Barely an hour before the opening of the second debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Pulitzer Prize–winning author and presidential biographer David Maraniss put Trump’s pre-debate shenanigans in perspective.
The jail statement crystallized who Donald Trump is and why he represents such a threat. And it also made clear that many Americans who support him want a dictatorship. They will do not accept the results of the US democratic system. They want political opponents jailed just like they do in dictatorships. Trump once again went over the line. It looks like going over the line on his vulgar sexual comments and claims about advances on women without their consent will finally sink his chances of winning but his claim about jailing Hillary Clinton if he does win should set off alarms.
The definition of fascism, John Nichols, is equally one of not prosecuting or jailing any of those who setup and executed the crash in 2008, not prosecuting or jailing anyone exposed as war criminals by whistleblowers, not prosecuting or jailing anyone who participated in CIA torture programs ... the list goes on. Despicable as Trump was and is, he was absolutely right when he said if most people would be in jail for doing a fifth of what Clinton has done. Indeed, there are people rotting in jails for committing a much smaller fraction of what Clinton has done. That, too, is a definition of fascism. Jefferson's "successful experiment" was trashed long before Trump arrived on the scene and the Democrats, including both Clintons, have had their hands in it. Don't get all holier than thou on us.
The only three issues that I agree with Trump on:
1) dump TPP,
2) keep Guantanamo open (my reason for agreement is to house most of the DC politicians when they are brought to justice), and
3) make sure one of the cells has Clinton's name on it.
I'm scratching my head wondering why she isn't already in jail for her part in Libya, Syria, etc.
He's not a classic old line conservative Republican, he's a White Nationalist fascist / authoritarian bully boy. Why so many in here refuse to see that is just absurd. Hillary is a standard issue Dem. Corporatist hack, but she isn't going to fill up internment camps with her political enemies the way DJ would. Neither are my choice , but I can't in good conscience vote for Jill since I don't consider the Greens as a real party or her candidacy anything more then an ego trip and spoiler con game. When the Green party wins any election for anything maybe then I'll take it seriously. Till then the choice here is obvious.
Although Gary Johnson admitted to Bloomberg News that he is "a spoiler in a race that needs a spoiler", Stein represents a Party that is active in dozens of nations. Concurrent with Germany leading the world in clean energy, 10% of its Bundestag seats are held by Greens and some cities have had Green Party mayors for more than a decade.
In addition to more than 100 Green Party members that DO hold office in the US, more Green candidates get elected in nations where, unlike the US , they not demonized and suppressed by corporations and the media and politicians they own.
Time to take it seriously I guess. For a list of about 100 Green Party officeholders, please see:
I'm glad to see the Greens working their way up, but really, 100 offices in 6 states, but none at even a state level (I will vote for one for NJ State Assembly) is no basis for federal leadership. I would most like to see green-thinking folks (not necessarily party loyalists) swarm state legislatures, where their resistance to the likes of ALEC is sorely needed.
But @raydelcamino, that's my question about your claim of international connection. Is it a real connection of parties, or just a really good name? I don't know about the parliamentary systems, but I think the day of party discipline is over here in the US and we will see the party structures crumble over the coming Presidential term. That will open offices to all kinds of principled representatives and to less reliance on party labels.
They have won a few state level elections in the past, but in each case their candidates have then switched parties to Democrats. Here's the list:
Richard Carroll Arkansas legislature elected as a Green in 2008 then switched to Democrat in 2009
Fred Smith Arkansas legislature elected as a Green in 2012 - switched to Democrat in 2014
Audie Bock California legislature elected as a Green in 1998 - switched to Democrat in 2000
Too many Americans are flat out ignorant of what a democracy truly means...it's not just that they are free to do and say whatever they want (the infantile understanding of liberty), but that their behaviors must be tempered with respect for the freedom of others, so that a balanced social contract can function.
Not defending Trump, but.... jailing your opponents for being the opposition = Totalitarianism. Addressing the judicial process and prosecuting criminals when the previous administration did not, well that's progress (and of course, if it is not a witch-hunt). Kinda like what we assumed Obama would do lol.
