Well, the chickens are certainly coming home to roost with the latest expose related to Debbie Wasserman Schultz the long time lap poodle of the Clintons and manipulator within the ranks of the DNC.
Increasingly difficult even for the most ardent of supporters to deny that the system is indeed rigged, that it is a misnomer if not a blatant lie to characterize the DNC as “democratic”, and that every reason exists to believe this latest revelation is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Inspite of the difficult deniability factor and campaign long negative polls of a lack of trustworthiness will this make a difference to Hillary’s supporters?
I doubt it as it is singularly about party allegiance and the fact that Clinton is a woman.
Breaking barriers and glass ceilings indeed, while no mention is made that the barriers were seen to be the obstacle of honesty and integrity – something woefully lacking in the House of Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and politics in general.
And Wasserman Schultz being the ever faithful companion and with no room to deny or plead the now infamous Hillary line of she “misspoke” bites the bullet and takes one for the team while Hillary publicly congratulates Wasserman for her service.
Public praise, another in your face middle finger by the distinctly unqualified and stereotypical Washington insider.
My sincere hope is Sander’s supporters contest the coronation of the would be queen, that they do what the deny Trump movement attempted to and vote their conscience.
Any one who is dismissive of the Drumpf’s chances of winning may be in for rude awakening – an awakening not based on Trump’s “message” but a rejection of everything Hillary Clinton has come to represent.
What a miserable state of affairs when the choices boil down to two pathological liars who have spent their careers manipulating and stepping upon anyone who got in their way……way to go America.
The most sophisticated technology in the world belongs to governments, and a valid argument could be made that the U.S. sits at the top of the heap.
Yet inspite of this we are being told that while it was possible to determine that at least one of Hillary Clinton’s email homeys was hacked it somehow just isn’t possible to determine if Hillary Clinton’s aka Leona Helms was as well.
Yeah, I’m believing that ….about as much as I believe in the tooth fairy.
Speaking of the tooth fairy rather than collecting a molar or two from a subdued and defanged Hillary the attempt seems to be gifting her with a gold plated set of canines, or at least one of those “grills”.
The reality is you can’t spend five minutes on the net without being tracked, nor can you make a cell phone call without it being scooped up, but when it comes to private servers and Hillary’s email accounts they apparently are protected by a cloaking device the Klingons would be envious of.
I’m surprised internet security providers aren’t beating a path to Hillary’s door in the hopes of securing an update for their customers.
The feds characterization of Clinton being extremely careless sans an indictment has served only two things, to raise the specter of a fix and to further embolden Clinton as though she’s been layered in the double jeopardy clause and remains forever immune.
So much so she’s flipping the verbal bird in the direction of FBI director Comey by implying in her own inimitable way that if anyone is lying it has to be Comey as she did nothing wrong all while with Cheshire cat grin saying she applauds the feds thoroughness.
Hillary skated and that ought to be obvious, if there’s any good news in that it may be for Comey – imagine the full wrath of the of the Clinton machine, the DNC, political cronies, and the Clinton Foundation coming down on him had he of sought an indictment – he could have been transferred to a field office in Barrow Alaska to serve out his penance, or handed a mop, bucket, and set of keys to the janitor’s closet at fed central.
I’d like to believe the feds operate in a non political manner but history demonstrates they haven’t always. I’d also like to believe governments operate in such a way as to always place the welfare of the public first, but history also demonstrates that hasn’t always been the case.
This country is coming apart at the seams, from government corruption, corporate influence, climate change, crumbling infrastructure, the gross disparity in wealth and influence, to a militarized police force killing unarmed civilians and civilians killing cops.
With all the hoopla and rhetoric about the “American Dream” is this what it’s all about?
As indigenous people the “dream” was never ours, there was no inclusion – even so it’s more than a little bizarre to see those who claim the dream is theirs and remains alive and well when everything indicates it is not.
And what of that iconic image of a parent telling their child they could grow up to be president?
An image that until recently didn’t include daughters when it should have from the beginning.
How does a parent go about that with a son – do they say you’ll be a better man than others who’ve been elected like Bush or Bill Clinton so the office should be theirs?
What does a parent tell a daughter – do they say you’ll be a better woman than Hillary Clinton so the office should be theirs?
Millions of sons and daughters who are or will be a better man or woman and yet look at the choices the electorate makes.
People should neither deny nor fear the truth, but if they do they should examine their reasons for doing so.
Have the Clinton’s and their “foundation” acted in such a way that would in all probability land you or I in prison? I’d say beyond a doubt – but then we aren’t as insulated, monied, teflon coated, or know the skeletons in the closets of others that could insure silence and get out of jail passes.
If you watch the video don’t assume it is gospel, even more so for those who are Clinton supporters – challenge your commitment, question the assertions, and devote a little time to doing the math.
Having done so then ask yourself if your support is warranted, ask yourself if integrity is important, ask yourself if the future is important and what kind of world you want your children to inherit – do you want role models for them in government or con artists and corporate cronies?
