Houshphandzadeh wrote:did she say 'sell-out' or 'traitor' or publicly shame anyone? she's just reiterating her party line

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:She can't even do a proper duck lip

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:did she say 'sell-out' or 'traitor' or publicly shame anyone? she's just reiterating her party line

She said that he succumbed to fear and abandoned his core beliefs. Did she specifically say "sellout"? No, but come on... what do you think those words mean then?

Who do you support?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, before answering that, let me just make one comment on elections: They’re important. It does matter who sits in the White House, who’s—who appoints Supreme Court justices, who makes decisions about war and peace, about environment and so on. Matters who’s in Congress, matters who’s in the state legislatures and so on. It matters. But it’s not the main issue. We are kind of indoctrinated here into focusing all of our attention and energy on what button we push in November every couple of years, which is not insignificant, but not the main issue. The main issue, what is—what are the forces, domestic forces, that are pressuring, acting, to determine the kind of choices that will be made, legislation that will be passed and so on? Now, of course, there’s one force that’s always going to be there: private concentrated capital, corporate power. Lobbyists, corporate lawyers and so on, writing the legislations, certainly, they’re always—funding the elections, they’ll always be there. The question is: Is there going to be a countervailing force? Is there going to be a force representing popular interests, needs and concerns, defending themselves against what in fact is a standard class-based assault against them? And now, elections can be used as a way of galvanizing and mobilizing the kinds of groups which will—could become persistent, dedicated, growing, constant forces that influence significantly what’s done in the White House and Congress. The New Deal legislation of Roosevelt, for example, wouldn’t have been passed—it wouldn’t have even been initiated—without militant labor action and other political action. And those are lessons to remember.

But now, going back to who should you push the button for, well, my own—in the primaries, I would prefer Bernie Sanders. If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for, say, a candidate you prefer, a minority candidate, just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect, for reasons I’ve already mentioned. So—but meanwhile, do the important things.

The significance of the Sanders campaign, which is pretty remarkable, I think—it certainly surprised me. It’s not radical. I mean, Sanders himself is pretty much a traditional New Deal Democrat. I don’t say that in criticism. That’s a—doesn’t pretend to be anything else, and that’s a breath of fresh air in the current generally right-wing climate. But the importance of it is, if it can be used, the energy and enthusiasm that’s been organized and mobilized can be used to develop an ongoing popular movement, which will be a powerful force, no matter who’s in office, to influence and direct the country in ways that are absolutely necessary, even for survival at this point. That’s my view of it.

pacino wrote:

The most recent poll released Tuesday night has Clinton and Trump at 39%, with third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein making up rest of the vote.

Trump leads Clinton 45 to 43 if the third party candidates are removed.

According to the Feldman Group Poll, Trump is leading 63 to 25 with Caucasians, while Clinton leads 91 to 1 with African Americans.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

pacino wrote:

The most recent poll released Tuesday night has Clinton and Trump at 39%, with third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein making up rest of the vote.

Trump leads Clinton 45 to 43 if the third party candidates are removed.

According to the Feldman Group Poll, Trump is leading 63 to 25 with Caucasians, while Clinton leads 91 to 1 with African Americans.

Getting pretty close to the white supremacist/alt right dream of taking 65% of the white vote, yet somehow he's losing badly in polls.

I don't think the alt right is very good at math.

pacino wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:did she say 'sell-out' or 'traitor' or publicly shame anyone? she's just reiterating her party line

She said that he succumbed to fear and abandoned his core beliefs. Did she specifically say "sellout"? No, but come on... what do you think those words mean then?

this was Chomsky on Democracy Now!, btw, explaining his reasoning:

Who do you support?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, before answering that, let me just make one comment on elections: They’re important. It does matter who sits in the White House, who’s—who appoints Supreme Court justices, who makes decisions about war and peace, about environment and so on. Matters who’s in Congress, matters who’s in the state legislatures and so on. It matters. But it’s not the main issue. We are kind of indoctrinated here into focusing all of our attention and energy on what button we push in November every couple of years, which is not insignificant, but not the main issue. The main issue, what is—what are the forces, domestic forces, that are pressuring, acting, to determine the kind of choices that will be made, legislation that will be passed and so on? Now, of course, there’s one force that’s always going to be there: private concentrated capital, corporate power. Lobbyists, corporate lawyers and so on, writing the legislations, certainly, they’re always—funding the elections, they’ll always be there. The question is: Is there going to be a countervailing force? Is there going to be a force representing popular interests, needs and concerns, defending themselves against what in fact is a standard class-based assault against them? And now, elections can be used as a way of galvanizing and mobilizing the kinds of groups which will—could become persistent, dedicated, growing, constant forces that influence significantly what’s done in the White House and Congress. The New Deal legislation of Roosevelt, for example, wouldn’t have been passed—it wouldn’t have even been initiated—without militant labor action and other political action. And those are lessons to remember.

But now, going back to who should you push the button for, well, my own—in the primaries, I would prefer Bernie Sanders. If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for, say, a candidate you prefer, a minority candidate, just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect, for reasons I’ve already mentioned. So—but meanwhile, do the important things.

The significance of the Sanders campaign, which is pretty remarkable, I think—it certainly surprised me. It’s not radical. I mean, Sanders himself is pretty much a traditional New Deal Democrat. I don’t say that in criticism. That’s a—doesn’t pretend to be anything else, and that’s a breath of fresh air in the current generally right-wing climate. But the importance of it is, if it can be used, the energy and enthusiasm that’s been organized and mobilized can be used to develop an ongoing popular movement, which will be a powerful force, no matter who’s in office, to influence and direct the country in ways that are absolutely necessary, even for survival at this point. That’s my view of it.

ptk likes Chomsky, perhaps he will be swayed

Youseff wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:there is no 'you guys'. seems like there's a lot of different opinions on this. i'm sure if jh were logged in there'd be more.

I've been considering whether to weigh in for the past hour by posting this article from last year - Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - from Breitbart's sister publication, the New York Times. Or to just continue reading the various feeble pro-Hillary spin attempts while quietly looking on.

Like I said, those who view her negatively will say 'ah ha' and those who don't won't. In the article they state that it's 'unknown' if there was a connection. Did the other agencies and government get influenced? Doubtful.

I'm mostly ambivalent about her but I'm open to being optimistic about her, and I try not to having a rooting interest in this kinda stuff. it looks bad to me. I suspect others will feel the same.

pacino wrote:in Norristown:



"and you were?"

Youseff wrote:Chomsky doesn't even acknowledge that both Clinton and Trump will put us all in FEMA death camps, so I doubt ptk will be swayed.

smitty wrote:

Youseff wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:there is no 'you guys'. seems like there's a lot of different opinions on this. i'm sure if jh were logged in there'd be more.

I've been considering whether to weigh in for the past hour by posting this article from last year - Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - from Breitbart's sister publication, the New York Times. Or to just continue reading the various feeble pro-Hillary spin attempts while quietly looking on.

Like I said, those who view her negatively will say 'ah ha' and those who don't won't. In the article they state that it's 'unknown' if there was a connection. Did the other agencies and government get influenced? Doubtful.

I'm mostly ambivalent about her but I'm open to being optimistic about her, and I try not to having a rooting interest in this kinda stuff. it looks bad to me. I suspect others will feel the same.

Here's what I found regarding this issue:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-got-pai/

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:in Norristown:



"and you were?"

lol


he asked that after the fact? not before when a dozen people with cameras came into his shop?

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:in Norristown:



"and you were?"

lol


he asked that after the fact? not before when a dozen people with cameras came into his shop?