<$BlogRSDURL$>

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Hillary sweep 




I was so so glad to see Hillary sweep the five Super-Duper Tuesday states tonight -- she comfounded the polls just like Bernie did last week in Michigan, except this week she took Illinois, Ohio and Missouri from him, as well as maintaining significant leads in Florida and North Carolina.
Why did he lose? Two main reasons I think -- first, however odious Trump is, Americans are totally committed to free speech, so I think they had a visceral negative reaction to Bernie Bros trying to shut down Trump rallies. And I think it was offensive to democrats for Bernie to say in an interview Sunday that he was running in the Democratic primary, not as a service to the Democratic party or to the country but because of the media coverage he would get as a Democratic candidate.
And why did she win? She had an awful week with the Nancy Reagan HIV flub in spite of her somewhat-graceful recovery. But she hit it out of the park with the painfully-honest answer about why people didn't like her, the nuanced response on capital punishment to the wrongfully-convicted man, and the post-debate follow-up which we could see off-camera to the Guatemalan woman whose husband was deported. These small-ball moments added up to a home run.
UPDATE: And we are already seeing an uptick in Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
In her victory speech, Hillary pivoted to attacking Trump because she no longer needs to deal with Sanders.  So one of her lines in this speech was about how America needed to “engage its allies, not alienate them” — quite obviously an attack line against Trump and his slanging of Mexico, Europe etc.   But later in the evening I saw a tweet from Max Blumenthal with a retweet by Billmon, that she was referring to Obama and Israel and she was “dissing” Obama for supposedly not supporting Israel.
What???  Why would any sane person jump to the conclusion that she meant something like that?
It horrifies me to realize how deranged the Hillary-Haters have become.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers | 30 comments

30 Comments:

While I think that Bernie's policies would be bad for the United States (i.e. socialist or proto communist), I do not doubt his sincere conviction that those policies are good. Hillary, on the other hand, has held a principled position on every side of every important issue every day of the week.

She looked in to the eyes of those who lost loved ones in Benghazi and told them that the deaths were caused by some video that no one had ever heard of or seen. She knew otherwise. This is borderline, if not outright, sociopathic.

By Blogger zeppo, at 7:18 pm  

Were you there when she talked to these relatives? Did you read this in the New York Post? You are wrong about Hillary. She has spent the last 30 years in public life and of course her positions and beliefs have changed over time, as have mine. She is not always right but I believe she is always trying to be right and that makes the difference to me.

By Blogger Cathie from Canada, at 1:29 pm  

A first-person account.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390073/Father-Navy-SEAL-killed-Benghazi-terror-attack-challenges-Hillary-Clinton-lie-detector-test-denied-blaming-killings-anti-Muslim-video.html

No, you won't hear much about this from CNN or the NYT because they want Hillary and the Democrats to win the election.

By Blogger zeppo, at 9:24 pm  

And this one:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/22/hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-video

By Blogger zeppo, at 9:28 pm  

Whomever becomes the next president it's certain they will continue the traditional hypocrisy of the US being god's gift to the planet. Every time i hear an american politician talking about how great his/her country is i think about the genocide of millions of indigenous people. US foreign policy continues to crush anything that gets in the way of its claim to the world's natural resources and it's not about to change.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:25 am  

So anonymous, the U.S. is a terrible country? How about the fact that Hitler and Hirohito did not win their wars of subjugation? What about the South Koreans? Which side of the DMZ is better to live on? Read some history.

