Corruption by any other name is still corruption.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/30/16, TomDispatch <tomdispatch@nationinstitute.org> wrote:
> http://www.tomdispatch.com
>
> June 30, 2016
> Tomgram: Thomas Frank, Worshipping Money in D.C.
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176159/tomgram%3A_thomas_frank%2C_worshipping_money_in_d.c./)
>
> [Note for TomDispatch Readers: Read today's piece and then get your hands on
> Thomas Frank's new book, Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the
> Party of the People?
> (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20) It's the
> political must-read of this season if you want to know where liberalism went
> in the last two and a half decades. The next TomDispatch post will be on
> Tuesday, July 5th. Tom]
>
> I'm no stranger to shakedowns. I've experienced them, in one form or
> another, from Asia to Africa.
>
> Sometimes the corruption is subtle. Sometimes it's naked. Sometimes you
> press folded currency into someone's palm. Sometimes there's a more official
> procedure. Sometimes a payment is demanded outright. (A weapon might even be
> involved.) Other times, it's up to you to suggest that we somehow work
> things out privately.
>
> Luckily, I live in the United States, and if the 2016 presidential campaign
> has reminded me of anything, it's that America is, by definition (and unlike
> so many of the other countries on the planet), a corruption-free zone. Mind
> you, no one would claim that the race for the Oval Office is free of
> unethical behavior. It's just that the actions and efforts involved aren't
> considered "corrupt" here.
>
> Take an Associated Press (AP) exposé last week. It revealed
> (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f7412236962464f9f2c0a8d2696ba25/trumps-campaign-cycles-6-million-trump-companies)
> that the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump had "plowed
> about $6 million" -- roughly 10% of his expenditures -- "back into Trump
> corporate products and services." The campaign paid, for instance, about
> $520,000 in rent and utilities for its headquarters at Manhattan's Trump
> Tower and an astounding $4.6 million to TAG Air, the holding company for the
> billionaire candidate's airplanes.
>
> The AP investigation found that the Trump campaign was "unafraid to
> co-mingle political and business endeavors in an unprecedented way," while
> noting that there is, in fact, "nothing illegal about it." In other words,
> while it may seem shady, feel fraudulent, and -- to steal a Trumpism --
> sound crooked, it's all on the up and up according to our unique American
> system.
>
> Today, Thomas Frank, author most recently of Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever
> Happened to the Party of the People?
> (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20) , takes
> us on a tour of another dimly lit corner of corruption-free America, a
> completely legal and remarkably unethical world that comes with its own
> guidebook: a newsletter chronicling daily dalliances involving money,
> alcohol, and political influence. Though it may seem like a foreign world to
> those of us outside the Beltway bubble, it influences our daily lives in
> myriad ways. Think of it as a circuit of cocktail hours and cocktail
> parties linked by a well-greased set of revolving doors; an endless series
> of social events attended by the influential, the influencers, and those
> looking -- for the right price -- to be influenced. If it seems like I'm
> using that word -- influence -- a little too much, it isn't by chance. Let
> the influential Thomas Frank explain how influence and Influence have
> warped Washington and the rest of our world. Nick Turse
>
> The Life of the Parties
> The Influence of Influence in Washington
> By Thomas Frank (http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/thomasfrank)
>
> Although it's difficult to remember those days eight years ago when
> Democrats seemed to represent something idealistic and hopeful and brave,
> let's take a moment and try to recall the stand Barack Obama once took
> against lobbyists. Those were the days when the nation was learning that
> George W. Bush's Washington was, essentially, just a big playground for
> those lobbyists and that every government operation had been opened to the
> power of money. Righteous disgust filled the air. "Special interests" were
> much denounced. And a certain inspiring senator from Illinois promised
> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201019.html)
> that, should he be elected president, his administration would contain no
> lobbyists at all. The revolving door between government and K Street, he
> assured us, would turn no more.
>
> Instead, the nation got a lesson in all the other ways that "special
> interests" can get what they want -- like simple class solidarity
> (http://listenliberal.com) between the Ivy Leaguers who advise the president
> and the Ivy Leaguers who sell derivative securities to unsuspecting
> foreigners. As that inspiring young president filled his administration with
> Wall Street personnel, we learned that the revolving door still works, even
> if the people passing through it aren't registered lobbyists.
>
> But whatever became of lobbying itself, which once seemed to exemplify
> everything wrong with Washington, D.C.? Perhaps it won't surprise you to
> learn that lobbying remains one of the nation's persistently prosperous
> industries, and that, since 2011, it has been the focus of Influence, one of
> the daily email newsletters published by Politico, that great chronicler of
> the Obama years. Influence was to be, as its very first edition declared
> (http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2011/04/welcome-to-politico-influence-why-lobbyists-arent-worried-about-revenue-slump-rich-gold-jonathan-jones-weigh-in-on-the-future-jamie-brown-hantman-launches-own-firm-008930)
> , "the must-read crib sheet for Washington's influence class," with news of
> developments on K Street done up in tones of sycophantic smugness. For my
> money, it is one of the quintessential journalistic artifacts of our time:
> the constantly unfolding tale of power-for-hire, told always with a discreet
> sympathy
> for the man on top.
>
> Click here to read more of this dispatch.
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176159/tomgram%3A_thomas_frank%2C_worshipping_money_in_d.c./#more)
>
> Visit our sister sites:
>
> http://www.nationinstitute.org
> http://www.nationbooks.org
> http://www.theinvestigativefund.org
>
> Recent Posts
> 2 days ago...
> Tomgram: Patrick Cockburn, An Endless Cycle of Indecisive Wars
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176158/tomgram%3A_patrick_cockburn%2C_an_endless_cycle_of_indecisive_wars/)
>
> 4 days ago...
> Tomgram: John Feffer, Donald Trump and America B
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176157/tomgram%3A_john_feffer%2C_donald_trump_and_america_b/)
>
> 1 week ago...
> Tomgram: Nick Turse, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics... and U.S. Africa
> Command
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176156/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_lies%2C_damned_lies%2C_and_statistics..._and_u.s._africa_command/)
>
> 9 days ago...
> Tomgram: William Astore, The End of Air Power?
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176155/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_the_end_of_air_power/)
>
> Recent Highlights
> 6 weeks ago...
> Tomgram: Engelhardt, Obsession, Addiction, and the News
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176129/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_obsession%2C_addiction%2C_and_the_news/)
>
> 2 months ago...
> Tomgram: Rory Fanning, Talking to the Young in a World That Will Never Truly
> Be "Postwar"
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176125/tomgram%3A_rory_fanning%2C_talking_to_the_young_in_a_world_that_will_never_truly_be_%22postwar%22/)
>
> Consider supporting TomDispatch by making a donation. Click here.
> (https://npo1.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=7730)
>
> Sent to carjar82@gmail.com — why did I get this?
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/about?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24&c=aa6ac7705b)
> unsubscribe from this list
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24&c=aa6ac7705b)
> | update subscription preferences
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage1.com/profile?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24)
> The Nation Institute . 116 E. 16th Street . 8th Floor . New York, NY 10003 .
> USA
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Re: Tomgram: Thomas Frank, Worshipping Money in D.C.
Corruption by any other name is still corruption.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/30/16, TomDispatch <tomdispatch@nationinstitute.org> wrote:
> http://www.tomdispatch.com
>
> June 30, 2016
> Tomgram: Thomas Frank, Worshipping Money in D.C.
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176159/tomgram%3A_thomas_frank%2C_worshipping_money_in_d.c./)
>
> [Note for TomDispatch Readers: Read today's piece and then get your hands on
> Thomas Frank's new book, Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the
> Party of the People?
> (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20) It's the
> political must-read of this season if you want to know where liberalism went
> in the last two and a half decades. The next TomDispatch post will be on
> Tuesday, July 5th. Tom]
>
> I'm no stranger to shakedowns. I've experienced them, in one form or
> another, from Asia to Africa.
>
> Sometimes the corruption is subtle. Sometimes it's naked. Sometimes you
> press folded currency into someone's palm. Sometimes there's a more official
> procedure. Sometimes a payment is demanded outright. (A weapon might even be
> involved.) Other times, it's up to you to suggest that we somehow work
> things out privately.
>
> Luckily, I live in the United States, and if the 2016 presidential campaign
> has reminded me of anything, it's that America is, by definition (and unlike
> so many of the other countries on the planet), a corruption-free zone. Mind
> you, no one would claim that the race for the Oval Office is free of
> unethical behavior. It's just that the actions and efforts involved aren't
> considered "corrupt" here.
>
> Take an Associated Press (AP) exposé last week. It revealed
> (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f7412236962464f9f2c0a8d2696ba25/trumps-campaign-cycles-6-million-trump-companies)
> that the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump had "plowed
> about $6 million" -- roughly 10% of his expenditures -- "back into Trump
> corporate products and services." The campaign paid, for instance, about
> $520,000 in rent and utilities for its headquarters at Manhattan's Trump
> Tower and an astounding $4.6 million to TAG Air, the holding company for the
> billionaire candidate's airplanes.
>
> The AP investigation found that the Trump campaign was "unafraid to
> co-mingle political and business endeavors in an unprecedented way," while
> noting that there is, in fact, "nothing illegal about it." In other words,
> while it may seem shady, feel fraudulent, and -- to steal a Trumpism --
> sound crooked, it's all on the up and up according to our unique American
> system.
>
> Today, Thomas Frank, author most recently of Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever
> Happened to the Party of the People?
> (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20) , takes
> us on a tour of another dimly lit corner of corruption-free America, a
> completely legal and remarkably unethical world that comes with its own
> guidebook: a newsletter chronicling daily dalliances involving money,
> alcohol, and political influence. Though it may seem like a foreign world to
> those of us outside the Beltway bubble, it influences our daily lives in
> myriad ways. Think of it as a circuit of cocktail hours and cocktail
> parties linked by a well-greased set of revolving doors; an endless series
> of social events attended by the influential, the influencers, and those
> looking -- for the right price -- to be influenced. If it seems like I'm
> using that word -- influence -- a little too much, it isn't by chance. Let
> the influential Thomas Frank explain how influence and Influence have
> warped Washington and the rest of our world. Nick Turse
>
> The Life of the Parties
> The Influence of Influence in Washington
> By Thomas Frank (http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/thomasfrank)
>
> Although it's difficult to remember those days eight years ago when
> Democrats seemed to represent something idealistic and hopeful and brave,
> let's take a moment and try to recall the stand Barack Obama once took
> against lobbyists. Those were the days when the nation was learning that
> George W. Bush's Washington was, essentially, just a big playground for
> those lobbyists and that every government operation had been opened to the
> power of money. Righteous disgust filled the air. "Special interests" were
> much denounced. And a certain inspiring senator from Illinois promised
> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201019.html)
> that, should he be elected president, his administration would contain no
> lobbyists at all. The revolving door between government and K Street, he
> assured us, would turn no more.
>
> Instead, the nation got a lesson in all the other ways that "special
> interests" can get what they want -- like simple class solidarity
> (http://listenliberal.com) between the Ivy Leaguers who advise the president
> and the Ivy Leaguers who sell derivative securities to unsuspecting
> foreigners. As that inspiring young president filled his administration with
> Wall Street personnel, we learned that the revolving door still works, even
> if the people passing through it aren't registered lobbyists.
>
> But whatever became of lobbying itself, which once seemed to exemplify
> everything wrong with Washington, D.C.? Perhaps it won't surprise you to
> learn that lobbying remains one of the nation's persistently prosperous
> industries, and that, since 2011, it has been the focus of Influence, one of
> the daily email newsletters published by Politico, that great chronicler of
> the Obama years. Influence was to be, as its very first edition declared
> (http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2011/04/welcome-to-politico-influence-why-lobbyists-arent-worried-about-revenue-slump-rich-gold-jonathan-jones-weigh-in-on-the-future-jamie-brown-hantman-launches-own-firm-008930)
> , "the must-read crib sheet for Washington's influence class," with news of
> developments on K Street done up in tones of sycophantic smugness. For my
> money, it is one of the quintessential journalistic artifacts of our time:
> the constantly unfolding tale of power-for-hire, told always with a discreet
> sympathy
> for the man on top.
>
> Click here to read more of this dispatch.
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176159/tomgram%3A_thomas_frank%2C_worshipping_money_in_d.c./#more)
>
> Visit our sister sites:
>
> http://www.nationinstitute.org
> http://www.nationbooks.org
> http://www.theinvestigativefund.org
>
> Recent Posts
> 2 days ago...
> Tomgram: Patrick Cockburn, An Endless Cycle of Indecisive Wars
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176158/tomgram%3A_patrick_cockburn%2C_an_endless_cycle_of_indecisive_wars/)
>
> 4 days ago...
> Tomgram: John Feffer, Donald Trump and America B
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176157/tomgram%3A_john_feffer%2C_donald_trump_and_america_b/)
>
> 1 week ago...
> Tomgram: Nick Turse, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics... and U.S. Africa
> Command
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176156/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_lies%2C_damned_lies%2C_and_statistics..._and_u.s._africa_command/)
>
> 9 days ago...
> Tomgram: William Astore, The End of Air Power?
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176155/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_the_end_of_air_power/)
>
> Recent Highlights
> 6 weeks ago...
> Tomgram: Engelhardt, Obsession, Addiction, and the News
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176129/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_obsession%2C_addiction%2C_and_the_news/)
>
> 2 months ago...
> Tomgram: Rory Fanning, Talking to the Young in a World That Will Never Truly
> Be "Postwar"
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176125/tomgram%3A_rory_fanning%2C_talking_to_the_young_in_a_world_that_will_never_truly_be_%22postwar%22/)
>
> Consider supporting TomDispatch by making a donation. Click here.
> (https://npo1.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=7730)
>
> Sent to carjar82@gmail.com — why did I get this?
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/about?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24&c=aa6ac7705b)
> unsubscribe from this list
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24&c=aa6ac7705b)
> | update subscription preferences
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage1.com/profile?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24)
> The Nation Institute . 116 E. 16th Street . 8th Floor . New York, NY 10003 .
> USA
Carl Jarvis
On 6/30/16, TomDispatch <tomdispatch@nationinstitute.org> wrote:
> http://www.tomdispatch.com
>
> June 30, 2016
> Tomgram: Thomas Frank, Worshipping Money in D.C.
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176159/tomgram%3A_thomas_frank%2C_worshipping_money_in_d.c./)
>
> [Note for TomDispatch Readers: Read today's piece and then get your hands on
> Thomas Frank's new book, Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the
> Party of the People?
> (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20) It's the
> political must-read of this season if you want to know where liberalism went
> in the last two and a half decades. The next TomDispatch post will be on
> Tuesday, July 5th. Tom]
>
> I'm no stranger to shakedowns. I've experienced them, in one form or
> another, from Asia to Africa.
>
> Sometimes the corruption is subtle. Sometimes it's naked. Sometimes you
> press folded currency into someone's palm. Sometimes there's a more official
> procedure. Sometimes a payment is demanded outright. (A weapon might even be
> involved.) Other times, it's up to you to suggest that we somehow work
> things out privately.
>
> Luckily, I live in the United States, and if the 2016 presidential campaign
> has reminded me of anything, it's that America is, by definition (and unlike
> so many of the other countries on the planet), a corruption-free zone. Mind
> you, no one would claim that the race for the Oval Office is free of
> unethical behavior. It's just that the actions and efforts involved aren't
> considered "corrupt" here.