Ask yourself if you instruct and desire your children to make solid informed decisions, and if you do and fail to do so yourself would you have them do as you say or do as you do?
People may be inclined to say poverty is relative, that it could be worse just down the road, across the nation, or even beyond continental boundaries, and I wouldn’t argue that.
Too many photos of starving babies with bloated bellies, emaciated children and adults to deny that the face of poverty is as varied as cultures, location, and has become a global pandemic.
Yet poverty remains at the core what it is, oppressive and devastating, and lives are lost due to this regardless of where it is to be found.
In third world countries poverty has become something of a global expectation, I can see no excuse for such an expectation and whatever degree of acceptance that accompanies it.
How much is enough, how much wealth does an individual or corporation need to acquire before it becomes not only obscene but criminal by it’s very nature?
Monsanto is concerned about hunger? Bullshit, they’re concerned about controlling food dependency and it’s production through their GMO’s.
Governments have prioritized remediating poverty and hunger? Again bullshit when you examine government waste, corporate influence, and sweetheart deals.
Poverty and hunger in industrialized nations is not only a fact but should be a political indictment and embarrassment to those in power.
Commonsense approaches are off the table unless there is money to be made in the board rooms of cronies and an endless array of new agencies whose priority is their turf and perpetuating their agency.
Take a look at “charities” and “foundations” where the majority of the money goes to “overhead”, salaries, and “operational costs”.
The biggest offenders in this setting may well be televangelists who having “heard a word from the lord” milk their congregations and live in the lap of luxury as though they’ve taken that biblical axiom of the poor will always be among us to heart so they may as well fly around in multi million dollar private jets, live in mansions, and wear only tailor made suits.
Poverty is a business, there’s money to be made, and somebody has to do it right?
Here’s what I’d like to see – I’d like to see one of these frauds lay their hands on a starving baby and heal them – bring them back to full health.
I’d like to see the heads of these charities, foundations, and governments, live in the same poverty for a year or so before they even dare open their mouth or attempt to raise or fund a single penny.
It’s become axiomatic for politicians to relate some personal story about how tough things were when they were a child – they had to walk ten miles to school barefoot in the snow, barefoot because the family had to boil the shoes for soup.
Well maybe some did have it tough, but they ain’t having it tough now and need to think about paying it forward.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for someone like Hillary Clinton who complains about making a paltry 14k a year in the seventies when she began working – do the math, 14k then is like 60 or 70k now.
I don’t have much appreciation for the “good work” the “foundation” does when a mere ten percent of the total take of over a a hundred and fifty million dollars has gone to these “good works”.
Hillary and Bill may have missed their calling, maybe they should been televangelists.
And guess where the “foundations” headquarters are located now – the Goldman Sachs obelisk to celebrating greed.
Like The Jefferson’s of television fame they moved on up, and those boardroom speeches of Hillary’s and Bill’s now only require a short trip on an elevator rather than the discomfort and hassle of a limousine.
A redistribution of wealth? You got that right – but not by seizing assets, rather by raising wages, closing tax loopholes, and increasing the tax rate for those entities “too big to fail” in addition to slapping a healthy import duty on products produced in other countries by American manufacturers to compensate for the economic woes their continuing exportation of jobs has created.
Yeah I know, sounds so unAmerican doesn’t it, so unpatriotic these “socialist” ideas of equality, inequity, and elevating people out of poverty?
No what we need to do is continue to reward the abusers, continue to wave the flag, focus on issues like guns, and seek to insure that the poor will indeed always be among us.
We need to focus on every harebrained meme about conspiracies that comes down the pike rather than focus on what may be the biggest conspiracy of all – poverty as a vehicle for profit.
And if there isn’t enough poverty and disenfranchisement to satisfy the national fancy well then just maintain the status quo and create more.
Seems to me it’s kinda like the kiss of death for either Koch to speak positively of any non Republican candidate.
But then when you view the field of conservative candidates maybe it’s a natural progression, something of an inevitability.
Clinton was quick to respond saying in part she isn’t interested in anyone who denies climate change or makes it hard for people to vote.
Hmmm – seems like if that were true she would have something to say about closed primaries that deny Independents their right to vote – guess it’s different though when construed to be favorable.
Climate change is another issue, but her for public consumption statement doesn’t exactly resonate when you consider her corporate donors and their greed above the environment mentality – you know, the fossil fuel boys?
Hillary hasn’t exactly done the “drill baby, drill” thing ala Sarah Palin, she’s a little more politically savvy than Palin, but the positions she’s taken speak to a positional compatibility.
Hillary doesn’t need Koch money, she’s making enough as it what with the paid speeches, campaign and Foundation donations, and whatever ventures she and it are engaged in.
Speaking of the Foundation, Koch money has made it’s way into the Foundation coffers, some will call it philanthropical if that’s the spoon full of sugar that helps the medicine go down.