By Blogger zeppo, at 5:14 pm  

zeppo, if you knew just a tiny little about the history of the US and its involvement in Korea you wouldn't have mentioned it. You also seemed to have missed the part Russia played in the defeat of Germany. The vaporization of thousands of civilians in Japan using atomic bombs was unnecessary as the country was on its last legs. And on the topic of 'subjugation' read about Guatemala. El Salvador, Honduras, etc, in 'War is a racket' by US Major General Smedley Butler. To further your introduction to the real world look up Shocked and Horrified by Larry Mosqueda, Ph.D.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/257/shocked-and-horrified

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:25 pm  

Your response about Korea is a non-response. American industrial might along with massive troop contributions to allied efforts squeezed Germany from the West. The A-bomb said in no uncertain terms to the Japanese leadership that there was no way they were going to win - it prevented a guerilla war in Japan. It was the Soviets and the Cubans that were stirring up trouble in the Americas.
I might read your link at some point but there are many good links you should read as well. Like I said, look at the DMZ in Korea and tell me which side you would like to live on.

By Blogger zeppo, at 3:24 pm  

So all was well in Central America til the nasty Soviets and Cubans stirred up trouble? Thanks for the laugh. And I suppose the Koreans were stirring up trouble when they invaded the USA in 1871 by forcing their way up the Mississippi... or was it the Little Big Horn?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:01 am  

Jibberish.

By Blogger zeppo, at 6:08 am  

You're consistent, I'll give you that.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:58 am  

Yes, I consistently provide facts and you consistently spout gibberish. So where are we now?

Central America had problems (much of its own making vis-a-vis the governing classes) but much of the agitation in that region was due to Soviet and Cuban intervention. The U.S. government was bound to stop the Soviets from adding South America to its sphere of influence.

Look at Japan - it was beaten in the Second World War but who runs it now? (hint - The People of Japan). The same for Germany (The People of Germany). The same for South Korea (The People of South Korea). All of these countries were not overrun by an imperialist power but by a country defending the world from tyranny and promoting liberty. There are other examples in South America.

Please provide facts and forget the ad hominem. By the way, you are still avoiding my question about which side of the DMZ you would rather live on: the one defended by the U.S. or the one that China backed?

By Blogger zeppo, at 12:58 pm  

I have no idea which planet you're from but it looks like you're a recent arrival on this one. You bring to mind the old adage of trying to teach a pig to sing. I'll leave you with the names of a few people you desperately need to learn from: Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Robert Fisk, Pam Palmater, Jill Stein, Maude Barlow, Greg Palast, Jeremy Scahill, Clyde Bellecourt, Naomi Klein, George Galloway and last but not least, Doug Stanhope. Good luck and goodbye.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:10 pm  

Many of the people you mention are living fat and large on public money and/or generate substantial portions of their income selling books and giving speeches in the freedom-loving USA. Klein, Barlow and Chomsky especially. Galloway is a laughing stock. Have a pleasant day on whatever planet you're from. I'm from the planet of Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Hobbes and many other great philosophers - people who could put together a well-reasoned argument as opposed to the ad hominem drivel that the people from your planet emit from their labial fissures (wherever they are located).

By Blogger zeppo, at 11:12 pm  

'The freedom-loving USA'? Where whistle blowers are jailed or forced to flee the country. Where the NSA monitors emails and phone calls. Where George Galloway took on the Senate investigation of Iraq Food for Oil and proved that he was standing before a group of elected idiots chosen by imbeciles who get their information from main stream media. The freedom-loving USA where the survivors of the Turtle Island genocide, the most massive genocide witnessed on this planet, live on Indian Reservations. Where is the freedom for them? Which Reservation would you chose to live on in the freedom-loving USA? If you're so convinced the USA is a symbol of freedom then go live on the Pine Ridge Reservation and get a taste of it. How can anyone who claims to be educated brag about a country that created reservations to contain the remnants of the slaughtered indigenous population that had been living there for thousands of years? They would have to be delusional beyond hope. I'm really interested in hearing the comments of your favourite philosophers in regard to current events. What do they have to say about war for profit that poses as fighting for freedom? Who do you think they'd like to have a discussion with: you or Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Robert Fisk, Pam Palmater, Jill Stein, Maude Barlow, Greg Palast, Jeremy Scahill, Clyde Bellecourt, Naomi Klein, George Galloway and Doug Stanhope. Have a guess.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:51 am  

The aboriginals you speak of were killing each other in wars long before the settlers arrived. The idea that the aboriginals were living in a happy idyll is false. They were subject to the elements and diseases, which resulted in a nasty, brutish and short existence. Finally, there is not a person on the earth that stands on land that was not won by conflict with other persons {tribes, countries, etc.} (the exception, perhaps, being Antarctica).


