Yah, but what about 7 May? We Brits, you know, that special friend, have an election. That's 7 May 2015.
TED
Apr 13, 15 6:03 pm
Sorry new phone app is wobbly- I am voting for the SNP lass and Elizabeth warren even if she is not running.
archanonymous
Apr 13, 15 7:28 pm
Champion of the oligarchy.
Miles Jaffe
Apr 13, 15 8:51 pm
Champion of CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, etc.
chigurh
Apr 13, 15 9:05 pm
dunno... if she makes it into the election, I think its a sure fire way for a republican to win.
awaiting_deletion
Apr 13, 15 10:09 pm
yay - who wants to be the next puppet?
curtkram
Apr 13, 15 10:10 pm
i dunno. hillary v rand paul or ted cruz would be tough.
awaiting_deletion
Apr 13, 15 10:22 pm
I vote
go do it
Apr 13, 15 11:29 pm
Put whoever you want in the chairs. It is all the same
go do it
Apr 13, 15 11:37 pm
<>
I could not find a larger version of this
Peter Normand
Apr 14, 15 9:46 am
Hillary is running unopposed in the superposed democratic party primary, that is more of a concern than the prospect of a republican win. Can we find someone who can challenge her and keep her from drifting too far tot he right on policies.
Real Democrats should stand for left leaning issues like clean water, not starving the homeless to death, restraining our militaristic impulses to invade other countries, to make it possible for more people to earn enough that they are not dependent on public aid, possibly doing something to curtail emissions that contribute to global warming, believe in science and global warming (climate change) and are against discrimination based on race gender age ethnicity religion or sexual orientation.
I know it is a lot to ask for but come on.
She voted for the Iraq War so I can't stand behind her in a primary. If she wins the primary it is a Green Party candidate or her, not some crank from the right.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Miles Jaffe
Apr 14, 15 9:56 am
+++ go do it, they are all bought and paid for by the .1%. The two parties are really one and greens and independents can't even get onto the playing field.
,,,,
Apr 14, 15 11:21 am
Yeah, there is no difference between the 2 parties other than the fact one believes in climate change and evolution and the other doesn't.
Fine, waste your vote and siphon off enough votes to create another 2000 election where the Green Party gave us 8 years of Bush.
Because we all know 8 years of Al Gore would have been the same as the 8 years of Bush.
Change is slow and incremental and having unrealistic litmus tests for the left is the best way to ensure change never happens.
b3tadine[sutures]
Apr 14, 15 11:43 am
Two words. Supreme Court. Three words. At least two. Four words. Hands off the uteri.
Miles Jaffe
Apr 14, 15 12:10 pm
'Nerd - If people voted for what they believed in (economics, environment etc. - green party) instead of the illusion of the lesser of two evils then elections might be a little bit harder to rig. Bush didn't win an election. The Supremes handed him the first by denying a recount that he would have lost. Ohio's rigged polling system handed him the second.
Depending on corporate politicians to create the change you want to see is idiotic - unless you own them.
Create change yourself. Live responsibly, leave a small footprint and remember that the only vote you have that counts at all is in your wallet.
,,,,
Apr 14, 15 12:42 pm
Miles, Unfortunately people don't do that nor are they likely to in the foreseeable future. We do not live in a perfect world.
Seriously, If Al Gore had been elected we would not have gotten involved in Iraq and this country would have a rational policy toward climate change and he ran on the Democratic ticket.
Is Hillary my first choice, of course not. She is, however the best chance given the field unless you think Jeb would not be the clusterfuck his brother was.
Miles Jaffe
Apr 14, 15 3:55 pm
'Nerd - One of the things Bill Clinton did - that nobody seems to remember - is sign The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which essentially called for regime change there and paved the way for what followed. Plans to invade Afghanistan were on the books well before Cheney, er Bush was handed the presidency.
Don't kid yourself that Gore would have been any different, the president is simply a puppet, whoever they are. The present occupant of that office should be more than sufficient to prove that.
I agree that people regularly act against their own best interests (and I don't mean personal economics), but a lot of that is by design (corporate media, advertising, etc.). But that doesn't mean you have to do the same, and by creating your own path you will influence others. We're all role models for somebody, whether we know it or not.