But isn’t it a little unsettling to know, isn’t it unsettling to know that money from oppressive nations like Saudi Arabia find their way into the coffers as well?
Does the sugar sweeten the reality that money is accepted from a nation that beheads people, will stone a woman to death or beat her with a whip for the “crime” of being raped?
Does it empower women or feminists to know their candidate of choice will turn a blind eye to such things on the basis of money?
Or is it the political two step, the perceived “greater good” of electing a woman, any woman, to the presidency and to hell with the realities?
Like I’ve said – a woman president, not a problem, but if it is to be a woman how about one who can set a new standard by elevating the office?
How about one who isn’t bought and paid for?
Hillary wants the office and she doesn’t give a damn how she goes about obtaining it or who she crawls into bed with. She’s like Golum, it’s her precious.
I don’t feel as though that’s a core value of the women’s movement, maybe I’m wrong though.
I don’t feel as though cozying up to regimes that view women as chattel is a core value of feminists either, maybe I’m wrong about that as well.
Maybe I’m fortunate in that the women I know don’t believe so either.
The global “sisterhood” – is that a selective sisterhood defined by money and political expediency?
Kind of seems like it at times, and if so not much difference between it and the “brotherhood”.
People don’t like to be played, especially when they’ve invested of themselves for a cause, when they’ve talked it up and incrementally “overlooked” those troubling questions.
That’s to be expected I guess as a part of human nature and probably ego as well.
Such has been the case when it came to the American Indian Movement and their poster boy/quasi shield Leonard Peltier – one might argue both are something of a “local” problem, and nowadays that may be true to an extent as support and those highly coveted donations have fallen off.
It’s a horse of an entirely different color though when it comes to elections, especially presidential elections – people should be more attentive, more analytical, and more critical.
In looking at the American Indian Movement an obvious question is where did all the money come from and where did it go?
Well some of it came from the CPUSA, some from a variety of foreign despotic rulers and oppressive governments, and even more bizarre some from the federal government in the form of grants, a lot of it went into offshore accounts and the pockets of “leadership”.
On the surface that alone would be enough to raise questions and hackles among a great many, yet the true Aimsters and Peltierites either don’t care to hear about it or somehow find a way to legitimize it.
This is the kind of attitude that prevails during elections – voting records, history, and outright lies don’t count, and even in the midst of railing about Citizens United and the undue influence of super pac money somehow none of that counts either.
The included list of Hillary Clinton’s speaking engagements and monetary haul should raise a few eyebrows – that is if a person is really concerned about corporate influence in government.
It isn’t just speaking fees but donations to the Clinton Foundation that should be unsettling – there’s a long and sordid history of donors getting a leg up when it comes to legislation, and that’s part of the beauty of the net – it’s all there if you’re willing to sift through the bullshit and double check.
Having done so it becomes a matter of personal integrity in my opinion whether a person will accept what it is or put on a smiley face and blow it off.
There are no perfect candidates any more than perfection can be found in the current version of democracy – taking that into consideration it should become a matter of degrees.
How egregious is an issue, how “flawed” is a candidate? Where do they rank on a scale from one to ten when it comes to being trustworthy?
I never got on the AIM bandwagon as I was willing from the beginning to look beneath the surface – I was a Peltier supporter the result of what I consider to be an us against them mentality knee jerk reaction.
That was short lived though as again I took a deeper look into the myth that was being created for Peltier even though I had made a personal investment.
My thinking was it was far better to admit an error than to continue making one as my concerns are and will remain about the welfare of all our different nations people.
That’s what presidential elections should come down to, a concern for the general welfare that transcends ego and the ability to admit when a persons been hoodwinked.
Peddling influence isn’t a qualification for elected office – nobody gives up this kind of money without expectations, and if those expectations aren’t met the well dries up, it’s that simple – obviously in Hillary’s case her cup runneth over.
The formula has been proven and become well established within the election process, if you find that acceptable when it happens to be your candidate then you have no grounds to complain when it’s another.
If you don’t then you need to raise a little hell and demand some accountability rather than laughing it off when the explanation is that’s what was offered.
I think a woman president could be a good thing for the country, but not just any woman, or for that matter any man.
Hillary is attempting to imply it’s a gender issue and I expect her to ramp that up – it would be a hell of thing to elect a corporatist merely because they also happen to be a woman.
Before all the candidates began announcing I was hoping Elizabeth Warren would enter the race – she opted not to but I’d at least like to see her share the ticket with Sanders.
Hillary is apparently so concerned she’s trotting out former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and feminist Gloria Steinem to essentially declare it is singularly about electing a woman, and any woman who doesn’t agree is suspect.
Is it just me or does that sound sexist in itself? Does sexism only work one way? Is it sexist to imply that women have gravitated to Sanders because ” that’s where the boys are”?
Your future and the future of your children are being sold, that’s something to think about.