>
> Take an Associated Press (AP) exposé last week. It revealed
> (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f7412236962464f9f2c0a8d2696ba25/trumps-campaign-cycles-6-million-trump-companies)
> that the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump had "plowed
> about $6 million" -- roughly 10% of his expenditures -- "back into Trump
> corporate products and services." The campaign paid, for instance, about
> $520,000 in rent and utilities for its headquarters at Manhattan's Trump
> Tower and an astounding $4.6 million to TAG Air, the holding company for the
> billionaire candidate's airplanes.
>
> The AP investigation found that the Trump campaign was "unafraid to
> co-mingle political and business endeavors in an unprecedented way," while
> noting that there is, in fact, "nothing illegal about it." In other words,
> while it may seem shady, feel fraudulent, and -- to steal a Trumpism --
> sound crooked, it's all on the up and up according to our unique American
> system.
>
> Today, Thomas Frank, author most recently of Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever
> Happened to the Party of the People?
> (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20) , takes
> us on a tour of another dimly lit corner of corruption-free America, a
> completely legal and remarkably unethical world that comes with its own
> guidebook: a newsletter chronicling daily dalliances involving money,
> alcohol, and political influence. Though it may seem like a foreign world to
> those of us outside the Beltway bubble, it influences our daily lives in
> myriad ways. Think of it as a circuit of cocktail hours and cocktail
> parties linked by a well-greased set of revolving doors; an endless series
> of social events attended by the influential, the influencers, and those
> looking -- for the right price -- to be influenced. If it seems like I'm
> using that word -- influence -- a little too much, it isn't by chance. Let
> the influential Thomas Frank explain how influence and Influence have
> warped Washington and the rest of our world. Nick Turse
>
> The Life of the Parties
> The Influence of Influence in Washington
> By Thomas Frank (http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/thomasfrank)
>
> Although it's difficult to remember those days eight years ago when
> Democrats seemed to represent something idealistic and hopeful and brave,
> let's take a moment and try to recall the stand Barack Obama once took
> against lobbyists. Those were the days when the nation was learning that
> George W. Bush's Washington was, essentially, just a big playground for
> those lobbyists and that every government operation had been opened to the
> power of money. Righteous disgust filled the air. "Special interests" were
> much denounced. And a certain inspiring senator from Illinois promised
> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201019.html)
> that, should he be elected president, his administration would contain no
> lobbyists at all. The revolving door between government and K Street, he
> assured us, would turn no more.
>
> Instead, the nation got a lesson in all the other ways that "special
> interests" can get what they want -- like simple class solidarity
> (http://listenliberal.com) between the Ivy Leaguers who advise the president
> and the Ivy Leaguers who sell derivative securities to unsuspecting
> foreigners. As that inspiring young president filled his administration with
> Wall Street personnel, we learned that the revolving door still works, even
> if the people passing through it aren't registered lobbyists.
>
> But whatever became of lobbying itself, which once seemed to exemplify
> everything wrong with Washington, D.C.? Perhaps it won't surprise you to
> learn that lobbying remains one of the nation's persistently prosperous
> industries, and that, since 2011, it has been the focus of Influence, one of
> the daily email newsletters published by Politico, that great chronicler of
> the Obama years. Influence was to be, as its very first edition declared
> (http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2011/04/welcome-to-politico-influence-why-lobbyists-arent-worried-about-revenue-slump-rich-gold-jonathan-jones-weigh-in-on-the-future-jamie-brown-hantman-launches-own-firm-008930)
> , "the must-read crib sheet for Washington's influence class," with news of
> developments on K Street done up in tones of sycophantic smugness. For my
> money, it is one of the quintessential journalistic artifacts of our time:
> the constantly unfolding tale of power-for-hire, told always with a discreet
> sympathy
> for the man on top.
>
> Click here to read more of this dispatch.
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176159/tomgram%3A_thomas_frank%2C_worshipping_money_in_d.c./#more)
>
> Visit our sister sites:
>
> http://www.nationinstitute.org
> http://www.nationbooks.org
> http://www.theinvestigativefund.org
>
> Recent Posts
> 2 days ago...
> Tomgram: Patrick Cockburn, An Endless Cycle of Indecisive Wars
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176158/tomgram%3A_patrick_cockburn%2C_an_endless_cycle_of_indecisive_wars/)
>
> 4 days ago...
> Tomgram: John Feffer, Donald Trump and America B
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176157/tomgram%3A_john_feffer%2C_donald_trump_and_america_b/)
>
> 1 week ago...
> Tomgram: Nick Turse, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics... and U.S. Africa
> Command
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176156/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_lies%2C_damned_lies%2C_and_statistics..._and_u.s._africa_command/)
>
> 9 days ago...
> Tomgram: William Astore, The End of Air Power?
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176155/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_the_end_of_air_power/)
>
> Recent Highlights
> 6 weeks ago...
> Tomgram: Engelhardt, Obsession, Addiction, and the News
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176129/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_obsession%2C_addiction%2C_and_the_news/)
>
> 2 months ago...
> Tomgram: Rory Fanning, Talking to the Young in a World That Will Never Truly
> Be "Postwar"
> (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176125/tomgram%3A_rory_fanning%2C_talking_to_the_young_in_a_world_that_will_never_truly_be_%22postwar%22/)
>
> Consider supporting TomDispatch by making a donation. Click here.
> (https://npo1.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=7730)
>
> Sent to carjar82@gmail.com — why did I get this?
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/about?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24&c=aa6ac7705b)
> unsubscribe from this list
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24&c=aa6ac7705b)
> | update subscription preferences
> (http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage1.com/profile?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade&e=ad81ae2d24)
> The Nation Institute . 116 E. 16th Street . 8th Floor . New York, NY 10003 .
> USA
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Re: [blind-democracy] Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's TPP Promise
Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton. As such, she will do what she and
her advisors believe is necessary to win the election. Cornell West,
a man of principle, did the only thing he could do, refuse to endorse
the Platform. Bernie Sanders, a man who has shaky principles, will
walk back many of his cries for a revolution, and support Clinton.
This decision to support Clinton is like Jesus Christ deciding to
support pontius pilate, as governor of Judaea.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/28/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> In fact, the committee opposed all of Ssanders' suggested platform planks.
> I
> didn't post the 2 articles about this that Common Dreams had yesterday.
> Cornell West refused to approve the platform as it exists .
> Miriam
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Published on
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> by
> Common Dreams
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Platform committee's waffling on trade leaves Clinton vulnerable to Trump's
> predictable attacks
> by
> Deirdre Fulton, staff writer
>
> Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on trade in
> general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular. (Photo:
> Reuters)
> Laying bare how dangerous it could be for Democrats to ignore populist
> opposition to corporate-friendly "free trade" deals, Republican
> presidential
> nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on
> trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular.
> Speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, Trump said the "TPP would be the death
> blow for American manufacturing" and vowed to "withdraw" the U.S. from the
> agreement.
> He said Clinton took "a leading part" in drafting the 12-nation deal,
> noting
> that the former secretary of state "praised or pushed the TPP on 45
> separate
> occasions, and even called it the 'gold standard,'" according to prepared
> remarks.
> "Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but when
> she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into saying she
> would be against it too," he said. "But have no doubt, she will immediately
> approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed. She will do this just as
> she
> has betrayed American workers for Wall Street throughout her career."
> With this claim, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote on Twitter, Trump
> appeared to be "speaking directly to [Bernie] Sanders supporters." Sanders
> has made opposition to the TPP and other rights-trampling deals a
> cornerstone of his campaign.
> Trump also said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade
> Agreement
> (NAFTA)-and placed partial blame for that deal also at Clinton's feet. "It
> was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who
> supported
> it," he said.
> The real estate mogul's speech comes on the heels of the Democratic
> National
> Committee's platform drafting panel voting not to oppose the TPP, despite
> the fact that both Clinton and Sanders have come out against the deal. As
> Common Dreams reported, the Clinton-allied majority on the committee
> outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5 to defeat the anti-TPP measure, citing
> President Barack Obama's support.
> In doing so, argues Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future in an
> op-ed Tuesday, they handed Trump "powerful ammunition" for his claims that
> Clinton is only "pretending" to oppose the agreement.
>
> Johnson writes:
> TPP and past "trade" deals are incredibly unpopular with working-class
> voters, and Republicans are preparing a full-scale attack on Clinton's
> credibility over the unpopular TPP. They are making the case that Clinton
> actually supports TPP but is pretending she does not in order to get votes.
> They say the president's efforts to pass TPP in the post-election "lame
> duck" session back up their claims. This pro-TPP vote by Clinton supporters
> on the platform committee will likely bolster the Republican argument.
> [...] It appears that the party elite just don't understand the public's
> overwhelming opposition to TPP. The pro-TPP members of the platform
> committee say they must support a Democratic president. But what about the
> interests of the public, labor and working people, the environment, the
> economy and their own nominee?
> In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sanders agreed
> that
> establishment voices on the committee appeared to not only be working
> against the party, but undermining Clinton's own stated position.
> "I was really quite surprised to see that Secretary Clinton's delegates
> rejected our proposal to kill the TPP despite the fact that she has
> indicated she does not want to see it get onto the floor [of the U.S.
> Congress]," Sanders told Mitchell.
> Meanwhile, as in the primary campaign, Clinton's refusal to come out
> swinging against corporate-friendly trade deals is costing her support of
> working-class voters in the general election-a dynamic Public Citizen's
> Lori
> Wallach predicted back in March, when she declared: "Americans' opposition
> to job-killing trade policies fueled the stunning Bernie Sanders upset
> victory in Michigan. But it also could be a deciding factor in the general
> election, especially with Donald Trump being the likely GOP nominee. The
> outcome of the Michigan primary shows the potency of trade issues and
> foreshadows the trouble Hillary Clinton could face winning key Midwestern
> states in a race against Trump."
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> License
> Skip to main content
> //
> . DONATE
> . SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
>
>
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> . Home
> . World
> . U.S.
> . Canada
> . Climate
> . War & Peace
> . Economy
> . Rights
> . Solutions
> . What 'Our Revolution' Wants
> . Texas Abortion Law Struck Down
> . Brexit!
> . Election 2016
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Published on
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> by
> Common Dreams
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Platform committee's waffling on trade leaves Clinton vulnerable to Trump's
> predictable attacks
> by
> Deirdre Fulton, staff writer
> . 76 Comments
> .
> . Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on
> trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular.
> (Photo: Reuters)
> . Laying bare how dangerous it could be for Democrats to ignore
> populist opposition to corporate-friendly "free trade" deals, Republican
> presidential nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for
> her stance on trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in
> particular.
> . Speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, Trump said the "TPP would be the
> death blow for American manufacturing" and vowed to "withdraw" the U.S.
> from
> the agreement.
> . He said Clinton took "a leading part" in drafting the 12-nation
> deal, noting that the former secretary of state "praised or pushed the TPP
> on 45 separate occasions, and even called it the 'gold standard,'"
> according
> to prepared remarks.
> . "Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but
> when she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into
> saying
> she would be against it too," he said. "But have no doubt, she will
> immediately approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed. She will do
> this
> just as she has betrayed American workers for Wall Street throughout her
> career."
> With this claim, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote on Twitter, Trump
> appeared to be "speaking directly to [Bernie] Sanders supporters." Sanders
> has made opposition to the TPP and other rights-trampling deals a
> cornerstone of his campaign.
> Trump also said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade
> Agreement
> (NAFTA)-and placed partial blame for that deal also at Clinton's feet. "It
> was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who
> supported
> it," he said.
> The real estate mogul's speech comes on the heels of the Democratic
> National
> Committee's platform drafting panel voting not to oppose the TPP, despite
> the fact that both Clinton and Sanders have come out against the deal. As
> Common Dreams reported, the Clinton-allied majority on the committee
> outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5 to defeat the anti-TPP measure, citing
> President Barack Obama's support.
> In doing so, argues Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future in an
> op-ed Tuesday, they handed Trump "powerful ammunition" for his claims that
> Clinton is only "pretending" to oppose the agreement.
> http://commondreams.org/killing-messengerhttp://commondreams.org/killing-mes
> senger
> Johnson writes:
> TPP and past "trade" deals are incredibly unpopular with working-class
> voters, and Republicans are preparing a full-scale attack on Clinton's
> credibility over the unpopular TPP. They are making the case that Clinton
> actually supports TPP but is pretending she does not in order to get votes.
> They say the president's efforts to pass TPP in the post-election "lame
> duck" session back up their claims. This pro-TPP vote by Clinton supporters
> on the platform committee will likely bolster the Republican argument.
> [...] It appears that the party elite just don't understand the public's
> overwhelming opposition to TPP. The pro-TPP members of the platform
> committee say they must support a Democratic president. But what about the
> interests of the public, labor and working people, the environment, the
> economy and their own nominee?
> In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sanders agreed
> that
> establishment voices on the committee appeared to not only be working
> against the party, but undermining Clinton's own stated position.
> "I was really quite surprised to see that Secretary Clinton's delegates
> rejected our proposal to kill the TPP despite the fact that she has
> indicated she does not want to see it get onto the floor [of the U.S.
> Congress]," Sanders told Mitchell.
> Meanwhile, as in the primary campaign, Clinton's refusal to come out
> swinging against corporate-friendly trade deals is costing her support of
> working-class voters in the general election-a dynamic Public Citizen's
> Lori
> Wallach predicted back in March, when she declared: "Americans' opposition
> to job-killing trade policies fueled the stunning Bernie Sanders upset
> victory in Michigan. But it also could be a deciding factor in the general
> election, especially with Donald Trump being the likely GOP nominee. The
> outcome of the Michigan primary shows the potency of trade issues and
> foreshadows the trouble Hillary Clinton could face winning key Midwestern
> states in a race against Trump."
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> License
>
>
>
her advisors believe is necessary to win the election. Cornell West,
a man of principle, did the only thing he could do, refuse to endorse
the Platform. Bernie Sanders, a man who has shaky principles, will
walk back many of his cries for a revolution, and support Clinton.
This decision to support Clinton is like Jesus Christ deciding to
support pontius pilate, as governor of Judaea.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/28/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> In fact, the committee opposed all of Ssanders' suggested platform planks.
> I
> didn't post the 2 articles about this that Common Dreams had yesterday.
> Cornell West refused to approve the platform as it exists .
> Miriam
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Published on
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> by
> Common Dreams
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Platform committee's waffling on trade leaves Clinton vulnerable to Trump's
> predictable attacks
> by
> Deirdre Fulton, staff writer
>
> Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on trade in
> general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular. (Photo:
> Reuters)
> Laying bare how dangerous it could be for Democrats to ignore populist
> opposition to corporate-friendly "free trade" deals, Republican
> presidential
> nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on
> trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular.
> Speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, Trump said the "TPP would be the death
> blow for American manufacturing" and vowed to "withdraw" the U.S. from the
> agreement.
> He said Clinton took "a leading part" in drafting the 12-nation deal,
> noting
> that the former secretary of state "praised or pushed the TPP on 45
> separate
> occasions, and even called it the 'gold standard,'" according to prepared
> remarks.
> "Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but when
> she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into saying she
> would be against it too," he said. "But have no doubt, she will immediately
> approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed. She will do this just as
> she
> has betrayed American workers for Wall Street throughout her career."
> With this claim, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote on Twitter, Trump
> appeared to be "speaking directly to [Bernie] Sanders supporters." Sanders
> has made opposition to the TPP and other rights-trampling deals a
> cornerstone of his campaign.