I admit i didn't bother reading beyond the first paragraph, just so stupid and irrelevant. but in that ten seconds of attention I found something to bitch about
I wonder if this Maraniss has ever heard of that guy names Jeffery Epstein. Supposedly a mega rich guy who is a pedophile and had a staff that groomed young girls for sex slaves and shit. crazy shit huh.
Trump and Bill Clinton reportedly have ties to Epstein. Could be innocent enough, I mean this guy has to do other things besides rape little girls, like I'm sure he has other hobbies. photography maybe film. He did have some hidden cameras to capture footage of high profile guest as they rape children, you know for black mail purposes, or maybe, just maybe, he fancies himself an film editor. I bet that's it, Trump and Clinton and Epstein all share an interest in film.
This shit seems a little to "Roman Empire'ie" for me.
According to Mr Nichols if a Candidate for President has broken the law , there should be no repercussions?
According to Mr Nichols Obama was correct when he refused to prosecute members of the previous administration for war crimes. Mr Nichols feigned outrage exposes him for what he is and that a propagandist for the Democrats.
Mr Nichols. A totalitarian regime is one where high ranking Public officials are immune from the law and can do as they please. This is what you in fact advocate.
Good for them. Don't know why globalgreens isn't featured on the gpus page. But it remains the case that they have no base in the working body of elected officials (or known career civil servants) at the federal level, so until we get over the party system, a Green president has no prospect of accomplishing anything. And in this thread, the Greens remain off topic.
You cannot show either of the assertions you attribute to the writer in quotes, because that's not what he said. Let's get back on topic instead of anybody's propagandizing.
Could you please demonstrate to me that you are a moderator of this forum? If in fact persons such as yourself are allowed to dictate what can be posted, thenI would no longer consider this a site for the progressive community.
My post is pertinent to the topic. Mr Nichols claims that Totalitarian regimes jail their opponents. I point out the fallacy in that premise in that Totalitarian regimes also have structures where persons in position of power are immune to the law.
If one is going to speak to totalitarian regimes one can not just pick and choose elements which they feel make it totalitarian in order to make a case.
Mr Nichols has no more right to express his opinion on this then I do. My post was on topic.
Ideologically, an elected democrat must serve a majority which therefore includes some fair proportion of the ideologically conservative; thus, democrats become 'centrist'. An elected republican, OTOH, is ideologically inclined to represent individual liberty, ie, those individuals who attain the most economic control over others. An elected republican is not obligated, ideologically, to serve even a majority of republicans. Ideologically, a Green Party candidate ought to represent both democrat and republican whose concerns about a sustainable environment are more important, but republicans are too individually self-centered to give a damn, and democrats too focused on the larger battle against selfish reckless racist elitist greed to risk allowing republicans of our era another chance to reek havoc.
The political center has moved so far rightward since the 1985 formation of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that no politician from the Nixon era would recognize it. The DLC playbook calls for making sure the GOP controls Congress as much as possible to give cover to the Democrat occupying the White House to provide as much payback to the 1% that own both parties. The GOP "reeking havoc" is at the heart of the DLC playbook.
Clinton accomplished this with his zealous promotion and signing of NAFTA during his first year in office, giving the GOP control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. During his first year in office Obama assured GOP control of Congress in the 2010 midterms by zealously promoting the GOP "health care reform" plan he relabeled the Affordable Care Act..Recall Obama's Cheshire Cat grin on the day after the 2010 midterm election when he announced how he was "looking forward to working with the GOP". An eight month SCOTUS vacancy with no end in sight confirms how well that turned out.
Between the corrupt, neocon, neolib, war criminal and the corrupt, neocon, neolib, war criminal wannabe, Cthulhu looks better and better. No matter who wins, the Banksters profits and wealth will continue to be protected at whatever cost to the American people, new wars will be started, old wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia. Afghanistan, etc., will continue indefinitely and the people of Haiti will continue to suffer centuries long immiseration by capitalism.