Apr 14, 15 5:03 pm
Miles,
First and foremost, Al Gore may not have entered a war with Iraq because the war in Iraq was declared by Bush jr. for personal reasons because Saddam Hussein had a bounty of George Bush Sr.'s head and Bush Sr. ex-CIA director and agent for CIA in place of the vacinity and operations during the assasination of Kennedy had a bounty on Saddam's head. Nothing new with a den of killers in the first place. That plus Saddam keeping the oil prices down. U.S. wasn't clean hands either. We put Saddam in office as we did Fidel Castro.
In the case of Clinton, we had to remember that Saddam was making noise to draw us into war with him. Frankly put, a simple heart-attacking of Saddam after a quiet erasing of Saddam's sons would have been what would have been done.
A quiet covert operation is what would have been done and very effective, too.
Our war in Afghanistan is possible to have still happened. The issue is Iraq was nothing and if we wanted to get rid of someone, we have solutions already in place to do so without a full-fledge war.
As for bin Laden, lets be honest, we trained him. We built bin Laden's outpost. All this crap under the legacy of Bush Sr.'s era. How wonderful.
Part of it during his time as CIA director and while he was VP of which he held close ties with the CIA even after he was no longer CIA director. Want to see a dark crook of nightmare stories, look at his dirty as hell background in CIA.
If you ever hunted a deer or elk or other animals in the head, you'll know how bullets impact and the force of that much kinectic energy and how the head would move on the neck. I'm not saying that the lacky they wanted gone didn't have an intent to murder the President or didn't try but he wasn't effective. Study the videos very carefully, it would indicate there is an impossibility for the head shot to have been from the same trajectory as where they claim. You'd think if the government doesn't have anything to hide, why are they hiding stuff like the brain, various files and then a convenient first act as president of George H.W. Bush considering he was conveniently there in the vicinity and he was working for the CIA. No, he didn't pull the trigger. Doesn't mean he didn't know what was going on.
There is some serious problems with certain parts of the Republican party. A sect of them which I believe are seditious and are in effect enemy of the state... ie. enemies of the United States... the citizens of the United States because there actions and attempt to dissolve the United States and put into civil war if not a new revolutionary war.
There is serious issues with them because they harm us the citizens.
As for Obama, I'm sadden that he hasn't been effective as his hope to be but if it was my choice, I would put the Tea party group in office on charges of sedition and have them arrested and face the penalty of Capital crime.... execution by firing squad.
I don't mind politicians having their preferences but when elected, your JOB is to serve in the best interest of the entire United States and its citizens. Once elected, you do not serve political parties. Your job is to serve the best interest of the United States not just government but citizens and strike balances because governmental and citizenship interests.
Al Gore would not have gone into war in Iraq for no good reason, They would have continued to suppress Saddam's blustery bullshit.
It isn't new to trust whatever CIA tells you. They been wrong before. They couldn't launch a nuclear missile that would get off the ground more than 1000 ft. above the terrain profile without being shot down by out orbiting systems which are in fact up there. We have basically a rail gun that shoots a tungsten "BB" that would detonate a nuclear missile. We also have particle accelerator systems and thermal laser which would detonate the missile over the top of themselves. We also have ships, too, equipped with equipment to stop such from getting very far. Frankly put, we are quite far away from them to launch an ICBM that we couldn't shoot down over the atlantic ocean or the pacific ocean.
So, simply put, it won't reach U.S. soil. Even bio and chemical stuff would also be shot down. We can detect their missiles and it would have been shot down before it left their country. It would be a bad move on Saddam's part to have tried to attack the U.S. from where they are.
Long distance missile deployment would be a failure.
Other deployments are valid but we have a lot worse stuff in our arsenal but it wouldn't be something we would want to deploy into use given this sh-t would be a nightmare, literally.
You don't start a war like that against a country that has the ability to wipe out all life on earth several times over.
It would be M.A.D. It is a no win situation for anyone.
