Home | About | Donate

Progressives Pushing on Executive Appointments? Scandal!


That's great that Sanders and Warren should do this. These are our compromise politicians, and we need that if we are not to proceed into the more destructive conflict that looms.

That does mean that we deal with people who deal with the likes of Clinton and Trump and so forth. However, the implication that a vote for Clinton in some way supports these actions is bad analysis. They may get something for supporting her; they get nothing by our supporting her or Donald Trump.

Trump is hardly worth discussing here; we agree that he is a jerk. Clinton is pro-war and pro-MIC, pro hydrocarbon technology and monopoly, pro-privatization and scorched-earth economics, anti-social support, racist and possibly as racist as the more flamboyant Trump, actively working against populism and democratic process at home and abroad. The things to watch in the emails have little to do with whether or not she was careless with government or private servers; both get penetrated regularly. The problem, and one that has had almost no coverage here, is the wealth of severely oppressive and criminal activities that the emails reveal.

We have had the release of Clinton-camp emails that enumerate in impressive detail the following:

  • Redirection and misdirection of DNC funds earmarked to other candidates to the Clinton camp
  • Use of Clinton campaign funds to fund the Trump nomination
  • Sale of the audience and favors of a sitting US president for the Clinton nomination
  • Campaign funds from a half a dozen or so foreign governments around the oil regions
  • Ongoing support for TPP
  • Ongoing support for the pipeline projects
  • Contempt for her progressive or liberal supposed base as easily misled
  • Massive DNC collusion with what has been "major" media to manipulate the nomination
  • Serial payments to ISIS
  • And, as reported by the FBI and NYPD, an extensive ring of pedophilic sex parties

All but the last are also amply supported by her public record, which involves moving NATO east, multiple coups, and extreme warlike and corporatist policies and actions. As to a rink of pedophilic prostitution and trafficking, I am repeating what is now announced by law enforcement that claims to be working on the case, with details released only in the last few days.

Now, it is in the above context that the author appears to wish to suggest that our vote for Clinton will garner some sort of favors for people that we may regard as more or less honest and of moderate approach, people like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. The idea is a major failure to recognize the dynamic of this process as it develops.

What has developed and is consolidating is a the sort of mafia state that we have seen repeatedly in relation to CIA and corporate Economic Hit Man-style control of banana republic and US-occupied and controlled states like Chile, Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and many others at various periods and with some variations on the theme.

No. Any support that actual progressives are to receive from a vote has to come from voting against the cabal. This means against Democrats, and it means against Republicans. And it is going to need support through the other 364 days of the year as well.


Right. There is, after all, no such thing as evidence or a reasonable hypothesis.


Bernie's campaign was the most thorough demonstration yet of the viability of direct election via Internet and fundraising from citizens only. Howard Dean started it, and Obama '08 rode it (mostly) to the White House. Unfortunately, the Congress was still addicted to the bigger money. Take away the ridiculous years of primary campaign spending, and it becomes even more workable.

The parties are the problem. No party can provide the solution. Too late for the Greens to build a base in Congress and the states.


Hypotheses serve no purpose but to provide a nullifiable proposition. They're not about closing doors before they've opened.


That's simply false. Hypotheses give us a practical basis for future action. They do not exist to rationalize wishful thinking or dubious claims in the political arena.


You're apparently not a "serious professor" of scientific method.

Maybe you're thinking of legal hypotheticals. Still no basis for prejudging another's future actions.


Ah, well now that you've offered a personal insult, of course your apologia for magical thinking has been completely rehabilitated. Carry on.


Your statements are basically saying "Hillary may have done many bad faith acts in the past, but that is all in the past, we are looking forward to avoid damaging the 'national spirit' and, she is going to win anyway, so don't vote Green because then it won't matter... and then something about the electoral college being the real one to blame, not Hillary"

Its highly convoluted "logic" other than a blatant "Go Hillary" bumper sticker and an attempt to discourage third party voting.

For anyone who thinks Hillary will nominate a progressive to any position of power, I've got a bridge down the block that I am selling...


have individually or collectively absolutely no basis in the records of Senators Sanders and Warren. When you can do better, run for one of their offices.