> Trump also said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade
> Agreement
> (NAFTA)-and placed partial blame for that deal also at Clinton's feet. "It
> was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who
> supported
> it," he said.
> The real estate mogul's speech comes on the heels of the Democratic
> National
> Committee's platform drafting panel voting not to oppose the TPP, despite
> the fact that both Clinton and Sanders have come out against the deal. As
> Common Dreams reported, the Clinton-allied majority on the committee
> outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5 to defeat the anti-TPP measure, citing
> President Barack Obama's support.
> In doing so, argues Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future in an
> op-ed Tuesday, they handed Trump "powerful ammunition" for his claims that
> Clinton is only "pretending" to oppose the agreement.
>
> Johnson writes:
> TPP and past "trade" deals are incredibly unpopular with working-class
> voters, and Republicans are preparing a full-scale attack on Clinton's
> credibility over the unpopular TPP. They are making the case that Clinton
> actually supports TPP but is pretending she does not in order to get votes.
> They say the president's efforts to pass TPP in the post-election "lame
> duck" session back up their claims. This pro-TPP vote by Clinton supporters
> on the platform committee will likely bolster the Republican argument.
> [...] It appears that the party elite just don't understand the public's
> overwhelming opposition to TPP. The pro-TPP members of the platform
> committee say they must support a Democratic president. But what about the
> interests of the public, labor and working people, the environment, the
> economy and their own nominee?
> In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sanders agreed
> that
> establishment voices on the committee appeared to not only be working
> against the party, but undermining Clinton's own stated position.
> "I was really quite surprised to see that Secretary Clinton's delegates
> rejected our proposal to kill the TPP despite the fact that she has
> indicated she does not want to see it get onto the floor [of the U.S.
> Congress]," Sanders told Mitchell.
> Meanwhile, as in the primary campaign, Clinton's refusal to come out
> swinging against corporate-friendly trade deals is costing her support of
> working-class voters in the general election-a dynamic Public Citizen's
> Lori
> Wallach predicted back in March, when she declared: "Americans' opposition
> to job-killing trade policies fueled the stunning Bernie Sanders upset
> victory in Michigan. But it also could be a deciding factor in the general
> election, especially with Donald Trump being the likely GOP nominee. The
> outcome of the Michigan primary shows the potency of trade issues and
> foreshadows the trouble Hillary Clinton could face winning key Midwestern
> states in a race against Trump."
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> License
> Skip to main content
> //
> . DONATE
> . SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
>
>
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> . Home
> . World
> . U.S.
> . Canada
> . Climate
> . War & Peace
> . Economy
> . Rights
> . Solutions
> . What 'Our Revolution' Wants
> . Texas Abortion Law Struck Down
> . Brexit!
> . Election 2016
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Published on
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> by
> Common Dreams
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Platform committee's waffling on trade leaves Clinton vulnerable to Trump's
> predictable attacks
> by
> Deirdre Fulton, staff writer
> . 76 Comments
> .
> . Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on
> trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular.
> (Photo: Reuters)
> . Laying bare how dangerous it could be for Democrats to ignore
> populist opposition to corporate-friendly "free trade" deals, Republican
> presidential nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for
> her stance on trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in
> particular.
> . Speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, Trump said the "TPP would be the
> death blow for American manufacturing" and vowed to "withdraw" the U.S.
> from
> the agreement.
> . He said Clinton took "a leading part" in drafting the 12-nation
> deal, noting that the former secretary of state "praised or pushed the TPP
> on 45 separate occasions, and even called it the 'gold standard,'"
> according
> to prepared remarks.
> . "Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but
> when she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into
> saying
> she would be against it too," he said. "But have no doubt, she will
> immediately approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed. She will do
> this
> just as she has betrayed American workers for Wall Street throughout her
> career."
> With this claim, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote on Twitter, Trump
> appeared to be "speaking directly to [Bernie] Sanders supporters." Sanders
> has made opposition to the TPP and other rights-trampling deals a
> cornerstone of his campaign.
> Trump also said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade
> Agreement
> (NAFTA)-and placed partial blame for that deal also at Clinton's feet. "It
> was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who
> supported
> it," he said.
> The real estate mogul's speech comes on the heels of the Democratic
> National
> Committee's platform drafting panel voting not to oppose the TPP, despite
> the fact that both Clinton and Sanders have come out against the deal. As
> Common Dreams reported, the Clinton-allied majority on the committee
> outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5 to defeat the anti-TPP measure, citing
> President Barack Obama's support.
> In doing so, argues Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future in an
> op-ed Tuesday, they handed Trump "powerful ammunition" for his claims that
> Clinton is only "pretending" to oppose the agreement.
> http://commondreams.org/killing-messengerhttp://commondreams.org/killing-mes
> senger
> Johnson writes:
> TPP and past "trade" deals are incredibly unpopular with working-class
> voters, and Republicans are preparing a full-scale attack on Clinton's
> credibility over the unpopular TPP. They are making the case that Clinton
> actually supports TPP but is pretending she does not in order to get votes.
> They say the president's efforts to pass TPP in the post-election "lame
> duck" session back up their claims. This pro-TPP vote by Clinton supporters
> on the platform committee will likely bolster the Republican argument.
> [...] It appears that the party elite just don't understand the public's
> overwhelming opposition to TPP. The pro-TPP members of the platform
> committee say they must support a Democratic president. But what about the
> interests of the public, labor and working people, the environment, the
> economy and their own nominee?
> In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sanders agreed
> that
> establishment voices on the committee appeared to not only be working
> against the party, but undermining Clinton's own stated position.
> "I was really quite surprised to see that Secretary Clinton's delegates
> rejected our proposal to kill the TPP despite the fact that she has
> indicated she does not want to see it get onto the floor [of the U.S.
> Congress]," Sanders told Mitchell.
> Meanwhile, as in the primary campaign, Clinton's refusal to come out
> swinging against corporate-friendly trade deals is costing her support of
> working-class voters in the general election-a dynamic Public Citizen's
> Lori
> Wallach predicted back in March, when she declared: "Americans' opposition
> to job-killing trade policies fueled the stunning Bernie Sanders upset
> victory in Michigan. But it also could be a deciding factor in the general
> election, especially with Donald Trump being the likely GOP nominee. The
> outcome of the Michigan primary shows the potency of trade issues and
> foreshadows the trouble Hillary Clinton could face winning key Midwestern
> states in a race against Trump."
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> License
>
>
>
Re: [blind-democracy] Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's TPP Promise
Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton. As such, she will do what she and
her advisors believe is necessary to win the election. Cornell West,
a man of principle, did the only thing he could do, refuse to endorse
the Platform. Bernie Sanders, a man who has shaky principles, will
walk back many of his cries for a revolution, and support Clinton.
This decision to support Clinton is like Jesus Christ deciding to
support pontius pilate, as governor of Judaea.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/28/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> In fact, the committee opposed all of Ssanders' suggested platform planks.
> I
> didn't post the 2 articles about this that Common Dreams had yesterday.
> Cornell West refused to approve the platform as it exists .
> Miriam
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Published on
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> by
> Common Dreams
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Platform committee's waffling on trade leaves Clinton vulnerable to Trump's
> predictable attacks
> by
> Deirdre Fulton, staff writer
>
> Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on trade in
> general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular. (Photo:
> Reuters)
> Laying bare how dangerous it could be for Democrats to ignore populist
> opposition to corporate-friendly "free trade" deals, Republican
> presidential
> nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on
> trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular.
> Speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, Trump said the "TPP would be the death
> blow for American manufacturing" and vowed to "withdraw" the U.S. from the
> agreement.
> He said Clinton took "a leading part" in drafting the 12-nation deal,
> noting
> that the former secretary of state "praised or pushed the TPP on 45
> separate
> occasions, and even called it the 'gold standard,'" according to prepared
> remarks.
> "Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but when
> she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into saying she
> would be against it too," he said. "But have no doubt, she will immediately
> approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed. She will do this just as
> she
> has betrayed American workers for Wall Street throughout her career."
> With this claim, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote on Twitter, Trump
> appeared to be "speaking directly to [Bernie] Sanders supporters." Sanders
> has made opposition to the TPP and other rights-trampling deals a
> cornerstone of his campaign.
> Trump also said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade
> Agreement
> (NAFTA)-and placed partial blame for that deal also at Clinton's feet. "It
> was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who
> supported
> it," he said.
> The real estate mogul's speech comes on the heels of the Democratic
> National
> Committee's platform drafting panel voting not to oppose the TPP, despite
> the fact that both Clinton and Sanders have come out against the deal. As
> Common Dreams reported, the Clinton-allied majority on the committee
> outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5 to defeat the anti-TPP measure, citing
> President Barack Obama's support.
> In doing so, argues Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future in an
> op-ed Tuesday, they handed Trump "powerful ammunition" for his claims that
> Clinton is only "pretending" to oppose the agreement.
>
> Johnson writes:
> TPP and past "trade" deals are incredibly unpopular with working-class
> voters, and Republicans are preparing a full-scale attack on Clinton's
> credibility over the unpopular TPP. They are making the case that Clinton
> actually supports TPP but is pretending she does not in order to get votes.
> They say the president's efforts to pass TPP in the post-election "lame
> duck" session back up their claims. This pro-TPP vote by Clinton supporters
> on the platform committee will likely bolster the Republican argument.
> [...] It appears that the party elite just don't understand the public's
> overwhelming opposition to TPP. The pro-TPP members of the platform
> committee say they must support a Democratic president. But what about the
> interests of the public, labor and working people, the environment, the
> economy and their own nominee?
> In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sanders agreed
> that
> establishment voices on the committee appeared to not only be working
> against the party, but undermining Clinton's own stated position.
> "I was really quite surprised to see that Secretary Clinton's delegates
> rejected our proposal to kill the TPP despite the fact that she has
> indicated she does not want to see it get onto the floor [of the U.S.
> Congress]," Sanders told Mitchell.
> Meanwhile, as in the primary campaign, Clinton's refusal to come out
> swinging against corporate-friendly trade deals is costing her support of
> working-class voters in the general election-a dynamic Public Citizen's
> Lori
> Wallach predicted back in March, when she declared: "Americans' opposition
> to job-killing trade policies fueled the stunning Bernie Sanders upset
> victory in Michigan. But it also could be a deciding factor in the general
> election, especially with Donald Trump being the likely GOP nominee. The
> outcome of the Michigan primary shows the potency of trade issues and
> foreshadows the trouble Hillary Clinton could face winning key Midwestern
> states in a race against Trump."
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> License
> Skip to main content
> //
> . DONATE
> . SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
>
>
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> . Home
> . World
> . U.S.
> . Canada
> . Climate
> . War & Peace
> . Economy
> . Rights
> . Solutions
> . What 'Our Revolution' Wants
> . Texas Abortion Law Struck Down
> . Brexit!
> . Election 2016
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Published on
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> by
> Common Dreams
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Platform committee's waffling on trade leaves Clinton vulnerable to Trump's
> predictable attacks
> by
> Deirdre Fulton, staff writer
> . 76 Comments
> .
> . Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on
> trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular.
> (Photo: Reuters)
> . Laying bare how dangerous it could be for Democrats to ignore
> populist opposition to corporate-friendly "free trade" deals, Republican
> presidential nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for
> her stance on trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in
> particular.
> . Speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, Trump said the "TPP would be the
> death blow for American manufacturing" and vowed to "withdraw" the U.S.
> from
> the agreement.
> . He said Clinton took "a leading part" in drafting the 12-nation
> deal, noting that the former secretary of state "praised or pushed the TPP
> on 45 separate occasions, and even called it the 'gold standard,'"
> according
> to prepared remarks.
> . "Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but
> when she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into
> saying
> she would be against it too," he said. "But have no doubt, she will
> immediately approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed. She will do
> this
> just as she has betrayed American workers for Wall Street throughout her
> career."
> With this claim, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote on Twitter, Trump
> appeared to be "speaking directly to [Bernie] Sanders supporters." Sanders
> has made opposition to the TPP and other rights-trampling deals a
> cornerstone of his campaign.
> Trump also said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade
> Agreement
> (NAFTA)-and placed partial blame for that deal also at Clinton's feet. "It
> was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who
> supported
> it," he said.
> The real estate mogul's speech comes on the heels of the Democratic
> National
> Committee's platform drafting panel voting not to oppose the TPP, despite
> the fact that both Clinton and Sanders have come out against the deal. As
> Common Dreams reported, the Clinton-allied majority on the committee
> outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5 to defeat the anti-TPP measure, citing
> President Barack Obama's support.
> In doing so, argues Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future in an
> op-ed Tuesday, they handed Trump "powerful ammunition" for his claims that
> Clinton is only "pretending" to oppose the agreement.
> http://commondreams.org/killing-messengerhttp://commondreams.org/killing-mes
> senger
> Johnson writes:
> TPP and past "trade" deals are incredibly unpopular with working-class
> voters, and Republicans are preparing a full-scale attack on Clinton's
> credibility over the unpopular TPP. They are making the case that Clinton
> actually supports TPP but is pretending she does not in order to get votes.
> They say the president's efforts to pass TPP in the post-election "lame
> duck" session back up their claims. This pro-TPP vote by Clinton supporters
> on the platform committee will likely bolster the Republican argument.
> [...] It appears that the party elite just don't understand the public's
> overwhelming opposition to TPP. The pro-TPP members of the platform
> committee say they must support a Democratic president. But what about the
> interests of the public, labor and working people, the environment, the
> economy and their own nominee?
> In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sanders agreed
> that
> establishment voices on the committee appeared to not only be working
> against the party, but undermining Clinton's own stated position.
> "I was really quite surprised to see that Secretary Clinton's delegates
> rejected our proposal to kill the TPP despite the fact that she has
> indicated she does not want to see it get onto the floor [of the U.S.
> Congress]," Sanders told Mitchell.
> Meanwhile, as in the primary campaign, Clinton's refusal to come out
> swinging against corporate-friendly trade deals is costing her support of
> working-class voters in the general election-a dynamic Public Citizen's
> Lori
> Wallach predicted back in March, when she declared: "Americans' opposition
> to job-killing trade policies fueled the stunning Bernie Sanders upset
> victory in Michigan. But it also could be a deciding factor in the general
> election, especially with Donald Trump being the likely GOP nominee. The
> outcome of the Michigan primary shows the potency of trade issues and
> foreshadows the trouble Hillary Clinton could face winning key Midwestern
> states in a race against Trump."
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> License
>
>
>
her advisors believe is necessary to win the election. Cornell West,
a man of principle, did the only thing he could do, refuse to endorse
the Platform. Bernie Sanders, a man who has shaky principles, will
walk back many of his cries for a revolution, and support Clinton.
This decision to support Clinton is like Jesus Christ deciding to
support pontius pilate, as governor of Judaea.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/28/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> In fact, the committee opposed all of Ssanders' suggested platform planks.
> I
> didn't post the 2 articles about this that Common Dreams had yesterday.
> Cornell West refused to approve the platform as it exists .
> Miriam
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Published on
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> by
> Common Dreams
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Platform committee's waffling on trade leaves Clinton vulnerable to Trump's
> predictable attacks
> by
> Deirdre Fulton, staff writer
>
> Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on trade in
> general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular. (Photo:
> Reuters)
> Laying bare how dangerous it could be for Democrats to ignore populist
> opposition to corporate-friendly "free trade" deals, Republican
> presidential
> nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on
> trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular.
> Speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, Trump said the "TPP would be the death
> blow for American manufacturing" and vowed to "withdraw" the U.S. from the
> agreement.