No aboriginal person is confined to a reservation; they may live and work anywhere in the USA with the same rights and freedoms as any other person. The reason for reservations is to allow a different form of government within the bounds of the reservation; the movement of aboriginal persons is unrestricted.

By Blogger zeppo, at 8:06 am  

@ Zeppo

much of the agitation in that region was due to Soviet and Cuban intervention
Well Central American perhaps but where were the Soviets (and the Cubans?) in 1915 when the USA invaded Haiti and occupied it for 19 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti.

And I'm sure that the civil conscription really was not slavery just a new version of corvée.

By Blogger jrkrideau, at 11:27 am  


@Zeppo

So the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants of Turtle Island was designed to make their lives better?

'Oh, heavens to Betsy! Look at those tribes fighting each other. Let's murder as many as we can, including the women and children, to make their lives more enjoyable.'
'Good idea! Did you bring the smallpox blankets with you?'

Fast forward to the Nuremberg trials in 1945. 'Read the Bible, the semites were constantly at war with each other. They lived in filthy ghettos. We murdered as many as we could to save them from starvation and disease. We got the idea from observing the colonization of the so-called New World. To the victors go the spoils, might is right, yada, yada, yada, Herr Judge.'

Yes, Zeppo,isn't it heart warming to know that the indigenous people of Turtle Island are actually 'allowed' to leave their reservations and venture on to the occupied land of their forefathers. It must be some kind of privilege that comes with the territory of genocide. You should be so lucky.




By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:14 pm  

If there was a genocide then why are there still many millions of aboriginal persons around?

I did not say or imply anything that you put in your response to my post. If you would like to address/debate one of my posts then please quote me directly.

By Blogger zeppo, at 11:23 pm  

@ Zeppo wrote: 'If there was a genocide then why are there still many millions of aboriginal persons around?'

The 2003 US Census of Native Americans estimates a population figure of 2,786,652. Estimates of the population pre-Columbus are 8 to 10 million, which are believed to be on the low end.

Your question is so stupid that it really didn't deserve an answer. Change Aboriginal persons to Jewish persons in your question and it goes from being stupid to downright sick. It's time you stopped making yourself look like a fool.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:50 pm  

I typed "US census aboriginal population" in to Google and the 2010 census reports 5.1 million. I would need sourcing for your 8-10 million number.

The difference vis-a-vis Germany is that the US settlers (eventually the US government) won the battles. If it was their intention to eliminate aboriginal people via genocide then one would think that they would have killed all of them. This was not the settlers' intention nor was it carried out as evidenced by the continued presence of millions of aboriginal persons.

Hitler wanted the eradication of *all* Jews from Germany and so he rounded up as many as he could and put them in to gas chambers and cremated the bodies. He wanted *total* eradication. Only the war and the loss of the war stopped him.

By Blogger zeppo, at 4:39 pm  

I typed "US census aboriginal population" in to Google and the 2010 census reports 5.1 million. I would need sourcing for your 8-10 million number.

The difference vis-a-vis Germany is that the US settlers (eventually the US government) won the battles. If it was their intention to eliminate aboriginal people via genocide then one would think that they would have killed all of them. This was not the settlers' intention nor was it carried out as evidenced by the continued presence of millions of aboriginal persons.

Hitler wanted the eradication of *all* Jews from Germany and so he rounded up as many as he could and put them in to gas chambers and cremated the bodies. He wanted *total* eradication. Only the war and the loss of the war stopped him.