Al Gore may not have entered a war with Iraq because the war in Iraq was declared by Bush jr. for personal reasons
Oil is a personal reason? All this time I thought it was a strategic resource. Iraq has one of the world's largest reserves.
Dubya didn't do squat, he was Cheney's sock puppet. Cheney of course is Halliburton. What about the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Gore's boss? They are all actors in a play, and entirely interchangeable. If they are not following the script, well, does JFK ring a bell?
H-> is bought and paid for. If TBTF entities say jump, she will ask, how high? If the banks say bail us out again, she will ask, how much do you need? And maybe kick in a little more for the re-election while you are at it.
Also, if the war machine says invade Iran, she will. The Clinton's had a chance to dismantle the MIC after the Soviet Union broke up. Instead, Clinton doubled down through NATO expansion and increased military spending to score political points and keep in the good graces of the MIC.
Yeah, the next year and a half is going to be mind-numbing, maybe by design. I saw somewhere (maybe Huff Post?) that H->'s campaign will spend around $2.5 billion on the election. Whether you are going to vote for her or not, I don't know if anyone can take that much disconnected from reality BS without snapping. And that's not even mentioning any of the money spent on the right.
What's to be done other than accept the boot stamping on your human face forever? Maybe Miles is right: Create change yourself. Live responsibly, leave a small footprint and remember that the only vote you have that counts at all is in your wallet. Seems like that's the only real impact a regular person can make right now.
Volunteer
Apr 15, 15 10:55 am
Hillary has been pre-selling Oval Office influence for years with her $200,000 (and up) speaking fees. Here is how it usually works: A corporation, or Arab "Prince", or Eastern European country wants to curry favor so they give $200,000 to some cow college that doesn't mind whoring itself out. Said cow college takes the money, deducts a small handler's fee, and hires Hillary to give a speech for $200,000. The money goes into the Clinton Foundation, which is tax free. Hillary draws money from the fund as needed while she travels the country saying that the rich need to be taxed more. Also, as a condition of her speaking she requires a top-of-the-line Grumman Gulfstream business jet to provide transportation. But she is an environmentalist and "Green" candidate as well.
curtkram
Apr 15, 15 11:24 am
karl rove's super pac doesn't even require speeches.
,,,,
Apr 15, 15 11:26 am
All well and good.
In all likely hood the republican candidate will:
1.Deny climate change
2.Deny evolution
3.Treat women as chattel
4.Deny minorities simple justice
Voting your conscience for the Green Party or an independent candidate is admirable.
Beating each other up when we agree on most things is counter productive.
Is it the same to sigh with disappointment at a democratic candidate or bang your head on the fucking wall at the aggressive stupidity of a republican one.
There is a difference and your vote will count.
x-jla
Apr 15, 15 11:46 am
Repubs deny climate change and do nothing to stop it
Dems accept climate change and do nothing to stop it
for some reason its hard to get excited about voting...
x-jla
Apr 15, 15 11:48 am
liars or cowards liars or cowards...guess Ill go with cowards...at least that will piss off Bill orielly...
curtkram
Apr 15, 15 12:09 pm
Repubs deny climate change and do nothing to stop it
Dems accept climate change and do nothing to stop it
so the choice is someone who wants to help but can't for whatever reason, v. someone who doesn't want to help.
at least it's possible there is some unlikely series of events that will allow the candidate that wants to help to be able to do the right thing while they take kickbacks from their handlers. if the pub wants to sabotage progress on gay rights, other minority rights like voting rights, climate change initiatives, access to education, etc., then given the opportunity, they'll probably sabotage progress.
the real problem isn't that our votes don't matter or whatever. it's that a significant number of americans really want to sabotage government, limit access to education, create greater wealth disparity, deny equal rights to minority groups, etc. ted cruz has support because people support him. it's not just money.
x-jla
Apr 15, 15 12:23 pm
political parties are all shit. I vote against not for...I vote against the one I dislike more...
Miles Jaffe
Apr 15, 15 6:51 pm
^ How do you decide between scumbag A and scumbag B? That is a defeatist strategy, and it keeps votes away from independents (Green Party etc.) who need them just to maintain their party's existence on the ballot.
"Everyday Americans need a champion.