> He said Clinton took "a leading part" in drafting the 12-nation deal,
> noting
> that the former secretary of state "praised or pushed the TPP on 45
> separate
> occasions, and even called it the 'gold standard,'" according to prepared
> remarks.
> "Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but when
> she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into saying she
> would be against it too," he said. "But have no doubt, she will immediately
> approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed. She will do this just as
> she
> has betrayed American workers for Wall Street throughout her career."
> With this claim, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote on Twitter, Trump
> appeared to be "speaking directly to [Bernie] Sanders supporters." Sanders
> has made opposition to the TPP and other rights-trampling deals a
> cornerstone of his campaign.
> Trump also said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade
> Agreement
> (NAFTA)-and placed partial blame for that deal also at Clinton's feet. "It
> was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who
> supported
> it," he said.
> The real estate mogul's speech comes on the heels of the Democratic
> National
> Committee's platform drafting panel voting not to oppose the TPP, despite
> the fact that both Clinton and Sanders have come out against the deal. As
> Common Dreams reported, the Clinton-allied majority on the committee
> outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5 to defeat the anti-TPP measure, citing
> President Barack Obama's support.
> In doing so, argues Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future in an
> op-ed Tuesday, they handed Trump "powerful ammunition" for his claims that
> Clinton is only "pretending" to oppose the agreement.
>
> Johnson writes:
> TPP and past "trade" deals are incredibly unpopular with working-class
> voters, and Republicans are preparing a full-scale attack on Clinton's
> credibility over the unpopular TPP. They are making the case that Clinton
> actually supports TPP but is pretending she does not in order to get votes.
> They say the president's efforts to pass TPP in the post-election "lame
> duck" session back up their claims. This pro-TPP vote by Clinton supporters
> on the platform committee will likely bolster the Republican argument.
> [...] It appears that the party elite just don't understand the public's
> overwhelming opposition to TPP. The pro-TPP members of the platform
> committee say they must support a Democratic president. But what about the
> interests of the public, labor and working people, the environment, the
> economy and their own nominee?
> In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sanders agreed
> that
> establishment voices on the committee appeared to not only be working
> against the party, but undermining Clinton's own stated position.
> "I was really quite surprised to see that Secretary Clinton's delegates
> rejected our proposal to kill the TPP despite the fact that she has
> indicated she does not want to see it get onto the floor [of the U.S.
> Congress]," Sanders told Mitchell.
> Meanwhile, as in the primary campaign, Clinton's refusal to come out
> swinging against corporate-friendly trade deals is costing her support of
> working-class voters in the general election-a dynamic Public Citizen's
> Lori
> Wallach predicted back in March, when she declared: "Americans' opposition
> to job-killing trade policies fueled the stunning Bernie Sanders upset
> victory in Michigan. But it also could be a deciding factor in the general
> election, especially with Donald Trump being the likely GOP nominee. The
> outcome of the Michigan primary shows the potency of trade issues and
> foreshadows the trouble Hillary Clinton could face winning key Midwestern
> states in a race against Trump."
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> License
> Skip to main content
> //
> . DONATE
> . SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
>
>
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> . Home
> . World
> . U.S.
> . Canada
> . Climate
> . War & Peace
> . Economy
> . Rights
> . Solutions
> . What 'Our Revolution' Wants
> . Texas Abortion Law Struck Down
> . Brexit!
> . Election 2016
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Published on
> Tuesday, June 28, 2016
> by
> Common Dreams
> Trump Just Drove a Truck Through Hole DNC Platform Panel Left in Clinton's
> TPP Promise
> Platform committee's waffling on trade leaves Clinton vulnerable to Trump's
> predictable attacks
> by
> Deirdre Fulton, staff writer
> . 76 Comments
> .
> . Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for her stance on
> trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular.
> (Photo: Reuters)
> . Laying bare how dangerous it could be for Democrats to ignore
> populist opposition to corporate-friendly "free trade" deals, Republican
> presidential nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday attacked Hillary Clinton for
> her stance on trade in general and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in
> particular.
> . Speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, Trump said the "TPP would be the
> death blow for American manufacturing" and vowed to "withdraw" the U.S.
> from
> the agreement.
> . He said Clinton took "a leading part" in drafting the 12-nation
> deal, noting that the former secretary of state "praised or pushed the TPP
> on 45 separate occasions, and even called it the 'gold standard,'"
> according
> to prepared remarks.
> . "Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but
> when she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into
> saying
> she would be against it too," he said. "But have no doubt, she will
> immediately approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed. She will do
> this
> just as she has betrayed American workers for Wall Street throughout her
> career."
> With this claim, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote on Twitter, Trump
> appeared to be "speaking directly to [Bernie] Sanders supporters." Sanders
> has made opposition to the TPP and other rights-trampling deals a
> cornerstone of his campaign.
> Trump also said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade
> Agreement
> (NAFTA)-and placed partial blame for that deal also at Clinton's feet. "It
> was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who
> supported
> it," he said.
> The real estate mogul's speech comes on the heels of the Democratic
> National
> Committee's platform drafting panel voting not to oppose the TPP, despite
> the fact that both Clinton and Sanders have come out against the deal. As
> Common Dreams reported, the Clinton-allied majority on the committee
> outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5 to defeat the anti-TPP measure, citing
> President Barack Obama's support.
> In doing so, argues Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future in an
> op-ed Tuesday, they handed Trump "powerful ammunition" for his claims that
> Clinton is only "pretending" to oppose the agreement.
> http://commondreams.org/killing-messengerhttp://commondreams.org/killing-mes
> senger
> Johnson writes:
> TPP and past "trade" deals are incredibly unpopular with working-class
> voters, and Republicans are preparing a full-scale attack on Clinton's
> credibility over the unpopular TPP. They are making the case that Clinton
> actually supports TPP but is pretending she does not in order to get votes.
> They say the president's efforts to pass TPP in the post-election "lame
> duck" session back up their claims. This pro-TPP vote by Clinton supporters
> on the platform committee will likely bolster the Republican argument.
> [...] It appears that the party elite just don't understand the public's
> overwhelming opposition to TPP. The pro-TPP members of the platform
> committee say they must support a Democratic president. But what about the
> interests of the public, labor and working people, the environment, the
> economy and their own nominee?
> In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sanders agreed
> that
> establishment voices on the committee appeared to not only be working
> against the party, but undermining Clinton's own stated position.
> "I was really quite surprised to see that Secretary Clinton's delegates
> rejected our proposal to kill the TPP despite the fact that she has
> indicated she does not want to see it get onto the floor [of the U.S.
> Congress]," Sanders told Mitchell.
> Meanwhile, as in the primary campaign, Clinton's refusal to come out
> swinging against corporate-friendly trade deals is costing her support of
> working-class voters in the general election-a dynamic Public Citizen's
> Lori
> Wallach predicted back in March, when she declared: "Americans' opposition
> to job-killing trade policies fueled the stunning Bernie Sanders upset
> victory in Michigan. But it also could be a deciding factor in the general
> election, especially with Donald Trump being the likely GOP nominee. The
> outcome of the Michigan primary shows the potency of trade issues and
> foreshadows the trouble Hillary Clinton could face winning key Midwestern
> states in a race against Trump."
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> License
>
>
>
a lesson in how an activist becomes a tyrant
How do you tell if that activist working alonside you is in the fight
for the good of the many, or is waiting for the moment they can step
on your face in their climb to the top?
I looked up good old Dave Beck, one time president of the Teamsters
International(1952-1957). Here's some snippets that track the move
from activist to dictator.
As an aside, I remember the "takeover" of the Boeing machinists by the
Teamsters. The Machinists were effectively broken and Boeing quickly
instituted an "Open Shop" policy. The interference of the Teamsters
set the employees back many years. And later the Teamsters tried to
muscle in on the Farm Workers in California, attempting to move Caesar
Chavez out, greatly weakening that Union's effectiveness.
.
Carl Jaarvis
***
As Beck's influence rose, Tobin attempted to check his growing power but failed.
Beck was elected a vice-president of the Teamsters in 1940, and he
began to challenge Tobin for control of the union. In 1947, Beck
marshaled his forces
and defeated a proposed dues increase to fund new organizing.
In 1942, Beck began a six-year campaign to seize control of the
International Teamster newsmagazine. He ousted its editor and won the
executive board's
approval to install his own man in the job in 1948.
In 1946, Beck successfully campaigned to amend the union's
constitution to create the post of executive vice-president. He
subsequently won the 1947 election
to fill the position.
In 1948, Beck essentially supplanted Tobin as the real power in the
Teamsters union. On April 22, 1948, the
Machinists
(which was not a member of the
American Federation of Labor,
or AFL) struck
Boeing
in Seattle. On May 28, Beck announced that Teamsters would seek to
organize the workers at Boeing, and formed Aeronautical Workers and
Warehousemen Helpers
Union Local 451 to raid the Machinists. Beck and Boeing officials made
a secret agreement in which Boeing would hire members of Local
451—essentially hiring
Teamsters as scabs and strikebreakers. After as many as a third of the
Machinists had joined the Teamsters, the Machinists agreed to return
to work without
a contract. Beck's actions were nearly universally condemned by
members of the AFL Executive Council. The AFL Executive Council met in
August 1948 to take
action against Beck. The day before the meeting, Tobin privately told
associates that he would repudiate Beck. But at a secret meeting that
afternoon,
Beck and his followers on the West Coast confronted Tobin with a fait
accompli: Beck had allied with his long-time enemy Jimmy Hoffa. He now
had more than
enough votes on the Teamsters executive board to overrule Tobin if he
tried to fire Beck. At the AFL meeting the next day, Tobin was forced
to defend Beck's
actions. Unwilling to embarrass an AFL vice president and create a
confrontation with the Teamsters, the AFL Executive Council condoned
the Teamster raid
on the Machinists.
Five months later, Beck won approval of a significant reform of the
union's internal structure. Instead of the four divisions which
existed under Tobin,
Beck proposed 16 divisions organized around each of the major job
categories in the union's membership. Although nearly 1,000 Teamster
leaders attended
the conference in which the restructuring was debated and approved,
Tobin did not.
In 1951, Tobin's tenuous hold on the Teamsters was further exposed
when Tom Hickey, reformist leader of the Teamsters in New York City,
won election to
the executive board. Tobin had needed Beck's support to prevent
Hickey's election, and Beck refused to give it.
Presidency
On September 4, 1952, Tobin announced he would step down as president
of the Teamsters at the end of his term. But as the mid-October
Teamster convention
neared, Tobin and his supporters formed a draft movement designed to
subvert Beck's control of the delegates. Beck retaliated by publicly
supporting the
draft movement, but privately threatening to strip Tobin of his
pension and benefits should he lose an election.
At the convention which opened on October 14, the 77-year-old Tobin
was paid well to vacate the presidency. His pay was increased from
$30,000 to $50,000
and the executive board was authorized to pay him this salary for
life. Beck submitted a resolution asking Tobin to stay on as
president, but forced Tobin
to refuse. As further humiliation, Tobin nominated Beck for president.
He was elected by acclamation. Beck pushed through a number of changes
intended
to make it harder for a challenger to build the necessary majority to
unseat a president or reject his policies.
for the good of the many, or is waiting for the moment they can step
on your face in their climb to the top?
I looked up good old Dave Beck, one time president of the Teamsters
International(1952-1957). Here's some snippets that track the move
from activist to dictator.
As an aside, I remember the "takeover" of the Boeing machinists by the
Teamsters. The Machinists were effectively broken and Boeing quickly
instituted an "Open Shop" policy. The interference of the Teamsters
set the employees back many years. And later the Teamsters tried to
muscle in on the Farm Workers in California, attempting to move Caesar
Chavez out, greatly weakening that Union's effectiveness.
.
Carl Jaarvis
***
As Beck's influence rose, Tobin attempted to check his growing power but failed.
Beck was elected a vice-president of the Teamsters in 1940, and he
began to challenge Tobin for control of the union. In 1947, Beck
marshaled his forces
and defeated a proposed dues increase to fund new organizing.
In 1942, Beck began a six-year campaign to seize control of the
International Teamster newsmagazine. He ousted its editor and won the
executive board's
approval to install his own man in the job in 1948.
In 1946, Beck successfully campaigned to amend the union's
constitution to create the post of executive vice-president. He
subsequently won the 1947 election
to fill the position.
In 1948, Beck essentially supplanted Tobin as the real power in the
Teamsters union. On April 22, 1948, the
Machinists
(which was not a member of the
American Federation of Labor,
or AFL) struck
Boeing
in Seattle. On May 28, Beck announced that Teamsters would seek to
organize the workers at Boeing, and formed Aeronautical Workers and
Warehousemen Helpers
Union Local 451 to raid the Machinists. Beck and Boeing officials made
a secret agreement in which Boeing would hire members of Local
451—essentially hiring
Teamsters as scabs and strikebreakers. After as many as a third of the
Machinists had joined the Teamsters, the Machinists agreed to return
to work without
a contract. Beck's actions were nearly universally condemned by
members of the AFL Executive Council. The AFL Executive Council met in
August 1948 to take
action against Beck. The day before the meeting, Tobin privately told
associates that he would repudiate Beck. But at a secret meeting that
afternoon,
Beck and his followers on the West Coast confronted Tobin with a fait
accompli: Beck had allied with his long-time enemy Jimmy Hoffa. He now
had more than
enough votes on the Teamsters executive board to overrule Tobin if he
tried to fire Beck. At the AFL meeting the next day, Tobin was forced
to defend Beck's
actions. Unwilling to embarrass an AFL vice president and create a
confrontation with the Teamsters, the AFL Executive Council condoned
the Teamster raid
on the Machinists.
Five months later, Beck won approval of a significant reform of the
union's internal structure. Instead of the four divisions which
existed under Tobin,
Beck proposed 16 divisions organized around each of the major job
categories in the union's membership. Although nearly 1,000 Teamster
leaders attended
the conference in which the restructuring was debated and approved,
Tobin did not.
In 1951, Tobin's tenuous hold on the Teamsters was further exposed
when Tom Hickey, reformist leader of the Teamsters in New York City,
won election to
the executive board. Tobin had needed Beck's support to prevent
Hickey's election, and Beck refused to give it.
Presidency
On September 4, 1952, Tobin announced he would step down as president
of the Teamsters at the end of his term. But as the mid-October
Teamster convention
neared, Tobin and his supporters formed a draft movement designed to
subvert Beck's control of the delegates. Beck retaliated by publicly
supporting the
draft movement, but privately threatening to strip Tobin of his
pension and benefits should he lose an election.
At the convention which opened on October 14, the 77-year-old Tobin
was paid well to vacate the presidency. His pay was increased from
$30,000 to $50,000
and the executive board was authorized to pay him this salary for
life. Beck submitted a resolution asking Tobin to stay on as
president, but forced Tobin
to refuse. As further humiliation, Tobin nominated Beck for president.
He was elected by acclamation. Beck pushed through a number of changes
intended
to make it harder for a challenger to build the necessary majority to
unseat a president or reject his policies.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
Frank,
You and I are like two ships passing in the dark, in a heavy fog.
Well, either we are fogged in, or we are stubbornly refusing to give
ground. So, if winning is important to you, and it is also important
to me, just what does it mean, "To Win"? Is Clinton over Trump a win?
If so, go for it! But for me, voting for Clinton is like finding a
half eaten chicken salad sandwich in the cafes dumpster.
