|
The Democratic Party Should Suspend Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton has gone mad:
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the “favorite of the Russians” to win the 2020 presidential election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
…
The Russians already have their “eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far,” Clinton told David Plouffe, the podcast’s host and the campaign manager for former President Obama’s 2008 campaign.
“And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset,” Clinton added, referring to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard – 22:20 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a …
… concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and …
… powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
and
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein – 20:30 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
In light of the latest slanderous allegations from @HillaryClinton, I challenge her to a debate. It's past time to give the American people the real debate they deserved in 2016, but were denied by the phony DNC/RNC-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein – 20:51 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
It's a shame HRC is peddling conspiracy theories to justify her failure instead of reflecting on real reasons Dems lost in 2016. You can slander progressives as “Russian assets”, but you can't hide the fact that the DNC sabotaged Sanders & elevated Trump to set the stage for HRC.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein – 21:12 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
HRC's rant is exhibit A for how the establishment is using the new Cold War to crack down on dissent & feed the war machine. Instead of addressing the crises working people face, they're painting progressives as the enemy. It's as if they're trying to lose to Trump again.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein – 21:43 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
If HRC really believes all independent campaigns are Russian plots, why isn't she calling for #RankedChoiceVoting to make it impossible for evil foreigners to "split the vote"? Until she does, all this Russia hysteria just looks like cynical McCarthyist left-punching.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging its chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic establishment would rather sabotage the election than let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigans. The phony Ukrainegate 'impeachment inquiry' is already a gift for Trump. Messing with the candidate field on top of that will inevitably end with another Trump presidency.
@ Posted by: james | Oct 19 2019 16:18 utc | 31
That’s because the Americans have an extremely pragmatic concept of “truth”: for them, something is only true as long as it serves their own way of life (i.e. American Dream). A fact today can be a lie tomorrow; a lie today can become a fact tomorrow; a fact today can remain a fact tomorrow; a lie today can remain a lie tomorrow; and vice versa. All this depends on how these narratives fit into the Americans’ way of life.
For example: 99.999% of the American people never have heard of the Kurds before Turkey’s invasion of NE Syria. But after the NYT, WaPo et caterva sounded the sirens, this was the signal for all the Americans to pretend they knew the Kurd imbroglio since the beginning and act against Trump as if they were veteran pro-Kurd cause militants. But the thing is: they know they don’t give a damn about the Kurds, and they know that, tommorow, they may be advocating for the extermination of the very Kurds they are defending now — but they also know that, in their own way of seeing the world, truth is relative, so it doesn’t configure what we call “hypocrisy”.
This pragmatic and relativistic (postmodern) conception of truth results in some very nonsensical, absurd phenomena that only happens in the USA, e.g. flat earth society, anti-vaxxers, the “gender is not determined biologically” troupe etc. etc. What all of these activist movements have in common is that they transformed a lie into a truth for the simple and extremely pragmatic fact that it fitted their way of life to consider them so: flat earthers because they chose not to believe the “establishment” anymore (specially the USG); anti-vaxxers because medical services in San Francisco became too expensive for the local upper-middle class; the “Infinite genders” because there are a lot of legal privileges to gain by considering a sex orientation as equal to a gender. It’s not that these people don’t know they are defending lies; it’s that they decided it would be better to socially transform those lies into truths.
By the same logic, the pro-Hillary people know she’s a war criminal, Wall Street puppet etc. etc. That’s not the issue. The issue is that, in order to defend their way of life, they chose that it was better for people like HRC to continue to govern the USA than, e.g. a socialist like Bernie Sanders or an anti-war like Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump. Those same people would already be voting Republican right now and asking for the death of Bernie Sanders et al if the Republicans were fielding people like Mitt Romney. Because that’s politics: the struggle for raw, unadultered power, not a contest to see who’s right and who’s wrong.
This American pragmatism also cuts the other way: during WWII, FDR literally turned the country socialist in order to save the country’s capitalism. After the war ended, Truman took care to destroy the socialist “temporary structure” in order to restore the capitalist soul of the USA. But it was only a work of destiny FDR himself didn’t do that, since he died before the war ended.
–//–
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 19 2019 17:40 utc | 54
The USA remains a democracy. It’s only it doesn’t mean what the majority of the American and European peoples think it means.
The thesis that governs post-war Western Democracy (liberal democracy) is the one called “Vital Center”. It was systematized by Arthur Meyer Schlesinger Jr. in the homonymous book, published in 1947.
The Vital Center thesis states that the West is not an absolutely free society and, therefore, the dualism isn’t the one between government vs non-government. Instead, what differentiated the West from the USSR was that, while the USSR had a “one ideology” society, the West’s society was made of a confederation of eternally competing ideologies that relayed in the government from time to time. To put it metaphorically, the USSR was a cold, dead core, devoid of any individualism and creativity (and freedom), while the West, although not entirely free (because there was mass culture, consumism etc. etc.), had a living, vibrant core as a result of this mix of ideologies who peacefully debated in the public arena and disputed political power. In this context, it was better to live in a society with limited freedom (the West) than in a society with absolutely zero freedom (the USSR). This society with zero freedom he calls “totalitarianism”.
But there’s a catch: Schlesinger states that the West is not entirely free — and should not be entirely free. He stated that there was an acceptable limit to freedom of ideology, since, theoretically, the people of an entirely free nation could democratically choose totalitarianism. On one side, he pondered that, as long as the economy stays well and growing, the people would “naturally” not choose totalitarianism. On the other hand, he is very clear when stating “totalitarian” ideologies should not be allowed to dispute the power in a Western democratic nation. People should be free to manifest their views and opinions — up to a point. After that “point”, violent supression by the State was not only perfectly acceptable, but necessary. Limited freedom, yes; absolute freedom, no.
Hence the name of his doctrine — “vital center”: a society made of a political spectrum (from left to right), beyond which any opinion was unnacceptable. This ideology is valid until nowadays, and we can identify it through other names: pluralism, multiculturalism, liberalism, centrism, moderate etc. etc.
Hence, when I hear or read people stating China doesn’t have “freedom of speech”, but the West has, I laugh: the West doesn’t have freedom of speech; censorship occurs and occurs constantly in the West — the difference being it occurs in a different manner than in China, through what we call nowadays “politically correct culture” (or “PC culture”). If I’m not mistaken, there was a guy — Colin Kaepernick — who had his career literally destroyed, under thunderous applause of the mob, just because he kneeled to the American Anthem. Isn’t this censorship?
Posted by: vk | Oct 19 2019 19:43 utc | 74
|