I want to be that champion."
Someone who maybe a champ sometimes is infinitely better than someone who will never be a champ at anytime.
Yah, but what about 7 May? We Brits, you know, that special friend, have an election. That's 7 May 2015.
And by the way- we brought you the original house of cards.
https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/dIoOHZtPvVXa_VuP2CKZRA--/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00OTg7dz0zNTQ-/http://rapidmoviez.com/data/images/movies/2013-02/house-of-cards-0098825.jpg.cf.jpg
Yah, but what about 7 May? We Brits, you know, that special friend, have an election. That's 7 May 2015.
Sorry new phone app is wobbly- I am voting for the SNP lass and Elizabeth warren even if she is not running.
Champion of the oligarchy.
Champion of CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, etc.
dunno... if she makes it into the election, I think its a sure fire way for a republican to win.
yay - who wants to be the next puppet?
i dunno. hillary v rand paul or ted cruz would be tough.
I vote
Put whoever you want in the chairs. It is all the same
<>
I could not find a larger version of this
Hillary is running unopposed in the superposed democratic party primary, that is more of a concern than the prospect of a republican win. Can we find someone who can challenge her and keep her from drifting too far tot he right on policies.
Real Democrats should stand for left leaning issues like clean water, not starving the homeless to death, restraining our militaristic impulses to invade other countries, to make it possible for more people to earn enough that they are not dependent on public aid, possibly doing something to curtail emissions that contribute to global warming, believe in science and global warming (climate change) and are against discrimination based on race gender age ethnicity religion or sexual orientation.
I know it is a lot to ask for but come on.
She voted for the Iraq War so I can't stand behind her in a primary. If she wins the primary it is a Green Party candidate or her, not some crank from the right.
Over and OUT
Peter N
+++ go do it, they are all bought and paid for by the .1%. The two parties are really one and greens and independents can't even get onto the playing field.
Yeah, there is no difference between the 2 parties other than the fact one believes in climate change and evolution and the other doesn't.
Fine, waste your vote and siphon off enough votes to create another 2000 election where the Green Party gave us 8 years of Bush.
Because we all know 8 years of Al Gore would have been the same as the 8 years of Bush.
Change is slow and incremental and having unrealistic litmus tests for the left is the best way to ensure change never happens.
Two words. Supreme Court. Three words. At least two. Four words. Hands off the uteri.
'Nerd - If people voted for what they believed in (economics, environment etc. - green party) instead of the illusion of the lesser of two evils then elections might be a little bit harder to rig. Bush didn't win an election. The Supremes handed him the first by denying a recount that he would have lost. Ohio's rigged polling system handed him the second.
Depending on corporate politicians to create the change you want to see is idiotic - unless you own them.
Create change yourself. Live responsibly, leave a small footprint and remember that the only vote you have that counts at all is in your wallet.
Miles, Unfortunately people don't do that nor are they likely to in the foreseeable future. We do not live in a perfect world.
Seriously, If Al Gore had been elected we would not have gotten involved in Iraq and this country would have a rational policy toward climate change and he ran on the Democratic ticket.
Is Hillary my first choice, of course not. She is, however the best chance given the field unless you think Jeb would not be the clusterfuck his brother was.
'Nerd - One of the things Bill Clinton did - that nobody seems to remember - is sign The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which essentially called for regime change there and paved the way for what followed. Plans to invade Afghanistan were on the books well before Cheney, er Bush was handed the presidency.
Don't kid yourself that Gore would have been any different, the president is simply a puppet, whoever they are. The present occupant of that office should be more than sufficient to prove that.
I agree that people regularly act against their own best interests (and I don't mean personal economics), but a lot of that is by design (corporate media, advertising, etc.). But that doesn't mean you have to do the same, and by creating your own path you will influence others. We're all role models for somebody, whether we know it or not.
Miles,
First and foremost, Al Gore may not have entered a war with Iraq because the war in Iraq was declared by Bush jr. for personal reasons because Saddam Hussein had a bounty of George Bush Sr.'s head and Bush Sr. ex-CIA director and agent for CIA in place of the vacinity and operations during the assasination of Kennedy had a bounty on Saddam's head. Nothing new with a den of killers in the first place. That plus Saddam keeping the oil prices down. U.S. wasn't clean hands either. We put Saddam in office as we did Fidel Castro.
