe - try again?
No, I have not been TOLD this. But thanks for the vote of confidence that I, like you, might be a somewhat curious person with a somewhat well rounded reading habit, who can exercise some level of independent thought.
Again, my point is broader than Hill vs Trump, but also includes things like the fact that 40% of American do not believe in evolution, and the over whelming majority will vote for Trump.
That lots of folks think that we should go back on the gold standard, and most will vote for Trump.
The lots of folks think government spending is the devils' work, and most will vote for Trump.
Etc....
(No subject)
Actually, I think it's important to preserve the notion of
rights. Once you define "rights" as "privileges," the oppressor has won.
If it's a human right for a person to be able to walk to the store and buy groceries without being shot, and I can do that b/c I'm white but Black people can't, that means that an atrocity is being committed on Black people: an atrocity and a crime. The appropriate thing to do is to stop the atrocity/crime, through legal means if possible, by changing the system.
If being able to walk to the store and buy groceries w/out being shot is white privilege, then we're saying it's unfair for me to be able to walk to the store and buy groceries w/out being shot, and the ultimate way to fix that is to make everything equal by removing the privilege and calling people racist if they complain about losing that privilege. In other words, nobody should be able to take for granted that they can walk to the store and get some food without being shot, and nobody should complain about it either. Since being able to do that is "privilege," it's actually a good thing if it gets taken away, because a privilege constitutes unfairly good treatment being given to someone. Privilege is the opposite of equality.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
In short: Trump is attacking what you seem
to hold dear: Reason, and all our institutions that were built upon the notion that, through exercising our reason, we can create them.
And because we create them, we can understand them.
And because we can understand them, we can change them to further nurture our needs and desires as humans.
Without this faith in reason, you get faith in the unseen and unknowable forces that create and control our social institutions - be that gods or the invisible hand of the markets or instinctual forces that can not be measured or changed.
katie
I'm willing to listen - can you provide more context and information on what you mean?
Science itself is under attack, now? As in, today, under the Obama presidency? In what ways, and in what way would Clinton change that?
I understand that an alarming number of people in this country don't believe in evolution, and there are always efforts to roll back basic science education on that subject, which has been ongoing forever. I don't see how Hillary as president is going to reverse that trend. She's more religious than Trump is, far as I can tell.
I love to watch this tv channel I found, called Curiosity Stream, which it is chock full of information and new science that is going on every single day, in every field from robotics to medicine to space travel to nanotechnology to even history and research into the past. It's endlessly fascinating, and I find it encouraging, this reminder of how many smart people are still at work figuring things out and advancing science.
Trump certainly believes in basic sciences like physics, which allows him to build huge buildings. Is he anti-vax? I haven't heard that. He's not saying the pyramids were built for grain storage, is he?
Are you talking specifically about climate change?
If so, then again I'm not just sure how much their respective "beliefs" matter, when Clinton supports fracking and the continuing war of terror and the oil companies and the global corporate rulers that are hell-bent on continuing doing exactly what they are doing -- come hell or high water, literally. Hillary isn't going to change that.
I answered this above in reply to someone else, will add this...
Aside from specific issues like evolution and climate change, I think science is under attack more broadly.
Not the practical products that science creates. Even the most crazy anti-Enlightenment nut job still likes their plumbing, their iphones, cars, buildings, t.v.s, etc....
But things were being made, and new inventions invented, before we split science off from both philosophy and merely the everyday inventions of the average serf.
I think the anti-science forces would like to see scientists reduced to serfs who will be allowed to produce stuff for markets, but have nothing to say about values, including the value of science with its' fancy scientific method as a model of rational thought.
As far as Hillary: No, I don't think she'll become an advocate of defending our Enlightenment heritage -- beyond the fact that she, unlike Trump, doesn't exactly attack it, except in regard to her belief in Marginalism (see above) and her general belief that economics is a hard science as opposed to merely the result of our own moral decisions.
