When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@Lash,

Quote:

I'm not blind. I'm one of the ones who see.

Ah-hahahaha . . . the best comedy is always unintentional.

Will you please tell us what change Mr. Sanders' shouting has effected?

1 Reply

@Lash,

I wrote:

Quote:

a revolution supposedly against a government CANNOT be (and there is not a precedent in history for it, either) spearheaded by the person who will be in its central seat of power - the American presidency. What kind of "revolution" is run by the person at the center of the bureaucracy being revolted against?

Your comment about Ghandi and MLK clearly didn't address my point. They were not the HEADs of the government they intended to disrupt. Bernie is running to be the head of the system against which he is supposed to be the head revolutionary.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Go, glitter..

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Feisty, isn't she.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Millions of people agree that our country is now basically an oligarchy, and their support has catapulted him into a close competition for the presidency.

Thanks, Bernie.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Excuse me, but i have asked a question which i do not think it unreasonable to expect you to answer:

Will you please tell us what change Mr. Sanders' shouting has effected?

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

There are people who think dancing is a sin, playing cards is a sin, listening to anything other than Christian music is a sin, and there are people who believe that procreation is the only decent motive for intercourse.

The men who claim a vaginal probe is no more intrusive (than anything they can dream up) have a low opinion of women, and an overblown grandiose view of their right to guide us poor childlike gals. Apparently they see the female anatomy as something they have divine dominion over. Shame on those who think a woman's genatalia or reproductive health should be decided by voters in issues that are so private and personal it becomes a violation of their human rights. I don't see this issue as different than the morality police who roam
around enforcing sharia law in the different theocracies we fear, in this country it is the fundamentalists who want to enforce their notion of sin by limiting women's choice by fiat.

Hear hear. Well said, GB!

1 Reply

@snood,

That casual mention of 'so whats the big deal about vaginal probes' when someone talks about a woman's vaginas pisses me off it's so willfully ignorant. It would be like me describing what it feels like to be kicked in the testicles by a horse. If you don't personally have the equipment, then shut the hell up about how intrusive a vaginal probe might be. It's time to dispel that notion that women are sanguine about foreign objects (i.e. things that are not God-given nature created) into their nether regions. We are not carrying teflon enforced private parts, that's just a P.S. for those men who have forgotten that women are humans, we are sisters, mothers, daughters, aunts, wives and grannies. All of us made our way here via childbirth and the last time I checked that was still a woman's job. Tell your mother, thank you.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Many people condem Muslems for the way they treat their women but I remember a christian organization that told its female members that they should be subservant to the male members because the bible said to.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

Actually, I know a family that still operates on that principle somewhat. The husband runs the show, they go to church on Sundays but are not super-duper involved in the church, and he makes the major decisions after consulting with his wife. I don't know that she is "subservient" to him on a daily basis, though, just on major decision making.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

Many people condem Muslems for the way they treat their women but I remember a christian organization that told its female members that they should be subservant to the male members because the bible said to.

Yes. And we know of the ugly stories from India and Pakistan as well. And then there's Asia, etc.

But to be clear, I don't place the blame for the maltreatment of women on religion (nor do I blame religion for wars or racism, etc). The human tendencies or propensities towards those things are more fundamental.

But because religion is such a powerful force in bonding groups of humans in community, those propensities, if justified or amplified by a religion's traditions and formalized beliefs, can become a significant aspect of such communities.

On the other hand, religion can be a force towards positive social ends such as equality, mercy, empathy, forgiveness.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Actually, I know a family that still operates on that principle somewhat. The husband runs the show, they go to church on Sundays but are not super-duper involved in the church, and he makes the major decisions after consulting with his wife. I don't know that she is "subservient" to him on a daily basis, though, just on major decision making.

I think that's not necessarily a bad situation unless it is just assumed that this is somehow "natural", therefore proper and anything else improper. If male and female agree on a division of labor and if it works for them, that seems fine. The clue that something might be badly amiss here would be if all or most of the families in some community have one gender as dominant.

0 Replies

Putting controls on abortion (or contraception or sex toys etc) is not about respect for life. It is about controlling women's sexuality.

When Ted Cruz advocates the carpet bombing of a region, there's not much "respect for life" evident in such advocation. Obviously, children will be killed along with adults. Obviously, innocent fetuses growing in women's wombs will be killed along with that woman. In America, anti-abortion voices are commonly also pro-war voices. When John Yoo argues that it is morally acceptable to crush the testicles of a boy in front of the boy's father on the hopes that important information might be divulged, there's hardly a respect for life evident. Etc.

So, something else is going on here. The anti-abortion movements in the US, Canada and Europe became significant social movements during the sixties. They didn't just drop out of the blue sky. They emerged as a response to deep changes in culture that were rejecting prior arrangements of power and dominance. The feminist movement, bra burning, free love etc produced a typical reactionary thrust from (overwhelmingly) conservative minds and groups. Women were asserting their sexual and political autonomy. That was the big sin.