In the case of Clinton, we had to remember that Saddam was making noise to draw us into war with him. Frankly put, a simple heart-attacking of Saddam after a quiet erasing of Saddam's sons would have been what would have been done.
A quiet covert operation is what would have been done and very effective, too.
Our war in Afghanistan is possible to have still happened. The issue is Iraq was nothing and if we wanted to get rid of someone, we have solutions already in place to do so without a full-fledge war.
As for bin Laden, lets be honest, we trained him. We built bin Laden's outpost. All this crap under the legacy of Bush Sr.'s era. How wonderful.
Part of it during his time as CIA director and while he was VP of which he held close ties with the CIA even after he was no longer CIA director. Want to see a dark crook of nightmare stories, look at his dirty as hell background in CIA.
If you ever hunted a deer or elk or other animals in the head, you'll know how bullets impact and the force of that much kinectic energy and how the head would move on the neck. I'm not saying that the lacky they wanted gone didn't have an intent to murder the President or didn't try but he wasn't effective. Study the videos very carefully, it would indicate there is an impossibility for the head shot to have been from the same trajectory as where they claim. You'd think if the government doesn't have anything to hide, why are they hiding stuff like the brain, various files and then a convenient first act as president of George H.W. Bush considering he was conveniently there in the vicinity and he was working for the CIA. No, he didn't pull the trigger. Doesn't mean he didn't know what was going on.
There is some serious problems with certain parts of the Republican party. A sect of them which I believe are seditious and are in effect enemy of the state... ie. enemies of the United States... the citizens of the United States because there actions and attempt to dissolve the United States and put into civil war if not a new revolutionary war.
There is serious issues with them because they harm us the citizens.
As for Obama, I'm sadden that he hasn't been effective as his hope to be but if it was my choice, I would put the Tea party group in office on charges of sedition and have them arrested and face the penalty of Capital crime.... execution by firing squad.
I don't mind politicians having their preferences but when elected, your JOB is to serve in the best interest of the entire United States and its citizens. Once elected, you do not serve political parties. Your job is to serve the best interest of the United States not just government but citizens and strike balances because governmental and citizenship interests.
Al Gore would not have gone into war in Iraq for no good reason, They would have continued to suppress Saddam's blustery bullshit.
It isn't new to trust whatever CIA tells you. They been wrong before. They couldn't launch a nuclear missile that would get off the ground more than 1000 ft. above the terrain profile without being shot down by out orbiting systems which are in fact up there. We have basically a rail gun that shoots a tungsten "BB" that would detonate a nuclear missile. We also have particle accelerator systems and thermal laser which would detonate the missile over the top of themselves. We also have ships, too, equipped with equipment to stop such from getting very far. Frankly put, we are quite far away from them to launch an ICBM that we couldn't shoot down over the atlantic ocean or the pacific ocean.
So, simply put, it won't reach U.S. soil. Even bio and chemical stuff would also be shot down. We can detect their missiles and it would have been shot down before it left their country. It would be a bad move on Saddam's part to have tried to attack the U.S. from where they are.
Long distance missile deployment would be a failure.
Other deployments are valid but we have a lot worse stuff in our arsenal but it wouldn't be something we would want to deploy into use given this sh-t would be a nightmare, literally.
You don't start a war like that against a country that has the ability to wipe out all life on earth several times over.
It would be M.A.D. It is a no win situation for anyone.
Saddam wasn't insane. Boisterous... yes. Insane... no.
Al Gore knew that. A war in Iraq would be a distraction and it was. It impeded our effort to stop Osama bin Laden.
As for environmental changes, we make it ourselves or we don't.
Corporate policy is to sell what people are willing to buy? Now, you're the buyer so what are you going to buy? You have the choice to refuse to buy.
voting mathematical gymnastics
Al Gore may not have entered a war with Iraq because the war in Iraq was declared by Bush jr. for personal reasons
Oil is a personal reason? All this time I thought it was a strategic resource. Iraq has one of the world's largest reserves.