Nor will she be an advocate for the notion that the power of government to create the national currency should be used in order to fulfill the moral desires of the public after democratic debate, and never for narrow interests so they can earn a net profit.
But neither will Trump. AND his FOLLOWERS are committed to NOT learning anything that goes against their belief that government spending is the devils' work, rather than its' job if they want to have net savings.
They care not about empirical reality, only about their religious beliefs, including their belief that government spending is the devils' work.
Not wise to assume Trump's folowers are monolithic -
we don't know how many of them plan to vote for him just to stick it to the Democrats who haven't done squat for them, and will continue to do squat.
We don't know how many are playing Tic-tac-toe to "block Hillary" - a stupid game that almost always ends in stalemate.
We don't know how many of them believe his promises to "bring back jobs" and fix the things that are broken in this country - and an almighty lot of things are broken in this country.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I think you just nailed the essence here
Camp Clinton wants you to believe it's monolithic--and that HE will therefore function as "monolithic" once he's sworn in.
He won't get shit done. Nobody will cooperate with him.
Say what you will about "the dictatorship tendencies" this country has put on display, but we're nowhere near it being successful yet. And this two-bit hack ringer FOBAH (Friend of Bill and Hillary) isn't going to magically bring it on.
I'm addressing those folks who SUPPORT Trump,
and would support Trump even if FDR would rise from the grave and run for President.
And who would support Trump because they would HATE FDR, along with his fancy new fiat currency which destroyed the godly gold standard and replaced "real" money with "phony" money, etc....
Those who hate government regulation.
Those who hate elevating empirical evidence and reason above faith and emotions, etc....
Sorry, but this is where most of his voters will be coming from, statistically speaking.
No such people here,
so why are you shouting down a rain barrrel?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Didn't know I was shouting?
Simply posted a video of Olberman.
Can't recreate the flow of the comments, but it made since for me to reply by talking about Trumps' supporters as it seems to me that any campaign is about more than merely the folks actually running.
I'm not at all sure that's true
that Trump's "followers" are religiously opposed to government spending as the devil's work. I admit that I'm not up to speed on all of them, but as an example, I listened to a Trump speech earlier this week where he railed about the drinking water being undrinkable in Flint, MI, clearly suggesting that government should be providing for and protecting the people and maintaining a livable infrastructure, and his crowd loudly cheered and applauded that idea.
at the same time, neoliberal democrats have become identical to so-called fiscal conservatives, opposing government debt and spending (except to support the war machine, of course). Hillary Clinton totally embraced that message during the primary -- attacking "free stuff" and universal health care as unaffordable fantasies of the far left.
I don't necessarily believe Trumps rhetoric, of course, and I really haven't listened to him much at all, but he doesn't seem any worse on the issue of government spending than the Clintons and current Democratic Party.
As far as those who would see the continuation of reducing science primarily to making useful stuff and not driving values, I think that trend is cultural and has nothing to do with who occupies the White House. Democrats and republicans alike have been headed down that road at full speed. The last eight years under ostensibly pro-science President Obama hasn't reversed it one bit.
I too worry at the trend to remove science from policy decisions. But the dems really are not better in that, only somewhat better at pretending they are different. They still let emotion and perception rule the day, over fact and reason.
And yet, people involved in science continue their explorations and philosophical debates, and learning about the world and what works and what doesn't and how to make life better, and livable. I think that too will continue, regardless of who the (p)resident is at any given time.
Meant the thing about religion, devils' work, and
government spending to be somewhat of a metaphor - embracing both those who really do think that government spending is against gods' wishes and those who believe that debt itself is immoral, and there shouldn't be any debt at all, and are immune to pointing out the fact that all money is debt as a matter of double entry accounting, because they are so wed to their moral belief that debt is immoral and should be avoided at all cost, including human suffering.
I don't want to be in a position of apologizing for the Dem Party.