The interesting question here is why do males (particularly) get upset to terrified by women's sexual autonomy? For example, when the first archaeological finds were coming out of the classical world and brought back to England, much of that stuff was locked away in universities because of it's graphic sexual content. And the justification or rationale for locking it away from citizens' eyes was because of how females might respond.

For another example, how many houses of prostitution (or streetwalkers) might we count up in the western world in the past or present? Whatever huge number that might be, let's compare it with the number of house of gigolos we could count up. How often do you see, in some area of your city, a street where hunky black or Italian studs strut about offering their services to the city's females? How many clubs are there in your town where naked heterosexual men pole dance for single and married women?

Women's sexuality is controlled and constrained far, far beyond any social controls put in on men's sexuality.

So, again, why might this be so. But we ought to note that things are different here and there. In one Asian culture, married women have their own bedroom and that room has a door onto the street. Any man who knocks on that door, can be invited in for the evening (if she approves, and he must be gone by morning). That is the norm in that culture. In other words, we don't have to be so ******* stupid as we are in the western world.

1 Reply

Eugene Robinson at the Post makes a damned smart observation.

Quote:

Republicans love to talk tough about illegal immigration, for example, and use the issue to bludgeon Democrats. But when Trump takes the bombast to its logical conclusion — all right, then, let’s deport the 11 million undocumented — the establishment has to hem and haw about how all that partisan rhetoric wasn’t meant to be taken literally.

Likewise, Republicans love to suggest that Democrats are somehow soft in the fight against terrorism here and abroad. A favorite trope is to complain that Obama refuses to “utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ ” as Ted Cruz is fond of saying. But when Trump called for temporarily banning all foreign Muslims from entering the country, other candidates who try their best to sound hawkish had to acknowledge that Islam itself isn’t really the problem.

http://wapo.st/1XuUT7B

Here's another rather beautiful example of how (and why) the modern GOP has become a post-policy phenomenon. As soon as the details, logistics, and economics of proposed policy is made evident, the "policy" is seen to be ridiculous. Another example - it has been six years or more now that the GOP has been promising to reveal their plan to replace Obamacare and they haven't. For the same reasons.

Or there's the example of Republicans (and present candidates) puffing up their chests in the necessary manly fashion and promising to do some real butt-kicking with ISIS. If asked what they'd actually do past what Obama is already doing, the standard answer goes something like this, "I wouldn't be like Chamberlain, that's for sure, and I'd yell out the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" every damn day because I'm a leader!".

One can easily make the same indictment of Sander's proposals but if one reads media including left leaning media, this lack of specificity and detail is presently being broadly challenged.

This "post-policy" phenomenon is another case where there is a deep dissimilarity between the two parties presently.

0 Replies

One last point related to the prior post.

If Trump is the nominee or if someone else who forwards the notion of mass deportation is the nominee, then I do hope that some Dem entity will produce a high quality ad (hire Spielberg or the Coen brothers) filmed in black and white and portraying exactly what that would have to actually entail and look like:

1) huge increases in police manpower to identify and round-up illegals
2) the mass violence that would inevitably result all over the country
3) the internment camps that would necessarily have to be set up before transit arrangements organized.
4) the huge costs in food and water and policing for those camps
5) the protests and policing costs and violence associated
6) then the legal problems of what is done with those people's houses and property? Confiscated? Sold? What cost associated with the bureaucracy necessary to administer this huge mess?
7) then the transport of 11 million or 6 million humans, of all ages, by train and bus and ship leaving from all the large and many small cities across the nation and the protests along the rail lines and roadways and the costs of that plus the costs of policing all that.
8) and then the problem of where the hell do these people get dumped? Mexico? And if Mexico says "No frigging way!", which they will, then do US border guards begin shooting Mexican border guards?

A 3 minute "documentary" style ad - but done truthfully in the manner of realities I've just described - would pretty clearly demonstrate how utterly insane such proposals actually are. If this happened, the US would become a world pariah state because the precedent would be so obvious (minus only the gas chambers and the Zykon B, which I'm sure Monsanto or Dow Chemical could improve upon).

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Putting controls on abortion (or contraception or sex toys etc) is not about respect for life. It is about controlling women's sexuality.

You extremists are silly. People who oppose abortion do so because they see the fetus as a live child.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I answered above. He's creating a pretty potent political movement to wipe out corruption . You may not like him, but you cannot honestly deny what we all see.

0 Replies

A question to resident conservatives (or anyone else).

If I were to describe the Koch brothers as forwarding "anarcho-totalitarianism", would anyone disagree with that description?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

You extremists are silly. People who oppose abortion do so because they see the fetus as a live child.

Then why are so many people who are anti-abortion also anti-contraception? Contraception prevents the fetus from occurring. The only sensible answer is that this position sees the woman's body as being for the purpose of conception, and going against that is therefore against the order of things.

You would think that people who were anti-abortion would be super pro contraception. Not so.

0 Replies

Quote:

sees the woman's body as being for the purpose of conception

Yes. Quite like a farm animal.

But the control aspect points elsewhere, otherwise they'd be pushing for lots and lots more sex everywhere to provide human fetuses for the arrival of more and more angels (or something).

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know