Dubya didn't do squat, he was Cheney's sock puppet. Cheney of course is Halliburton. What about the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Gore's boss? They are all actors in a play, and entirely interchangeable. If they are not following the script, well, does JFK ring a bell?
Another 18 months of this will fly by!
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=n00000019&cycle=Career
H-> is bought and paid for. If TBTF entities say jump, she will ask, how high? If the banks say bail us out again, she will ask, how much do you need? And maybe kick in a little more for the re-election while you are at it.
Also, if the war machine says invade Iran, she will. The Clinton's had a chance to dismantle the MIC after the Soviet Union broke up. Instead, Clinton doubled down through NATO expansion and increased military spending to score political points and keep in the good graces of the MIC.
Yeah, the next year and a half is going to be mind-numbing, maybe by design. I saw somewhere (maybe Huff Post?) that H->'s campaign will spend around $2.5 billion on the election. Whether you are going to vote for her or not, I don't know if anyone can take that much disconnected from reality BS without snapping. And that's not even mentioning any of the money spent on the right.
What's to be done other than accept the boot stamping on your human face forever? Maybe Miles is right: Create change yourself. Live responsibly, leave a small footprint and remember that the only vote you have that counts at all is in your wallet. Seems like that's the only real impact a regular person can make right now.
Hillary has been pre-selling Oval Office influence for years with her $200,000 (and up) speaking fees. Here is how it usually works: A corporation, or Arab "Prince", or Eastern European country wants to curry favor so they give $200,000 to some cow college that doesn't mind whoring itself out. Said cow college takes the money, deducts a small handler's fee, and hires Hillary to give a speech for $200,000. The money goes into the Clinton Foundation, which is tax free. Hillary draws money from the fund as needed while she travels the country saying that the rich need to be taxed more. Also, as a condition of her speaking she requires a top-of-the-line Grumman Gulfstream business jet to provide transportation. But she is an environmentalist and "Green" candidate as well.
karl rove's super pac doesn't even require speeches.
All well and good.
In all likely hood the republican candidate will:
1.Deny climate change
2.Deny evolution
3.Treat women as chattel
4.Deny minorities simple justice
Voting your conscience for the Green Party or an independent candidate is admirable.
Beating each other up when we agree on most things is counter productive.
Is it the same to sigh with disappointment at a democratic candidate or bang your head on the fucking wall at the aggressive stupidity of a republican one.
There is a difference and your vote will count.
Repubs deny climate change and do nothing to stop it
Dems accept climate change and do nothing to stop it
for some reason its hard to get excited about voting...
liars or cowards liars or cowards...guess Ill go with cowards...at least that will piss off Bill orielly...
Repubs deny climate change and do nothing to stop it
Dems accept climate change and do nothing to stop it
so the choice is someone who wants to help but can't for whatever reason, v. someone who doesn't want to help.
at least it's possible there is some unlikely series of events that will allow the candidate that wants to help to be able to do the right thing while they take kickbacks from their handlers. if the pub wants to sabotage progress on gay rights, other minority rights like voting rights, climate change initiatives, access to education, etc., then given the opportunity, they'll probably sabotage progress.
the real problem isn't that our votes don't matter or whatever. it's that a significant number of americans really want to sabotage government, limit access to education, create greater wealth disparity, deny equal rights to minority groups, etc. ted cruz has support because people support him. it's not just money.
political parties are all shit. I vote against not for...I vote against the one I dislike more...
^ How do you decide between scumbag A and scumbag B? That is a defeatist strategy, and it keeps votes away from independents (Green Party etc.) who need them just to maintain their party's existence on the ballot.
Jill Stein 2016
The establishment is so afraid of her that she was arrested just for showing up at the Obmaney "debate" at Hofstra University.
Zaha / Gehry 2016
Rem Koolhaas for US President
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/16/estate-tax-house_n_7079744.html
this is probably the worse of the 2 evils. vote for the spoiler in the election, and we could see more of this.
We have the very best government that money can buy.
Reading all this, I don't see any answer to the original question...
Chump, not champ