But it simply is not true that Dems - both everyday folks and our politicians - have attacked science, reason and enlightenment values in either the same way as Repubs have nor with the same ferocity.
Find me a Republican politician who has fought for wind energy where it exists? As just one example.
Or a Republican politician who has fought for the expansion of solar energy where it exists?
Is this enough? No.
Have the Dems stood up against the regressive forces like they should? No.
Have some even played into the hands of these regressive forces? Yes.
Are they exactly the same? No. How do I know? Because there are some wind and solar structures in existence, most of which have gotten local political support by local politicians, etc....
You might find this interesting...
Texas, a state often pointed out as being anti-science, has the most installed wind energy of any state. More than California. The argument you're missing is the regional factor. The Southern States, home base of Hillary Clinton support, have the least wind energy. But excluding the South, Republican states are just as likely to embrace wind energy as Democratic states.
Reference: U.S. Wind Energy State Facts
I live in FL, where there is Republican politicians
who quietly support the idea that FL will be hard hit by ocean rise, and support mitigation.
But its' the minority Dems who fight the hardest and loudest about the issue and lead the charge - such as it is. Which isn't much.
So, I'm aware of this, and should have expressed myself better: Even Republican local and state politicians who quietly help pass legislation to mitigate FL flooding will not lead the charge publicly. And if it wasn't for the Dems, I wonder if they would do so at all. Don't know.
Roscoe, Texas has a massive wind farm(s)
It's (they're) in multiple cotton fields (and atop some oddball mesas). Used to drive through on the way to visit the grandparents before they died. Quite impressive. And, I knew that once we saw the windmills, we only had a few more hours left in a 10 hour drive!
Thanks, edg
I enjoy a challenge, so went in search of information on republican support for wind energy, found some interesting stuff!
This article, from May of this year, has a good summary:
http://www.aweablog.org/worst-kept-secret-in-washington-republicans-know...
....
Granted, republicans for the most part didn't jump on board immediately, but they are responding to reality and data, facts, showing it is a good idea, from an economic standpoint. While "saving the planet" might not be their first priority, at least they are seeing which way the wind is blowing, so to speak.
I also think about why do we still have most democrats supporting the Hyde amendment, and a democratic administration that has been funding abstenence-only sex education - ignoring science and facts and data about these core issues - because of pandering to or actual belief in basing government policies on religious beliefs over facts, data and reason, science, about what works and what doesn't.
It's just not so simple as dems good, republicans bad.
Money talks to Tx Republicans, CS in AZ
Eventually, they should come around on the death penalty too. But for now, if you tell them how expensive the automatic appeals and special death row facilities and staff are, they just want to get rid of those silly things. Sigh. . .
I told a man at work (Tx R-Trump) that oil companies are idiots not to diversify. He said oil companies were the ones who started all the renewable energy companies. Again, sigh. . .
Interesting, glad to see. I live in FL, and a similar thing
is happening, though not state wide, only in those areas that are already showing signs of things to come in regard to flooding.
I certainly don't mean to imply Dem good, Repub bad.
I've been an independent since the time I could vote, and absolutely hated Bill and never voted for him.
But I also grew up in a Repub family and have seen how very, very, very, very, weird they have become, along with all their Repub friends.
Well educated folks who used to be open minded and had some "faith" in science who now choose ideology over facts, even simple ones.
For instance, I'm here at my brilliant nieces' who graduated top in her class in chemical engineering while she tutors my son in calculus 2.
She's "not sure" if climate change is real. It's so sad.
At any rate: More Dems - and I mean both politicians and regular folk - are more open to the idea of addressing climate disaster in a way similar to the way we addressed WWII. Among other things that means not worrying about the economic benefits, ie, market outcomes, or when solar becomes "competitive" with oil, etc.... It means being open to realizing that we built tanks because we chose to, and didn't wait until they became competitive with cars because the federal government doesn't need to make a profit and is thus the only entity that can fund the sort of response we need.
Both parties engage in selective science denialism.