By Blogger zeppo, at 4:42 pm  

@ Zeppo

Zeppo wrote - 'The difference vis-a-vis Germany is that the US settlers (eventually the US government) won the battles.'
Zeppo thinks this kind of wholesale slaughter and subjugation is acceptable.

Zeppo wrote - 'How about the fact that Hitler and Hirohito did not win their wars of subjugation?'
Zeppo thinks their kind of wholesale slaughter and subjugation was unacceptable and had to be stopped.


Zeppo wrote - 'Hitler wanted the eradication of *all* Jews from Germany.'

Actually Zeppo, Hitler wanted the Jews to get out of Germany. In 1938, after Kristallnacht 'More than 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and taken to concentration camps; primarily Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen. The treatment of prisoners in the camps was brutal, but most were released during the following three months on condition that they leave Germany.' Google it Zeppo.

The DIFFERENCE may eventually become apparent to you, Zeppo, that Hitler wanted the Jews to vacate HIS homeland whereas the surviving Natives of Turtle Island were forced, through genocide, to vacate 99% of THEIR homeland.


Zeppo wrote - 'If it was their (settlers/army) intention to eliminate aboriginal people via genocide then one would think that they would have killed all of them.'

Zeppo isn't familiar with the Genocide Conventions and foolishly believes that the victims of genocide are only those that have been wiped off the face of the earth. The following should straighten him out, maybe.

'In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'

Google it, Zeppo, and try to stop acting dumb.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:44 pm  

The organized murder of Jews was begun after Kristallnacht (see "Action T4" and "Operation Tannenberg"). The 30,000 deported were prior to the beginning of the mass murder of 6,000,000 Jews and many others.

My point remains: You claim the there was an organized genocide of aboriginal persons. I say that Hitler would have killed every last Jew he could find if he had won the war - he would not have left millions in Germany. It was only the loss of the war that stopped the total elimination via extermination of the Jews in Germany (and much of Europe).

In contrast, in North America the settlers negotiated treaties with and won battles against the aboriginal peoples here. No force showed up to stop them. If genocide was on their minds they would have killed all aboriginal persons but millions of aboriginal persons remained to continue to live their lives.

By Blogger zeppo, at 9:35 am  

Psychopaths don't have to kill everyone to commit genocide. Right above your lame excuses for the systematic mass murder of Turtle Island's indigenous population is the Genocide Convention in black and white. If you had read it and understood it then you wouldn't be back making an even bigger fool of yourself than you did previously.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 pm  

acts committed with intent to destroy

You missed the part above. There was no intent to destroy. Treaties were negotiated. There were some skirmishes over land. Millions continued to live their lives. No genocide.

By Blogger zeppo, at 10:36 pm  

Hillary sat on the Board of Directors of Walmart for 6 years as it abused it workers by not giving them breaks, not paying them for OT etc..

Just yesterday Bernie walked with Verizon strikers in NYC. Hillary couldn't because she accepted $225,000.00 for a speech to the Board of Verizon plus they have donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

If you're reading this now, 930 pm EST, you may want o listen to Mike Malloy here on Progressive Boices

http://tunein.com/radio/Progressive-Voices-s189055/

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:38 pm  

Zeppo seems to have developed a phobia about copying and pasting more than 6 words at a time.

(acts committed with intent to destroy,) IN WHOLE OR IN PART,

It's just as easy to copy and past 11 words, or even the whole 1st article of the Genocide Conventions.

'In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'

Something, perhaps a virus of some sort, has wiped out your brain cells, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, Zeppo.
You're running on empty.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:17 am  

The intent to destroy is the important part. There was no intent to destroy (as I said), only treaties and battles. No genocide.

By Blogger zeppo, at 1:37 pm  

Broken treaties and massacres from coast to coast.

A bounty in California for Native scalps. 1849 to 1870.

"We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux [Lakotas] even to their extermination: men, women and children." General William Tecumseh Sherman 1867.

'With intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.'

'In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:10 pm  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Email me!