Maybe you can swallow it, and maybe it brings relief to your hunger
pangs, but it is very apt to come up on you later. For me, that's not
a win. I smell rancid Mayonnaise and sour Chicken on that Hillary
Sandwich. Anyway, no matter if I cast my vote for the Prince of
Wales, Hillary is going to be our next president. Four to eight more
years of Bully Boy tactics overseas, dwindling production jobs at
home, more folks disenfranchised, more bridges caving in and school
buildings crumbling, more gun murders, more demonstrations that prove
nothing, and the ongoing slavery of the lower class nonwhite folks
ensnared by our growing private prisons, and the continuous financial
entrapment of our college students.
In fact, a win by Hillary will be a hollow victory. Take a good look
at how the Republican Party has gerrymandered our state voting
districts to ensure the re-election of Republicans, despite the actual
popular vote. Congress will remain as poisoned by undemocratic
tactics regardless of who slips into the Oval Office.
And as for our supreme court? Even mild mannered, middle of the
right, prince of peace at any cost, even he can't push a stuffy judge
into the Court. Will Congress allow Hillary to select a person with
any compassion for the Working Class? Frankly Frank, the Labor
Movement has turned out to be as institutionalized as has Wall Street.
Workers can no longer depend on someone else leading the way for them.
We can talk all we want about "reforming" our current system of
undemocratic capitalism, but once dry rot has spread across the entire
foundation, all that will reform it is to tear down the building and
erect a newer, better place to live.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/28/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
> Carl, I would only agree with that if the Green party had a chance of
> winning, but as you said they don't. Other than thatwhatever vote count the
> Green party will get will be forgotten the morning after.
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:35 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Cc: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
>
> Where you and I disagree, Frank, is saying that a vote for the Green Party
> is a vote for Trump, or whoever the Republicans run up the flag pole. But
> what about saying that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for more control
> by the working class? What if such a vote is in favor of providing all
> children with a free education, as far as they can bring themselves. And
> what if we are voting *FOR a reduction in military bases around the planet,
> or a $15.00 minimum wage to be phased in within two years, or an end to
> fossil fuel subsidies? All these and more issues that neither of the
> candidates representing the Democrats or Republicans are really supporting?
> In fact, a vote for Hillary is the same as voting against Peace. A vote for
> Trump is a vote for placing the dismantling of democracy on the fast track.
> A vote for either of these two is a vote against the America we once
> believed was our, America the Beautiful, and a vote for the Values of the
> American Corporate Empire.
> Yes, a vote for Jill Stein very well could be a vote for the hope of a
> better world for the working class.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
>
> On 6/27/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>> Bob, you're not getting it. Take for example what Carl correctly said
>> about the Green party not having any chance to win. With that being
>> established as a constant what is the effect of voting for that no
>> chance party? The answer is a benefit to the GOP, as any vote against
>> their rival (DNC) is worth the same for them as a direct GOP vote
>> would, it is a number in the plus column for the GOP. Actually, I'll
>> take that a step further and go as far as to say that the GOP actually
>> *wants* us to vote for the Green party. Why you ask?
>> Simply if we vote directly for the GOP they would be forced to
>> acknowledge us. However voting for the Green party gives them that
>> plus in the win column and allows them to be dismissive of us as
>> merely a bunch of fringe radicals. As far as conscience goes, if
>> someone already is aware of that first constant we spoke about above
>> and still performs an action (voting
>> Green) that, by design, strictly benefits the GOP; then what does that
>> tell you about their conscience? You may not like it, may not
>> acknowledge it, or even be aware of it; but elections have
>> consequences. Now if my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was
>> you who, a few months back, said in reference to voting third party
>> that if "a republican gets elected then so be it". Well take a look at
>> the two supreme court cases decided today (reproductive rights and gun
>> control) and think about how the court will change with Mr. GOP in
>> office as opposed to someone else. I fully understand that voting
>> Green may feel really good on election day but try explaining that to
>> the women of Texas on January 18, 2017. As I said there is no plan B
>> morning after pill for elections and there won't be for Texas women either
>> if Mr. GOP is allowed to win.
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:42 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>> I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly. ARE you saying
>> that folks on this list such as Carl, Miriam and myself have GOP
>> leanings? ARE you saying that just because we express concerns over
>> voting for Clinton that we secretly favor the GOP or Trump? Also, are
>> you saying that voting one's conscience in 2016 is a selfish act?
>> Heck, I always thought that the point of a democracy is for every
>> citizen to vote his or her conscience. By the way, Miriam and others
>> have posted here oodles of articles critical of Trump and many other
>> Republicans.
>> I challenge you to make the case for how Miriam or any others of us on
>> this list who have reservations about Clinton are or may be closet
>> Republicans.
>> While I agree with you that I don't want to see Trump become
>> president, I believe even more strongly that we have a very badly
>> broken system and that both parties are to blame. Perhaps the
>> Republicans deserve more of the blame, but the Democrats are not
>> completely innocent. For more on the guilt of democrats and liberals
>> please do read "listen Liberal" by Thomas frank.
>> By the way, I seriously doubt that Thomas Frank is a closet Republican.
>> Bob Hachey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
You and I are like two ships passing in the dark, in a heavy fog.
Well, either we are fogged in, or we are stubbornly refusing to give
ground. So, if winning is important to you, and it is also important
to me, just what does it mean, "To Win"? Is Clinton over Trump a win?
If so, go for it! But for me, voting for Clinton is like finding a
half eaten chicken salad sandwich in the cafes dumpster.
Maybe you can swallow it, and maybe it brings relief to your hunger
pangs, but it is very apt to come up on you later. For me, that's not
a win. I smell rancid Mayonnaise and sour Chicken on that Hillary
Sandwich. Anyway, no matter if I cast my vote for the Prince of
Wales, Hillary is going to be our next president. Four to eight more
years of Bully Boy tactics overseas, dwindling production jobs at
home, more folks disenfranchised, more bridges caving in and school
buildings crumbling, more gun murders, more demonstrations that prove
nothing, and the ongoing slavery of the lower class nonwhite folks
ensnared by our growing private prisons, and the continuous financial
entrapment of our college students.
In fact, a win by Hillary will be a hollow victory. Take a good look
at how the Republican Party has gerrymandered our state voting
districts to ensure the re-election of Republicans, despite the actual
popular vote. Congress will remain as poisoned by undemocratic
tactics regardless of who slips into the Oval Office.
And as for our supreme court? Even mild mannered, middle of the
right, prince of peace at any cost, even he can't push a stuffy judge
into the Court. Will Congress allow Hillary to select a person with
any compassion for the Working Class? Frankly Frank, the Labor
Movement has turned out to be as institutionalized as has Wall Street.
Workers can no longer depend on someone else leading the way for them.
We can talk all we want about "reforming" our current system of
undemocratic capitalism, but once dry rot has spread across the entire
foundation, all that will reform it is to tear down the building and
erect a newer, better place to live.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/28/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
> Carl, I would only agree with that if the Green party had a chance of
> winning, but as you said they don't. Other than thatwhatever vote count the
> Green party will get will be forgotten the morning after.
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:35 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Cc: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
>
> Where you and I disagree, Frank, is saying that a vote for the Green Party
> is a vote for Trump, or whoever the Republicans run up the flag pole. But
> what about saying that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for more control
> by the working class? What if such a vote is in favor of providing all
> children with a free education, as far as they can bring themselves. And
> what if we are voting *FOR a reduction in military bases around the planet,
> or a $15.00 minimum wage to be phased in within two years, or an end to
> fossil fuel subsidies? All these and more issues that neither of the
> candidates representing the Democrats or Republicans are really supporting?
> In fact, a vote for Hillary is the same as voting against Peace. A vote for
> Trump is a vote for placing the dismantling of democracy on the fast track.
> A vote for either of these two is a vote against the America we once
> believed was our, America the Beautiful, and a vote for the Values of the
> American Corporate Empire.
> Yes, a vote for Jill Stein very well could be a vote for the hope of a
> better world for the working class.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
>
> On 6/27/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>> Bob, you're not getting it. Take for example what Carl correctly said
>> about the Green party not having any chance to win. With that being
>> established as a constant what is the effect of voting for that no
>> chance party? The answer is a benefit to the GOP, as any vote against
>> their rival (DNC) is worth the same for them as a direct GOP vote
>> would, it is a number in the plus column for the GOP. Actually, I'll
>> take that a step further and go as far as to say that the GOP actually
>> *wants* us to vote for the Green party. Why you ask?
>> Simply if we vote directly for the GOP they would be forced to
>> acknowledge us. However voting for the Green party gives them that
>> plus in the win column and allows them to be dismissive of us as
>> merely a bunch of fringe radicals. As far as conscience goes, if
>> someone already is aware of that first constant we spoke about above
>> and still performs an action (voting
>> Green) that, by design, strictly benefits the GOP; then what does that
>> tell you about their conscience? You may not like it, may not
>> acknowledge it, or even be aware of it; but elections have
>> consequences. Now if my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was
>> you who, a few months back, said in reference to voting third party
>> that if "a republican gets elected then so be it". Well take a look at
>> the two supreme court cases decided today (reproductive rights and gun
>> control) and think about how the court will change with Mr. GOP in
>> office as opposed to someone else. I fully understand that voting
>> Green may feel really good on election day but try explaining that to
>> the women of Texas on January 18, 2017. As I said there is no plan B
>> morning after pill for elections and there won't be for Texas women either
>> if Mr. GOP is allowed to win.
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:42 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>> I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly. ARE you saying
>> that folks on this list such as Carl, Miriam and myself have GOP
>> leanings? ARE you saying that just because we express concerns over
>> voting for Clinton that we secretly favor the GOP or Trump? Also, are
>> you saying that voting one's conscience in 2016 is a selfish act?
>> Heck, I always thought that the point of a democracy is for every
>> citizen to vote his or her conscience. By the way, Miriam and others
>> have posted here oodles of articles critical of Trump and many other
>> Republicans.
>> I challenge you to make the case for how Miriam or any others of us on
>> this list who have reservations about Clinton are or may be closet
>> Republicans.
>> While I agree with you that I don't want to see Trump become
>> president, I believe even more strongly that we have a very badly
>> broken system and that both parties are to blame. Perhaps the
>> Republicans deserve more of the blame, but the Democrats are not
>> completely innocent. For more on the guilt of democrats and liberals
>> please do read "listen Liberal" by Thomas frank.
>> By the way, I seriously doubt that Thomas Frank is a closet Republican.
>> Bob Hachey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
Frank,
You and I are like two ships passing in the dark, in a heavy fog.
Well, either we are fogged in, or we are stubbornly refusing to give
ground. So, if winning is important to you, and it is also important
to me, just what does it mean, "To Win"? Is Clinton over Trump a win?
If so, go for it! But for me, voting for Clinton is like finding a
half eaten chicken salad sandwich in the cafes dumpster.
Maybe you can swallow it, and maybe it brings relief to your hunger
pangs, but it is very apt to come up on you later. For me, that's not
a win. I smell rancid Mayonnaise and sour Chicken on that Hillary
Sandwich. Anyway, no matter if I cast my vote for the Prince of
Wales, Hillary is going to be our next president. Four to eight more
years of Bully Boy tactics overseas, dwindling production jobs at
home, more folks disenfranchised, more bridges caving in and school
buildings crumbling, more gun murders, more demonstrations that prove
nothing, and the ongoing slavery of the lower class nonwhite folks
ensnared by our growing private prisons, and the continuous financial
entrapment of our college students.
In fact, a win by Hillary will be a hollow victory. Take a good look
at how the Republican Party has gerrymandered our state voting
districts to ensure the re-election of Republicans, despite the actual
popular vote. Congress will remain as poisoned by undemocratic
tactics regardless of who slips into the Oval Office.
And as for our supreme court? Even mild mannered, middle of the
right, prince of peace at any cost, even he can't push a stuffy judge
into the Court. Will Congress allow Hillary to select a person with
any compassion for the Working Class? Frankly Frank, the Labor
Movement has turned out to be as institutionalized as has Wall Street.
Workers can no longer depend on someone else leading the way for them.
We can talk all we want about "reforming" our current system of
undemocratic capitalism, but once dry rot has spread across the entire
foundation, all that will reform it is to tear down the building and
erect a newer, better place to live.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/28/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
> Carl, I would only agree with that if the Green party had a chance of
> winning, but as you said they don't. Other than thatwhatever vote count the
> Green party will get will be forgotten the morning after.
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:35 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Cc: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
>
> Where you and I disagree, Frank, is saying that a vote for the Green Party
> is a vote for Trump, or whoever the Republicans run up the flag pole. But
> what about saying that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for more control
> by the working class? What if such a vote is in favor of providing all
> children with a free education, as far as they can bring themselves. And
> what if we are voting *FOR a reduction in military bases around the planet,
> or a $15.00 minimum wage to be phased in within two years, or an end to
> fossil fuel subsidies? All these and more issues that neither of the
> candidates representing the Democrats or Republicans are really supporting?
> In fact, a vote for Hillary is the same as voting against Peace. A vote for
> Trump is a vote for placing the dismantling of democracy on the fast track.
> A vote for either of these two is a vote against the America we once
> believed was our, America the Beautiful, and a vote for the Values of the
> American Corporate Empire.
> Yes, a vote for Jill Stein very well could be a vote for the hope of a
> better world for the working class.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
>
> On 6/27/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>> Bob, you're not getting it. Take for example what Carl correctly said
>> about the Green party not having any chance to win. With that being
>> established as a constant what is the effect of voting for that no
>> chance party? The answer is a benefit to the GOP, as any vote against
>> their rival (DNC) is worth the same for them as a direct GOP vote
>> would, it is a number in the plus column for the GOP. Actually, I'll
>> take that a step further and go as far as to say that the GOP actually
>> *wants* us to vote for the Green party. Why you ask?
>> Simply if we vote directly for the GOP they would be forced to
>> acknowledge us. However voting for the Green party gives them that
>> plus in the win column and allows them to be dismissive of us as
>> merely a bunch of fringe radicals. As far as conscience goes, if
>> someone already is aware of that first constant we spoke about above
>> and still performs an action (voting
>> Green) that, by design, strictly benefits the GOP; then what does that
>> tell you about their conscience? You may not like it, may not
>> acknowledge it, or even be aware of it; but elections have
>> consequences. Now if my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was
>> you who, a few months back, said in reference to voting third party
>> that if "a republican gets elected then so be it". Well take a look at
>> the two supreme court cases decided today (reproductive rights and gun
>> control) and think about how the court will change with Mr. GOP in
>> office as opposed to someone else. I fully understand that voting
>> Green may feel really good on election day but try explaining that to
>> the women of Texas on January 18, 2017. As I said there is no plan B
>> morning after pill for elections and there won't be for Texas women either
>> if Mr. GOP is allowed to win.
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:42 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>> I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly. ARE you saying
>> that folks on this list such as Carl, Miriam and myself have GOP
>> leanings? ARE you saying that just because we express concerns over
>> voting for Clinton that we secretly favor the GOP or Trump? Also, are
>> you saying that voting one's conscience in 2016 is a selfish act?
>> Heck, I always thought that the point of a democracy is for every
>> citizen to vote his or her conscience. By the way, Miriam and others
>> have posted here oodles of articles critical of Trump and many other
>> Republicans.
>> I challenge you to make the case for how Miriam or any others of us on
>> this list who have reservations about Clinton are or may be closet
>> Republicans.