Republicans do so on quite a few issues. Democrats, while not quite so many, do their own science denialism. Abortion is a prime example. Science has shown that fetuses are human beings after a certain point, a point that's getting earlier and earlier. Democrats ignore or deny this so they can continue to support a woman's right to abortion. Although even Democrats, Hillary Clinton, for example, are accepting more and more limits on abortion rights.
Whoa there, chum!
You're treading on very shaky ground. Haven't we seen enough shocking tragedies when the State or the Church stomps all over women's health? Do you want MORE of that?
If you don't, then BUTT THE HELL OUT and let us women make our own decisions according to our own consciences!
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Whoa there yourself.
I said nothing about conscience. I said nothing that deters a woman's right to make her own health decisions. I made a comment about science. Your reaction proves my point.
Polluting industry has been
Polluting industry has been distorting/attacking science for the past century, to avoid regulation, compensation payments, the cost of safer processes and products... Corporate fracking Hillary and Take-Advantage Of/Sue 'Em All Trump are both pathological liars out for themselves and those who could benefit them at the cost of 'lesser' people and life on the planet and neither one should be allowed to even think about entering public service at any level. FSM help us all!
Better yet, if no Bernie miracle appears, vote Green for life. Despite what those interested in trapping us all in a two-party trade-off scam want us to think, if enough people vote outside the box Americans are being stampeded into every freaking election, over and over again, forever, so far, if enough people vote in their own interest for a non-corporate party allowing human and ecological survival, the most actual votes will be intended for that party.
If cheating is, as is strongly suspected by many and as seems probable by the trend, planned for the general, your vote likely won't count unless for the pre-selected corporate favorite and if the largest group of voters - Indies - vote predominately Green and are cheated of their win, at least the cheating can be proven and protest taken over this.
But if most people vote for an evil on whatever side, we'll all get what we don't deserve because enough people were conned into asking for it.
And it's now or probably never - we're out of of time and chances and when thousands of the largest and most ruthless corporations control off-shored domestic 'law', what difference will 'votes' for direct corporate management matter, if the pretense of elections is even to be continued at all? They don't even bother making a credible pretense of a fair Dem nomination any more, as a 'private party' selecting electoral choice of corporate choices for the Presidency, because the 'private party' corporate jaws are closing on all of our throats now.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I agree. ...
And yet, there's also a part of me that thinks that we have run out of time to weather a Trump presidency.
I don't think I'll know how I vote until I'm standing in line. That's how torn I am this election. It's so deplorably depressing.
If I may paraphrase you: we're all fracked
It really doesn't matter about the end result, because whomever wins, Denying Donald or Hawkeyed Hillary, as you so aptly put:
I don't think she'll go for it either.
And I think unleashing the regressive forces that support Trump could make matters that are horrific even worse.
We've seen the neoliberal revolution win the war against The New Deal.
We might see a revolution against neoliberalism that is even more regressive, and which will make the ability to act in any sort of positive way that much more difficult.
Do I have a crystal ball regarding this? No.
But I do have Trump supporters in my family and have seen their mentality close up, especially their inability to absorb observable facts that do not mesh with their pre-conceived notions. And my family are all well educated and should know better.
What I do know is that teaching the Dem Party a lesson, while perhaps valuable under conditions where there is not an immediate existential crises, in the long run is folly because we're running out of the long term.
Yes, I feel utterly without hope most of the time.
It's not just Trump supporters, the
is pretty much a descriptor of all humanity, including scientists.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Lol. That's true enough. Yet some are better at being
open to the world than others.
But yes, we all come with our own preconcieved notions of some sort or another that colors how we perceive the world.
It's not folly at all, not really
I can't speak for everyone, but for me this is far less about teaching anybody a lesson unless they want to bother learning that putting up shit candidates doesn't bring in votes. This is about voting FOR someone for a change, and for a person who I think is the best candidate. Her name is Jill Stein, and her policies are more in line with my beliefs than any of the other candidates.