Liz Warren is absolutely spot-on when she said personnel were policy, as Obama's biggest initial error, choosing Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers over Paul Volcker clearly demonstrated. Wall Street functionaries seem to be amongst the few whom have not learned from this.


Why do you think it was an "error"?


If she picks a progressive, I'll donate $50 to Our Revolution.

Sadly, that's how sure I am....


What time frame were you referring with your comment “Too late for the Greens to build a base in Congress and the states.” If you mean 2016, we can take that to be obvious. Although I don't know what scale would constitute the genesis of a 'base'. Do you have a political/societal sense that the Green Party will or at least can be a viable force within a dozen years?

You mention Internet fund-raising and the Sanders campaign, yet the major factor in raising those funds was the campaign and its issues that Sanders presented., The Sanders campaign was based on issues the public seriously cared about. Issues that they, the public, thought would never be mentioned by a candidate in one of the two 'permissible' parties. Quite unlike Obama in 2008 and the award winning PR effort of a campaign. Although people like Noam Chomsky did caution, based on Obama's history and pre-election comments, that one could have high hopes but more somber expectations. So, yes, the Sanders campaign was able to raise considerable funds...but for a reason.

The younger generation(s) are demonstrating an evolution in the electorate. They were born in an IT world. They're not dependent on mainstream news sources for their information, making them free of the powerful litany of propaganda that the baby boomers experienced their whole lives. Being born in the mid 1940s I lived through that Cold War history, as I suspect you have as well. And this 'evolution', done without conscious intent as far as I can tell, is a first in my lifetime. It was/is very much tied to the 'Sanders' movement and to potentially lifting the Green Party to 'permissible' status. There's also no law of nature that forbids progressives from all sources from working together for a sane, rational and equitable world. It may well be the only way to a sane, rational and equitable future.


There's nothing about "permissibility" in my analysis. You have quite captured the major factor in the start of your 3rd paragraph, about the Internet, cell-phone generation. I said something to my 38yo the other night, who was fully aware we were talking on my land line, about "long-distance charges" (no, I wasn't whining, only recalling why I let them do the dialing), and they were baffled for a moment. For them, 1- is only part of that other anachronism, the toll-free number. So are telephone polling and being hammered with political commercials. They are much more free to make their own decisions, elect their governments directly, and support campaigns over the Web.

Yes, these are the people who answered Bernie's call to participate in the primaries, not only because of the issues he raised, but also because he convinced them that was a way for their voices to be heard, that for now that's where the Presidential contest starts. And no, I don't think they'll accept it for very long. That's why I think the Greens, as well as the Dems and GOP, are out of time to assume this is how politics works. I think by 2024, if not 2020, the parties may find themselves holding much more Greens-sized primaries, and if there are 8 nominees listed on my ballot (as there are in NJ this year), some of them may list no party affiliations. And we will have stopped setting an "aisle" down the middle of Congress to define the opposing sides on all issues.

This year's "younger generations" have finally had a chance to show us how to run elections. Next they will show us how to run governments. Bernie helped them find their voice, and he's not about to let that voice be silenced just because the election is over. Next target: the electoral college.


Too little, too late. Sellout Sanders let the cat out of her bag and Trump will win. And if the cat should win, the mice get eaten, if not nuked.


I think this article shows the great need to clarify the meaning of "progressive politics and policies." This is not to be confused with "somewhat liberal on some issues," anti-New Deal/Great Society Democrats who essentially promote (middle) class elitism.


We've been hearing this for decades.


You know, I've been reading your comments for some time now, since you first
appeared in this comment section, not all that long ago, and I wasn't sure what to think about them. They always seemed to focus on some obscure point but you made it very adamantly and righteously.
And now I do I know what to think: you annoy the hell out of me. So go ahead and flag me too, while you're at it. It wouldn't be the first time. And, btw, have you noticed how few "likes" you get for your responses?? That should tell you something.


You know, if you compare our stats, especially considering how much longer you've been around (I still don't understand what relevance that has), I'm not too worried about how I stand up as a participant in the community.


lol because, you know, hypothesis testing is the essence of the scientific method. But let's not spill that little secret in here, right? :wink:
our earnest sister is confusing the statistical habit of testing the null with the scientific method. Anyone who's ever had to suffer through a social science journal learns quickly the two are not the same thing.

good to see you again, by the way!