>> While I agree with you that I don't want to see Trump become
>> president, I believe even more strongly that we have a very badly
>> broken system and that both parties are to blame. Perhaps the
>> Republicans deserve more of the blame, but the Democrats are not
>> completely innocent. For more on the guilt of democrats and liberals
>> please do read "listen Liberal" by Thomas frank.
>> By the way, I seriously doubt that Thomas Frank is a closet Republican.
>> Bob Hachey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
You and I are like two ships passing in the dark, in a heavy fog.
Well, either we are fogged in, or we are stubbornly refusing to give
ground. So, if winning is important to you, and it is also important
to me, just what does it mean, "To Win"? Is Clinton over Trump a win?
If so, go for it! But for me, voting for Clinton is like finding a
half eaten chicken salad sandwich in the cafes dumpster.
Maybe you can swallow it, and maybe it brings relief to your hunger
pangs, but it is very apt to come up on you later. For me, that's not
a win. I smell rancid Mayonnaise and sour Chicken on that Hillary
Sandwich. Anyway, no matter if I cast my vote for the Prince of
Wales, Hillary is going to be our next president. Four to eight more
years of Bully Boy tactics overseas, dwindling production jobs at
home, more folks disenfranchised, more bridges caving in and school
buildings crumbling, more gun murders, more demonstrations that prove
nothing, and the ongoing slavery of the lower class nonwhite folks
ensnared by our growing private prisons, and the continuous financial
entrapment of our college students.
In fact, a win by Hillary will be a hollow victory. Take a good look
at how the Republican Party has gerrymandered our state voting
districts to ensure the re-election of Republicans, despite the actual
popular vote. Congress will remain as poisoned by undemocratic
tactics regardless of who slips into the Oval Office.
And as for our supreme court? Even mild mannered, middle of the
right, prince of peace at any cost, even he can't push a stuffy judge
into the Court. Will Congress allow Hillary to select a person with
any compassion for the Working Class? Frankly Frank, the Labor
Movement has turned out to be as institutionalized as has Wall Street.
Workers can no longer depend on someone else leading the way for them.
We can talk all we want about "reforming" our current system of
undemocratic capitalism, but once dry rot has spread across the entire
foundation, all that will reform it is to tear down the building and
erect a newer, better place to live.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/28/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
> Carl, I would only agree with that if the Green party had a chance of
> winning, but as you said they don't. Other than thatwhatever vote count the
> Green party will get will be forgotten the morning after.
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:35 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Cc: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
>
> Where you and I disagree, Frank, is saying that a vote for the Green Party
> is a vote for Trump, or whoever the Republicans run up the flag pole. But
> what about saying that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for more control
> by the working class? What if such a vote is in favor of providing all
> children with a free education, as far as they can bring themselves. And
> what if we are voting *FOR a reduction in military bases around the planet,
> or a $15.00 minimum wage to be phased in within two years, or an end to
> fossil fuel subsidies? All these and more issues that neither of the
> candidates representing the Democrats or Republicans are really supporting?
> In fact, a vote for Hillary is the same as voting against Peace. A vote for
> Trump is a vote for placing the dismantling of democracy on the fast track.
> A vote for either of these two is a vote against the America we once
> believed was our, America the Beautiful, and a vote for the Values of the
> American Corporate Empire.
> Yes, a vote for Jill Stein very well could be a vote for the hope of a
> better world for the working class.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
>
> On 6/27/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>> Bob, you're not getting it. Take for example what Carl correctly said
>> about the Green party not having any chance to win. With that being
>> established as a constant what is the effect of voting for that no
>> chance party? The answer is a benefit to the GOP, as any vote against
>> their rival (DNC) is worth the same for them as a direct GOP vote
>> would, it is a number in the plus column for the GOP. Actually, I'll
>> take that a step further and go as far as to say that the GOP actually
>> *wants* us to vote for the Green party. Why you ask?
>> Simply if we vote directly for the GOP they would be forced to
>> acknowledge us. However voting for the Green party gives them that
>> plus in the win column and allows them to be dismissive of us as
>> merely a bunch of fringe radicals. As far as conscience goes, if
>> someone already is aware of that first constant we spoke about above
>> and still performs an action (voting
>> Green) that, by design, strictly benefits the GOP; then what does that
>> tell you about their conscience? You may not like it, may not
>> acknowledge it, or even be aware of it; but elections have
>> consequences. Now if my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was
>> you who, a few months back, said in reference to voting third party
>> that if "a republican gets elected then so be it". Well take a look at
>> the two supreme court cases decided today (reproductive rights and gun
>> control) and think about how the court will change with Mr. GOP in
>> office as opposed to someone else. I fully understand that voting
>> Green may feel really good on election day but try explaining that to
>> the women of Texas on January 18, 2017. As I said there is no plan B
>> morning after pill for elections and there won't be for Texas women either
>> if Mr. GOP is allowed to win.
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:42 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CBS this morning
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>> I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly. ARE you saying
>> that folks on this list such as Carl, Miriam and myself have GOP
>> leanings? ARE you saying that just because we express concerns over
>> voting for Clinton that we secretly favor the GOP or Trump? Also, are
>> you saying that voting one's conscience in 2016 is a selfish act?
>> Heck, I always thought that the point of a democracy is for every
>> citizen to vote his or her conscience. By the way, Miriam and others
>> have posted here oodles of articles critical of Trump and many other
>> Republicans.
>> I challenge you to make the case for how Miriam or any others of us on
>> this list who have reservations about Clinton are or may be closet
>> Republicans.
>> While I agree with you that I don't want to see Trump become
>> president, I believe even more strongly that we have a very badly
>> broken system and that both parties are to blame. Perhaps the
>> Republicans deserve more of the blame, but the Democrats are not
>> completely innocent. For more on the guilt of democrats and liberals
>> please do read "listen Liberal" by Thomas frank.
>> By the way, I seriously doubt that Thomas Frank is a closet Republican.
>> Bob Hachey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Monday, June 27, 2016
Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
How do I get in on a deal like this? Wall Street Bankers gamble with
our money...and we lose our shirts. Then the Wall Street Bankers buy
new shirts, send us the bill and put the shirts on themselves.
I guess we must like this deal, otherwise you'd think we'd be raising
all sorts of Hell.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/27/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Nice platform. The summary of Hillary's speech is distressing, to say the
> least.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
> Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the
> fight for socialism
>
> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/24/clin-j24.html
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
> By Jerry White—SEP candidate for US president
> 24 June 2016
>
> Wednesday's speech by Hillary Clinton in Raleigh, North Carolina makes it
> clear the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential candidate, if elected
> in November, would escalate the anti-worker economic agenda of the Obama
> administration that has already created the greatest levels of social
> inequality in modern American history.
>
> Since clinching the nomination, Clinton has sought to assure both Wall
> Street and the military intelligence apparatus that she would be a far
> better steward of the domestic and foreign interests of American capitalism
> than her Republican opponent Donald Trump. She reiterated Wednesday that
> Trump would "run up our debt and cause another economic crash."
>
> Clinton has already lined up the support of billionaires Warren Buffett and
> George Soros and a list of former executives from some of corporate
> America's largest companies, including General Motors, Delta Air Lines,
> Costco and Alphabet, the parent company for online search giant Google.
> She also has received far greater backing from Wall Street than Trump.
>
> Well aware that the seething social discontent in America prohibits her
> from
> simply repeating President Obama's absurd claims that life has never been
> so
> good, Clinton sought to cover her right-wing economic proposals with
> rhetoric about economic inequality, largely borrowed from the campaign of
> Bernie Sanders.
>
> She referred to stagnant and falling real wages, long-term joblessness, the
> crushing debt burden students face and the nation's decaying schools and
> infrastructure without mentioning that Obama, with her full support, had
> overseen this state of affairs for the last seven-and-a-half years.
>
> Clinton gave the novel explanation that well-meaning business leaders and
> politicians from both parties—"whose sincerity I do not doubt"—were simply
> misguided. "Too many leaders in business and government have lost sight of
> our shared responsibility to each other and to our nation. And they let
> Wall
> Street take big risks with unregulated financial activities."
>
> She failed to mention that it was her husband Bill Clinton's administration
> that abolished the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and deregulated the
> financial industry, spurring one financial bubble after the other,
> culminating in the 2008 crash and the social catastrophe that followed. For
> their services, both Clintons have been handsomely rewarded.
>
> "We need to make sure our economy works for everyone not just for the rich
> or the well-connected," Clinton preached with a straight face.
>
> At the same time, Clinton reiterated Obama's nostrum that those without
> work
> or serious prospects for a future were largely at fault because they were
> not keeping up with technological advances. "The old model of work where
> you
> could expect to hold a steady job with good benefits for an entire career
> is
> long gone." She praised the "flexibility" of the new jobs that have been
> created—largely part-time, low-paid and so-called independent
> contractors—suggesting that 401(k)s and health benefits should be
> "portable"
> from one job to another.
>
> So what does Clinton propose?
>
> 1. "We need to slash unnecessary regulations…Let's free entrepreneurs to do
> what they do best: innovate, grow and hire…they need to be free from red
> tape."
>
> Translation: More tax cuts, deregulation and government payouts to large
> corporations and start-up companies.
>
> 2. "Establish an infrastructure bank that will bring private sector dollars
> off the sidelines and put them to work here."
>
> Translation: Instead of a public works programs, Clinton proposes more
> "public-private partnerships" aimed at handing over public assets to
> profit-making companies. This would accelerate the contracting out of
> good-paying jobs and continue the slashing of public sector jobs, which
> fell
> by more than 600,000 under Obama.
>
> 3. "I want to expand incentives like the new market's tax credit,
> empowerment zones and other ideas that bring business, government and
> communities together to create good jobs in poor or remote areas. Places
> that have lost a factory or a mine, where generations of families used to
> work."
>
> Translation: Companies will be given waivers from federal job safety,
> environmental and wage and hour laws in order to entice US and
> international
> corporations to exploit economic desperation in areas already ravaged by
> deindustrialization.
>
> 4. "Rewrite the rules, so more companies share profits with employees and
> fewer shift profits and jobs overseas."
>
> Translation: Boost the efforts of the trade union bureaucracy to push
> so-called profit-sharing schemes, in lieu of wage increases. These hold
> workers' livelihoods hostage to economic crisis and the shortsighted and
> even criminal business decisions of the corporate bosses, over which
> workers
> have no control.
>
> 5. " Let's liberate the millions of Americans who already have student debt
> by making it easier to refinance, just like a mortgage. Let's make it
> easier
> to have debt forgiven by doing national service."
>
> Translation: There will be no amelioration of the crushing levels of
> student
> debt. Instead, students will be able to be subject to the same predatory
> schemes that mortgage companies used in the run-up to the housing market
> crash in 2007-08. Heavily indebted students should be turned into
> indentured
> servants and forced to do "national service,"
> which most ominously could include, if the Pentagon needs more manpower,
> going off to fight America's imperialist wars.
>
> Clinton made sure to pay tribute to the trade unions—which have
> collaborated
> in the slashing of wages and shifting of health care and pension costs from
> the employers to workers, while reducing strikes to the lowest level since
> World War II. Saying "I believe we should strengthen unions," she assured
> the labor bureaucracy that their financial interests would be protected
> under a Clinton administration, which would provide government funding to
> union apprenticeship programs and facilitate the investment of union
> pension
> funds in infrastructure and commercial development projects.
>
> In a nod to the AFL-CIO, Clinton endorsed the economic nationalism promoted
> by the unions, which has long been used to divide American workers from
> their brothers and sisters internationally, subordinate them to the profit
> interests of their "own" capitalists, and pave the way for trade war and
> militarism. Earlier in the week, she denounced Trump for using Chinese
> labor
> to produce his brand name suits and ties.
>
> Well aware that the millions of workers and young people who voted for
> Sanders largely hate her pro-business policies and record, Clinton urged
> young people in particular not to "grow weary" with their miserable
> situation. "There are great ideas out there," she said pathetically, "we
> are
> going to be partners in a big bold effort to increase economic growth and
> distribute it more fairly."
>
> As the Socialist Equality Party's candidate for US president, I reject the
> right-wing economic policies advanced by Clinton, which are dictated
> entirely by the profit needs of American capitalism. The working class in
> the US and around the world did not create the global economic crisis and
> must not pay for it!
>
> The SEP calls for a vast redistribution of wealth to secure basic social
> rights, including the right to a decent-paying job, quality education,
> affordable housing, universal health care, a dignified retirement and
> access
> to leisure time and culture.
>
> The SEP advances a program not for the improvement of capitalism, but for
> the establishment of socialism. The social rights of the working class
> cannot be secured without a direct attack on the interests of the
> capitalist
> class and the domination of the financial aristocracy over economic life.
>
> This means an end to the private ownership of the large corporations, with
> all those valued above $10 billion transformed into publicly owned
> enterprises under the democratic control of the working class. To provide
> quality jobs to all those who need them, the SEP calls for a
> multi-trillion-dollar public works program to rebuild infrastructure
> throughout the country.
>
> We furthermore call for an end to the squandering of trillions of dollars
> on
> weaponry to conquer and oppress workers in other countries.
> Instead, trillions should be poured into social needs, to hire millions of
> doctors, nurses, teachers, construction workers and others to raise the
> material and cultural level of the population and put an end to poverty and
> want forever.
>
> Regardless of who is elected in November, whether it is Trump or Clinton,
> the ruling class is preparing to escalate the assault on the working class.
> I call on all workers and young people to prepare for the struggles to come
> by supporting our campaign and joining the Socialist Equality Party.
>
>
>
> Sign up for the latest news from the SEP Election Campaign
>
> To receive the SEP Election email newsletter, including the latest news,
> videos and statements from the campaign, sign up here.
>
>
> Share this article:
>
> Facebook
>
>
> Twitter
>
>
> Digg
>
>
> Reddit
>
>
> Delicious
>
>
> StumbleUpon
>
>
> Blogger
>
>
> E-Mail
>
>
>
>
>
> Commenting Discussion Rules »
>
>
>
>
>
>
> New Today
>
> After Brexit, mounting warnings of global slump and financial panic
>
>
> The way forward after the Brexit referendum
>
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Amid mass abstention, right-wing PP wins Spanish elections
>
>
> Taiwanese airline cabin crews strike
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> The 2016 SEP US Election Campaign
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party election campaign: Naomi Spencer for West
> Virginia House of Delegates, 16th District!
>
>
> Video: The demise of Sanders' "political revolution"
>
>
> The working class must stop the Carrier factory closures!
>
>
> Hillary Clinton and the "Spirit of 9/12"
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> The 2016 US Elections
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Bernie Sanders confirms he will vote for Clinton
>
>
> Congressional Democrats stage "sit-in" stunt on gun control
>
>
> Mideast war architects back Clinton over Trump
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> US Politics
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Divided Supreme Court rejects challenge to affirmative action
>
>
> Bernie Sanders confirms he will vote for Clinton
>
>
> Congressional Democrats stage "sit-in" stunt on gun control
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> Mehring Books
>
> The Truth Behind the Bankruptcy of Detroit
>
> undefined
>
> By the Socialist Equality Party
>
>
>
> Get Involved!