Hill and Trump aren't going to fix that shit. Ever. Because profit.
If he's just going to sell us the same old swill,
he can just go away again.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Keith shilling for Hillary
is today's Worst Person In The World.
"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush
Here's what Olbermann used to be:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y]
Now he's supporting Clinton. Guess he can't remember back 8 years.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yup.
He and Rachel used to rake the Bush administration over the coals for all the unconstitutional things they were doing such as the illegal spying but especially the war on Iraq.
But once Obama was elected and took those things even further, the whole 'progressive' sites went silent on Obama's abuses.
More drones?
More countries invaded on false pretenses?
Expanded the NSA to over 800 companies?
His war against whistleblowers?
COMPLETE SILENCE!
So Keith why don't you hold Hillary responsible for what she has done to Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine?
Oh that's right, she is a democrat not a republican, is that the gist of your thinking?
Sorry, I am not buying what you are selling.
I have principles.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.
Call him Ichabod.
The glory is definitely gone.....
(see: Jewish Scriptures, I Samuel 4: 21 - 22)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
If this is what he offers,
he should have stayed away. He makes himself look ridiculous.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
The KO I remember
would have never supported this Hillary Clinton.
No. Fucking. Way.
And don't you tell me he's all askeert of Donald Trump.
This is Camp Clinton, pulling out all the stops to get votes.
Quite a coincidence that KO shows up this week
featured on the GQ Youtube channel with multiple 'Hellery for Pres' videos.
And just this week the Hellery campaign announced its multi-million $$$ initiative to go after Millennials.
Lots of coincidences this week.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Isn't it, though?
I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the thought that they still think we have really short memories...
Not quoting anyone there, that's me, paraphrasing The Daily Kos. Remember when he was persona non-grata awhile back, for good? A complete non-entity? I don't even remember what the fuck he did wrong, now, but I'll bet All Is Forgiven, now that he's tap-dancing in place over Her Heinous...
According To Rolling Stone
I wonder if one of them was Hellery. Hahaha.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
His list
could have been pared back a bit. I don't care about Trump wearing bobby pins. I don't care if he speaks in front of a picture of himself in the same outfit he's currently wearing.
Arguably, as Trump is not a professional politician, he may not feel the sort of urgency about distancing himself from questionable supporters. He probably sees nothing wrong with accepting their support without necessarily endorsing what they stand for (of course, he may indeed support what they stand for, which is a different question).
So he could probably have settled for a list of 120 horrendous things without stretching for the rest.
As it is he told me nothing I didn't already know, and I'm not so enamored of his delivery that I could enjoy sitting through his presentation.
Now, if Olberman were to make a similar video about all the things wrong with Clinton I would be more impressed, and see the whole exercise as fair and balanced.
Not going to hold my breath.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
WD, like you I await the second diatribe--directed against HRC
From the Rolling Stone article about why he left MSNBC:
Maybe he's still got enough integrity to call out Medusa on all her myriad faults.
I dunno, Ed......
Did he write that RS article before he cashed the Clinton Foundation check ... or afterwards?
Keith is acting like Markos
During the 08 election Markos wrote an opinion piece on how Hillary is too much of a DNC democrat and went on to describe all the reasons why she wasn't qualified to be president.
Now add in all of her war crimes during her time as SOS, he 'mistakes' on the Iraq vote, using the private email server, not disclosing that she had pneumonia, suddenly Markos thinks that she is qualified to be president?
I don't know how to wrap my head around that.
Here is the link to the article Markos wrote about Hillary
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR200605...
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.
Here's what it is, and (probably) all it is:
"But, but, but, TRUMP!"
"But, but, but, TRUMP!"
"But, but, but, TRUMP!"
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I beg to differ.
Little Nap has succumbed to the Green Poultice Disease: Money, money, money!
The chicken would explain quite a few others, though
including people we used to trust, who used to give us the straight dope.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.