>
> Donate to the WSWS
>
>
> About the ICFI
>
>
> Join the IYSSE
>
>
> Join the SEP
>
>
>
> Socialist Equality Parties United States Germany Australia United
> Kingdom Sri Lanka Canada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow the WSWS
>
> Facebook
>
>
> Twitter
>
>
> Youtube
>
>
> RSS Feed
>
>
> Daily Podcast
>
>
> WSWS Newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Political Lessons of Syriza's Betrayal in Greece
>
>
> Socialism and the Struggle Against War
>
>
> The political struggle against war and the tasks of the Socialist
> Equality Party (Sri Lanka)
>
>
> The IYSSE's campaign against war and historical falsification at
> Humboldt University
>
>
> The return of German militarism and the tasks of the Partei für Soziale
> Gleichheit
>
>
> The Fight Against War and the Political Tasks of the Socialist Equality
> Party
>
>
> Capitalist breakdown and the drive to war
>
>
> Seventy-five years since the outbreak of World War II
>
>
> Oppose the Israeli invasion of Gaza
>
>
> Who is responsible for the catastrophes in the Middle East?
>
>
> One hundred years since Sarajevo
>
>
> Australian imperialism and the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia"
>
>
> Does Washington want war with Russia?
>
>
> More on imperialism and war »
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Seventy-five years since the assassination of Leon Trotsky
>
>
> Why and how the GPU murdered Trotsky
> --An interview with David North
>
>
> Socialism and historical truth
> --A lecture delivered by David North at the Leipzig Book Fair
>
>
> The IYSSE's campaign against war and historical falsification at
> Humboldt University
>
>
> Berlin IYSSE protests Professor Jörg Baberowski's suppression of
> democratic discussion at Humboldt University
>
>
> Appearance of Robert Service in Berlin ends in fiasco
>
>
> The philosophical and political foundations of historical falsification
>
>
> Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth
> Lecture by David North
>
>
> More on Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth »
>
>
> SEP/ICFI
>
> Four-part series from Sri Lanka: The LSSP's Great Betrayal
>
>
> Resolutions of the SEP (US) Third National Congress
>
>
> 2014 International May Day Rally
>
>
> Resolutions of the Second National Congress of the SEP (US)
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party (Australia) holds Second National Congress
>
>
> The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality
> Party (Sri Lanka)
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party (UK) holds First National Congress
>
>
> The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality
> Party (Britain)
>
>
> The Historical Fondations of the Partei für Soziale Gleichheit (SEP
> Germany)
>
>
> Report to the Second National Congress of the Socialist Equality Party
> by David North
>
>
> more ICFI documents »
>
> Fund
>
> DVD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lectures and Reports
>
> A tribute to Dave Hyland
>
>
> US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria
>
>
> Seventy-five years of the Fourth International
>
>
> Twenty years since the dissolution of the USSR
> The capitalist crisis and the radicalization of the working class in 2012
>
>
> 25 years since Keerthi Balasuriya's death
> South Asia's foremost Marxist of the second half of the 20th century
> by Wije Dias
>
>
> The enduring significance of the life and work of Comrade Keerthi
> Balasuriya
>
>
> In Memory of Keerthi Balasuriya
> by David North
>
>
> more documents »
> .
>
> About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
>
> Copyright © 1998-2016 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserve
>
>
>
>
our money...and we lose our shirts. Then the Wall Street Bankers buy
new shirts, send us the bill and put the shirts on themselves.
I guess we must like this deal, otherwise you'd think we'd be raising
all sorts of Hell.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/27/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Nice platform. The summary of Hillary's speech is distressing, to say the
> least.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
> Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the
> fight for socialism
>
> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/24/clin-j24.html
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
> By Jerry White—SEP candidate for US president
> 24 June 2016
>
> Wednesday's speech by Hillary Clinton in Raleigh, North Carolina makes it
> clear the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential candidate, if elected
> in November, would escalate the anti-worker economic agenda of the Obama
> administration that has already created the greatest levels of social
> inequality in modern American history.
>
> Since clinching the nomination, Clinton has sought to assure both Wall
> Street and the military intelligence apparatus that she would be a far
> better steward of the domestic and foreign interests of American capitalism
> than her Republican opponent Donald Trump. She reiterated Wednesday that
> Trump would "run up our debt and cause another economic crash."
>
> Clinton has already lined up the support of billionaires Warren Buffett and
> George Soros and a list of former executives from some of corporate
> America's largest companies, including General Motors, Delta Air Lines,
> Costco and Alphabet, the parent company for online search giant Google.
> She also has received far greater backing from Wall Street than Trump.
>
> Well aware that the seething social discontent in America prohibits her
> from
> simply repeating President Obama's absurd claims that life has never been
> so
> good, Clinton sought to cover her right-wing economic proposals with
> rhetoric about economic inequality, largely borrowed from the campaign of
> Bernie Sanders.
>
> She referred to stagnant and falling real wages, long-term joblessness, the
> crushing debt burden students face and the nation's decaying schools and
> infrastructure without mentioning that Obama, with her full support, had
> overseen this state of affairs for the last seven-and-a-half years.
>
> Clinton gave the novel explanation that well-meaning business leaders and
> politicians from both parties—"whose sincerity I do not doubt"—were simply
> misguided. "Too many leaders in business and government have lost sight of
> our shared responsibility to each other and to our nation. And they let
> Wall
> Street take big risks with unregulated financial activities."
>
> She failed to mention that it was her husband Bill Clinton's administration
> that abolished the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and deregulated the
> financial industry, spurring one financial bubble after the other,
> culminating in the 2008 crash and the social catastrophe that followed. For
> their services, both Clintons have been handsomely rewarded.
>
> "We need to make sure our economy works for everyone not just for the rich
> or the well-connected," Clinton preached with a straight face.
>
> At the same time, Clinton reiterated Obama's nostrum that those without
> work
> or serious prospects for a future were largely at fault because they were
> not keeping up with technological advances. "The old model of work where
> you
> could expect to hold a steady job with good benefits for an entire career
> is
> long gone." She praised the "flexibility" of the new jobs that have been
> created—largely part-time, low-paid and so-called independent
> contractors—suggesting that 401(k)s and health benefits should be
> "portable"
> from one job to another.
>
> So what does Clinton propose?
>
> 1. "We need to slash unnecessary regulations…Let's free entrepreneurs to do
> what they do best: innovate, grow and hire…they need to be free from red
> tape."
>
> Translation: More tax cuts, deregulation and government payouts to large
> corporations and start-up companies.
>
> 2. "Establish an infrastructure bank that will bring private sector dollars
> off the sidelines and put them to work here."
>
> Translation: Instead of a public works programs, Clinton proposes more
> "public-private partnerships" aimed at handing over public assets to
> profit-making companies. This would accelerate the contracting out of
> good-paying jobs and continue the slashing of public sector jobs, which
> fell
> by more than 600,000 under Obama.
>
> 3. "I want to expand incentives like the new market's tax credit,
> empowerment zones and other ideas that bring business, government and
> communities together to create good jobs in poor or remote areas. Places
> that have lost a factory or a mine, where generations of families used to
> work."
>
> Translation: Companies will be given waivers from federal job safety,
> environmental and wage and hour laws in order to entice US and
> international
> corporations to exploit economic desperation in areas already ravaged by
> deindustrialization.
>
> 4. "Rewrite the rules, so more companies share profits with employees and
> fewer shift profits and jobs overseas."
>
> Translation: Boost the efforts of the trade union bureaucracy to push
> so-called profit-sharing schemes, in lieu of wage increases. These hold
> workers' livelihoods hostage to economic crisis and the shortsighted and
> even criminal business decisions of the corporate bosses, over which
> workers
> have no control.
>
> 5. " Let's liberate the millions of Americans who already have student debt
> by making it easier to refinance, just like a mortgage. Let's make it
> easier
> to have debt forgiven by doing national service."
>
> Translation: There will be no amelioration of the crushing levels of
> student
> debt. Instead, students will be able to be subject to the same predatory
> schemes that mortgage companies used in the run-up to the housing market
> crash in 2007-08. Heavily indebted students should be turned into
> indentured
> servants and forced to do "national service,"
> which most ominously could include, if the Pentagon needs more manpower,
> going off to fight America's imperialist wars.
>
> Clinton made sure to pay tribute to the trade unions—which have
> collaborated
> in the slashing of wages and shifting of health care and pension costs from
> the employers to workers, while reducing strikes to the lowest level since
> World War II. Saying "I believe we should strengthen unions," she assured
> the labor bureaucracy that their financial interests would be protected
> under a Clinton administration, which would provide government funding to
> union apprenticeship programs and facilitate the investment of union
> pension
> funds in infrastructure and commercial development projects.
>
> In a nod to the AFL-CIO, Clinton endorsed the economic nationalism promoted
> by the unions, which has long been used to divide American workers from
> their brothers and sisters internationally, subordinate them to the profit
> interests of their "own" capitalists, and pave the way for trade war and
> militarism. Earlier in the week, she denounced Trump for using Chinese
> labor
> to produce his brand name suits and ties.
>
> Well aware that the millions of workers and young people who voted for
> Sanders largely hate her pro-business policies and record, Clinton urged
> young people in particular not to "grow weary" with their miserable
> situation. "There are great ideas out there," she said pathetically, "we
> are
> going to be partners in a big bold effort to increase economic growth and
> distribute it more fairly."
>
> As the Socialist Equality Party's candidate for US president, I reject the
> right-wing economic policies advanced by Clinton, which are dictated
> entirely by the profit needs of American capitalism. The working class in
> the US and around the world did not create the global economic crisis and
> must not pay for it!
>
> The SEP calls for a vast redistribution of wealth to secure basic social
> rights, including the right to a decent-paying job, quality education,
> affordable housing, universal health care, a dignified retirement and
> access
> to leisure time and culture.
>
> The SEP advances a program not for the improvement of capitalism, but for
> the establishment of socialism. The social rights of the working class
> cannot be secured without a direct attack on the interests of the
> capitalist
> class and the domination of the financial aristocracy over economic life.
>
> This means an end to the private ownership of the large corporations, with
> all those valued above $10 billion transformed into publicly owned
> enterprises under the democratic control of the working class. To provide
> quality jobs to all those who need them, the SEP calls for a
> multi-trillion-dollar public works program to rebuild infrastructure
> throughout the country.
>
> We furthermore call for an end to the squandering of trillions of dollars
> on
> weaponry to conquer and oppress workers in other countries.
> Instead, trillions should be poured into social needs, to hire millions of
> doctors, nurses, teachers, construction workers and others to raise the
> material and cultural level of the population and put an end to poverty and
> want forever.
>
> Regardless of who is elected in November, whether it is Trump or Clinton,
> the ruling class is preparing to escalate the assault on the working class.
> I call on all workers and young people to prepare for the struggles to come
> by supporting our campaign and joining the Socialist Equality Party.
>
>
>
> Sign up for the latest news from the SEP Election Campaign
>
> To receive the SEP Election email newsletter, including the latest news,
> videos and statements from the campaign, sign up here.
>
>
> Share this article:
>
>
>
>
>
> Digg
>
>
>
>
> Delicious
>
>
> StumbleUpon
>
>
> Blogger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Commenting Discussion Rules »
>
>
>
>
>
>
> New Today
>
> After Brexit, mounting warnings of global slump and financial panic
>
>
> The way forward after the Brexit referendum
>
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Amid mass abstention, right-wing PP wins Spanish elections
>
>
> Taiwanese airline cabin crews strike
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> The 2016 SEP US Election Campaign
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party election campaign: Naomi Spencer for West
> Virginia House of Delegates, 16th District!
>
>
> Video: The demise of Sanders' "political revolution"
>
>
> The working class must stop the Carrier factory closures!
>
>
> Hillary Clinton and the "Spirit of 9/12"
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> The 2016 US Elections
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Bernie Sanders confirms he will vote for Clinton
>
>
> Congressional Democrats stage "sit-in" stunt on gun control
>
>
> Mideast war architects back Clinton over Trump
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> US Politics
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Divided Supreme Court rejects challenge to affirmative action
>
>
> Bernie Sanders confirms he will vote for Clinton
>
>
> Congressional Democrats stage "sit-in" stunt on gun control
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> Mehring Books
>
> The Truth Behind the Bankruptcy of Detroit
>
> undefined
>
> By the Socialist Equality Party
>
>
>
> Get Involved!
>
> Donate to the WSWS
>
>
> About the ICFI
>
>
> Join the IYSSE
>
>
> Join the SEP
>
>
>
> Socialist Equality Parties United States Germany Australia United
> Kingdom Sri Lanka Canada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow the WSWS
>
>
>
>
>
> Youtube
>
>
> RSS Feed
>
>
> Daily Podcast
>
>
> WSWS Newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Political Lessons of Syriza's Betrayal in Greece
>
>
> Socialism and the Struggle Against War
>
>
> The political struggle against war and the tasks of the Socialist
> Equality Party (Sri Lanka)
>
>
> The IYSSE's campaign against war and historical falsification at
> Humboldt University
>
>
> The return of German militarism and the tasks of the Partei für Soziale
> Gleichheit
>
>
> The Fight Against War and the Political Tasks of the Socialist Equality
> Party
>
>
> Capitalist breakdown and the drive to war
>
>
> Seventy-five years since the outbreak of World War II
>
>
> Oppose the Israeli invasion of Gaza
>
>
> Who is responsible for the catastrophes in the Middle East?
>
>
> One hundred years since Sarajevo
>
>
> Australian imperialism and the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia"
>
>
> Does Washington want war with Russia?
>
>
> More on imperialism and war »
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Seventy-five years since the assassination of Leon Trotsky
>
>
> Why and how the GPU murdered Trotsky
> --An interview with David North
>
>
> Socialism and historical truth
> --A lecture delivered by David North at the Leipzig Book Fair
>
>
> The IYSSE's campaign against war and historical falsification at
> Humboldt University
>
>
> Berlin IYSSE protests Professor Jörg Baberowski's suppression of
> democratic discussion at Humboldt University
>
>
> Appearance of Robert Service in Berlin ends in fiasco
>
>
> The philosophical and political foundations of historical falsification
>
>
> Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth
> Lecture by David North
>
>
> More on Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth »
>
>
> SEP/ICFI
>
> Four-part series from Sri Lanka: The LSSP's Great Betrayal
>
>
> Resolutions of the SEP (US) Third National Congress
>
>
> 2014 International May Day Rally
>
>
> Resolutions of the Second National Congress of the SEP (US)
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party (Australia) holds Second National Congress
>
>
> The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality
> Party (Sri Lanka)
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party (UK) holds First National Congress
>
>
> The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality
> Party (Britain)
>
>
> The Historical Fondations of the Partei für Soziale Gleichheit (SEP
> Germany)
>
>
> Report to the Second National Congress of the Socialist Equality Party
> by David North
>
>
> more ICFI documents »
>
> Fund
>
> DVD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lectures and Reports
>
> A tribute to Dave Hyland
>
>
> US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria
>
>
> Seventy-five years of the Fourth International
>
>
> Twenty years since the dissolution of the USSR
> The capitalist crisis and the radicalization of the working class in 2012
>
>
> 25 years since Keerthi Balasuriya's death
> South Asia's foremost Marxist of the second half of the 20th century
> by Wije Dias
>
>
> The enduring significance of the life and work of Comrade Keerthi
> Balasuriya
>
>
> In Memory of Keerthi Balasuriya
> by David North
>
>
> more documents »
> .
>
> About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
>
> Copyright © 1998-2016 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserve
>
>
>
>
Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
How do I get in on a deal like this? Wall Street Bankers gamble with
our money...and we lose our shirts. Then the Wall Street Bankers buy
new shirts, send us the bill and put the shirts on themselves.
I guess we must like this deal, otherwise you'd think we'd be raising
all sorts of Hell.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/27/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Nice platform. The summary of Hillary's speech is distressing, to say the
> least.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
> Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the
> fight for socialism
>
> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/24/clin-j24.html
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
> By Jerry White—SEP candidate for US president
> 24 June 2016
>
> Wednesday's speech by Hillary Clinton in Raleigh, North Carolina makes it
> clear the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential candidate, if elected
> in November, would escalate the anti-worker economic agenda of the Obama
> administration that has already created the greatest levels of social
> inequality in modern American history.
>
> Since clinching the nomination, Clinton has sought to assure both Wall
> Street and the military intelligence apparatus that she would be a far
> better steward of the domestic and foreign interests of American capitalism
> than her Republican opponent Donald Trump. She reiterated Wednesday that
> Trump would "run up our debt and cause another economic crash."
>
> Clinton has already lined up the support of billionaires Warren Buffett and
> George Soros and a list of former executives from some of corporate
> America's largest companies, including General Motors, Delta Air Lines,
> Costco and Alphabet, the parent company for online search giant Google.
> She also has received far greater backing from Wall Street than Trump.
>
> Well aware that the seething social discontent in America prohibits her
> from
> simply repeating President Obama's absurd claims that life has never been
> so
> good, Clinton sought to cover her right-wing economic proposals with
> rhetoric about economic inequality, largely borrowed from the campaign of
> Bernie Sanders.
>
> She referred to stagnant and falling real wages, long-term joblessness, the
> crushing debt burden students face and the nation's decaying schools and
> infrastructure without mentioning that Obama, with her full support, had
> overseen this state of affairs for the last seven-and-a-half years.
>
> Clinton gave the novel explanation that well-meaning business leaders and
> politicians from both parties—"whose sincerity I do not doubt"—were simply
> misguided. "Too many leaders in business and government have lost sight of
> our shared responsibility to each other and to our nation. And they let
> Wall
> Street take big risks with unregulated financial activities."
>
> She failed to mention that it was her husband Bill Clinton's administration
> that abolished the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and deregulated the
> financial industry, spurring one financial bubble after the other,
> culminating in the 2008 crash and the social catastrophe that followed. For
> their services, both Clintons have been handsomely rewarded.
>
> "We need to make sure our economy works for everyone not just for the rich
> or the well-connected," Clinton preached with a straight face.
>
> At the same time, Clinton reiterated Obama's nostrum that those without
> work
> or serious prospects for a future were largely at fault because they were
> not keeping up with technological advances. "The old model of work where
> you
> could expect to hold a steady job with good benefits for an entire career
> is
> long gone." She praised the "flexibility" of the new jobs that have been
> created—largely part-time, low-paid and so-called independent
> contractors—suggesting that 401(k)s and health benefits should be
> "portable"
> from one job to another.
>
> So what does Clinton propose?
>
> 1. "We need to slash unnecessary regulations…Let's free entrepreneurs to do
> what they do best: innovate, grow and hire…they need to be free from red
> tape."
>
> Translation: More tax cuts, deregulation and government payouts to large
> corporations and start-up companies.
>
> 2. "Establish an infrastructure bank that will bring private sector dollars
> off the sidelines and put them to work here."
>
> Translation: Instead of a public works programs, Clinton proposes more
> "public-private partnerships" aimed at handing over public assets to
> profit-making companies. This would accelerate the contracting out of
> good-paying jobs and continue the slashing of public sector jobs, which
> fell
> by more than 600,000 under Obama.
>
> 3. "I want to expand incentives like the new market's tax credit,
> empowerment zones and other ideas that bring business, government and
> communities together to create good jobs in poor or remote areas. Places
> that have lost a factory or a mine, where generations of families used to
> work."
>
> Translation: Companies will be given waivers from federal job safety,
> environmental and wage and hour laws in order to entice US and
> international
> corporations to exploit economic desperation in areas already ravaged by
> deindustrialization.
>
> 4. "Rewrite the rules, so more companies share profits with employees and
> fewer shift profits and jobs overseas."
>
> Translation: Boost the efforts of the trade union bureaucracy to push
> so-called profit-sharing schemes, in lieu of wage increases. These hold
> workers' livelihoods hostage to economic crisis and the shortsighted and
> even criminal business decisions of the corporate bosses, over which
> workers
> have no control.
>
> 5. " Let's liberate the millions of Americans who already have student debt
> by making it easier to refinance, just like a mortgage. Let's make it
> easier
> to have debt forgiven by doing national service."
>
> Translation: There will be no amelioration of the crushing levels of
> student
> debt. Instead, students will be able to be subject to the same predatory
> schemes that mortgage companies used in the run-up to the housing market
> crash in 2007-08. Heavily indebted students should be turned into
> indentured
> servants and forced to do "national service,"
> which most ominously could include, if the Pentagon needs more manpower,
> going off to fight America's imperialist wars.
>
> Clinton made sure to pay tribute to the trade unions—which have
> collaborated
> in the slashing of wages and shifting of health care and pension costs from
> the employers to workers, while reducing strikes to the lowest level since
> World War II. Saying "I believe we should strengthen unions," she assured
> the labor bureaucracy that their financial interests would be protected
> under a Clinton administration, which would provide government funding to
> union apprenticeship programs and facilitate the investment of union
> pension
> funds in infrastructure and commercial development projects.
>
> In a nod to the AFL-CIO, Clinton endorsed the economic nationalism promoted
> by the unions, which has long been used to divide American workers from
> their brothers and sisters internationally, subordinate them to the profit
> interests of their "own" capitalists, and pave the way for trade war and
> militarism. Earlier in the week, she denounced Trump for using Chinese
> labor
> to produce his brand name suits and ties.
>
> Well aware that the millions of workers and young people who voted for
> Sanders largely hate her pro-business policies and record, Clinton urged
> young people in particular not to "grow weary" with their miserable
> situation. "There are great ideas out there," she said pathetically, "we
> are
> going to be partners in a big bold effort to increase economic growth and
> distribute it more fairly."
>
> As the Socialist Equality Party's candidate for US president, I reject the
> right-wing economic policies advanced by Clinton, which are dictated
> entirely by the profit needs of American capitalism. The working class in
> the US and around the world did not create the global economic crisis and
> must not pay for it!
>
> The SEP calls for a vast redistribution of wealth to secure basic social
> rights, including the right to a decent-paying job, quality education,
> affordable housing, universal health care, a dignified retirement and
> access
> to leisure time and culture.
>
> The SEP advances a program not for the improvement of capitalism, but for
> the establishment of socialism. The social rights of the working class
> cannot be secured without a direct attack on the interests of the
> capitalist
> class and the domination of the financial aristocracy over economic life.
>
> This means an end to the private ownership of the large corporations, with
> all those valued above $10 billion transformed into publicly owned
> enterprises under the democratic control of the working class. To provide
> quality jobs to all those who need them, the SEP calls for a
> multi-trillion-dollar public works program to rebuild infrastructure
> throughout the country.
>
> We furthermore call for an end to the squandering of trillions of dollars
> on
> weaponry to conquer and oppress workers in other countries.
> Instead, trillions should be poured into social needs, to hire millions of
> doctors, nurses, teachers, construction workers and others to raise the
> material and cultural level of the population and put an end to poverty and
> want forever.
>
> Regardless of who is elected in November, whether it is Trump or Clinton,
> the ruling class is preparing to escalate the assault on the working class.
> I call on all workers and young people to prepare for the struggles to come
> by supporting our campaign and joining the Socialist Equality Party.
>
>
>
> Sign up for the latest news from the SEP Election Campaign
>
> To receive the SEP Election email newsletter, including the latest news,
> videos and statements from the campaign, sign up here.
>
>
> Share this article:
>
> Facebook
>
>
> Twitter
>
>
> Digg
>
>
> Reddit
>
>
> Delicious
>
>
> StumbleUpon
>
>
> Blogger
>
>
> E-Mail
>
>
>
>
>
> Commenting Discussion Rules »
>
>
>
>
>
>
> New Today
>
> After Brexit, mounting warnings of global slump and financial panic
>
>
> The way forward after the Brexit referendum
>
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Amid mass abstention, right-wing PP wins Spanish elections
>
>
> Taiwanese airline cabin crews strike
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> The 2016 SEP US Election Campaign
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party election campaign: Naomi Spencer for West
> Virginia House of Delegates, 16th District!
>
>
> Video: The demise of Sanders' "political revolution"
>
>
> The working class must stop the Carrier factory closures!
>
>
> Hillary Clinton and the "Spirit of 9/12"
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> The 2016 US Elections
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Bernie Sanders confirms he will vote for Clinton
>
>
> Congressional Democrats stage "sit-in" stunt on gun control
>
>
> Mideast war architects back Clinton over Trump
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> US Politics
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Divided Supreme Court rejects challenge to affirmative action
>
>
> Bernie Sanders confirms he will vote for Clinton
>
>
> Congressional Democrats stage "sit-in" stunt on gun control
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> Mehring Books
>
> The Truth Behind the Bankruptcy of Detroit
>
> undefined
>
> By the Socialist Equality Party
>
>
>
> Get Involved!
>
> Donate to the WSWS
>
>
> About the ICFI
>
>
> Join the IYSSE
>
>
> Join the SEP
>
>
>
> Socialist Equality Parties United States Germany Australia United
> Kingdom Sri Lanka Canada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow the WSWS
>
> Facebook
>
>
> Twitter
>
>
> Youtube
>
>
> RSS Feed
>
>
> Daily Podcast
>
>
> WSWS Newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Political Lessons of Syriza's Betrayal in Greece
>
>
> Socialism and the Struggle Against War
>
>
> The political struggle against war and the tasks of the Socialist
> Equality Party (Sri Lanka)
>
>
> The IYSSE's campaign against war and historical falsification at
> Humboldt University
>
>
> The return of German militarism and the tasks of the Partei für Soziale
> Gleichheit
>
>
> The Fight Against War and the Political Tasks of the Socialist Equality
> Party
>
>
> Capitalist breakdown and the drive to war
>
>
> Seventy-five years since the outbreak of World War II
>
>
> Oppose the Israeli invasion of Gaza
>
>
> Who is responsible for the catastrophes in the Middle East?
>
>
> One hundred years since Sarajevo
>
>
> Australian imperialism and the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia"
>
>
> Does Washington want war with Russia?
>
>
> More on imperialism and war »
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Seventy-five years since the assassination of Leon Trotsky
>
>
> Why and how the GPU murdered Trotsky
> --An interview with David North
>
>
> Socialism and historical truth
> --A lecture delivered by David North at the Leipzig Book Fair
>
>
> The IYSSE's campaign against war and historical falsification at
> Humboldt University
>
>
> Berlin IYSSE protests Professor Jörg Baberowski's suppression of
> democratic discussion at Humboldt University
>
>
> Appearance of Robert Service in Berlin ends in fiasco
>
>
> The philosophical and political foundations of historical falsification
>
>
> Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth
> Lecture by David North
>
>
> More on Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth »
>
>
> SEP/ICFI
>
> Four-part series from Sri Lanka: The LSSP's Great Betrayal
>
>
> Resolutions of the SEP (US) Third National Congress
>
>
> 2014 International May Day Rally
>
>
> Resolutions of the Second National Congress of the SEP (US)
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party (Australia) holds Second National Congress
>
>
> The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality
> Party (Sri Lanka)
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party (UK) holds First National Congress
>
>
> The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality
> Party (Britain)
>
>
> The Historical Fondations of the Partei für Soziale Gleichheit (SEP
> Germany)
>
>
> Report to the Second National Congress of the Socialist Equality Party
> by David North
>
>
> more ICFI documents »
>
> Fund
>
> DVD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lectures and Reports
>
> A tribute to Dave Hyland
>
>
> US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria
>
>
> Seventy-five years of the Fourth International
>
>
> Twenty years since the dissolution of the USSR
> The capitalist crisis and the radicalization of the working class in 2012
>
>
> 25 years since Keerthi Balasuriya's death
> South Asia's foremost Marxist of the second half of the 20th century
> by Wije Dias
>
>
> The enduring significance of the life and work of Comrade Keerthi
> Balasuriya
>
>
> In Memory of Keerthi Balasuriya
> by David North
>
>
> more documents »
> .
>
> About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
>
> Copyright © 1998-2016 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserve
>
>
>
>
our money...and we lose our shirts. Then the Wall Street Bankers buy
new shirts, send us the bill and put the shirts on themselves.
I guess we must like this deal, otherwise you'd think we'd be raising
all sorts of Hell.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/27/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Nice platform. The summary of Hillary's speech is distressing, to say the
> least.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
> Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the
> fight for socialism
>
> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/24/clin-j24.html
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
> By Jerry White—SEP candidate for US president
> 24 June 2016
>
> Wednesday's speech by Hillary Clinton in Raleigh, North Carolina makes it
> clear the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential candidate, if elected
> in November, would escalate the anti-worker economic agenda of the Obama
> administration that has already created the greatest levels of social
> inequality in modern American history.
>
> Since clinching the nomination, Clinton has sought to assure both Wall
> Street and the military intelligence apparatus that she would be a far
> better steward of the domestic and foreign interests of American capitalism
> than her Republican opponent Donald Trump. She reiterated Wednesday that
> Trump would "run up our debt and cause another economic crash."
>
> Clinton has already lined up the support of billionaires Warren Buffett and
> George Soros and a list of former executives from some of corporate
> America's largest companies, including General Motors, Delta Air Lines,
> Costco and Alphabet, the parent company for online search giant Google.
> She also has received far greater backing from Wall Street than Trump.
>
> Well aware that the seething social discontent in America prohibits her
> from
> simply repeating President Obama's absurd claims that life has never been
> so
> good, Clinton sought to cover her right-wing economic proposals with
> rhetoric about economic inequality, largely borrowed from the campaign of
> Bernie Sanders.
>
> She referred to stagnant and falling real wages, long-term joblessness, the
> crushing debt burden students face and the nation's decaying schools and
> infrastructure without mentioning that Obama, with her full support, had
> overseen this state of affairs for the last seven-and-a-half years.
>
> Clinton gave the novel explanation that well-meaning business leaders and
> politicians from both parties—"whose sincerity I do not doubt"—were simply
> misguided. "Too many leaders in business and government have lost sight of
> our shared responsibility to each other and to our nation. And they let
> Wall
> Street take big risks with unregulated financial activities."
>
> She failed to mention that it was her husband Bill Clinton's administration
> that abolished the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and deregulated the
> financial industry, spurring one financial bubble after the other,
> culminating in the 2008 crash and the social catastrophe that followed. For
> their services, both Clintons have been handsomely rewarded.
>
> "We need to make sure our economy works for everyone not just for the rich
> or the well-connected," Clinton preached with a straight face.
>
> At the same time, Clinton reiterated Obama's nostrum that those without
> work
> or serious prospects for a future were largely at fault because they were
> not keeping up with technological advances. "The old model of work where
> you
> could expect to hold a steady job with good benefits for an entire career
> is
> long gone." She praised the "flexibility" of the new jobs that have been
> created—largely part-time, low-paid and so-called independent
> contractors—suggesting that 401(k)s and health benefits should be
> "portable"
> from one job to another.
>
> So what does Clinton propose?
>
> 1. "We need to slash unnecessary regulations…Let's free entrepreneurs to do
> what they do best: innovate, grow and hire…they need to be free from red
> tape."
>
> Translation: More tax cuts, deregulation and government payouts to large
> corporations and start-up companies.
>
> 2. "Establish an infrastructure bank that will bring private sector dollars
> off the sidelines and put them to work here."
>
> Translation: Instead of a public works programs, Clinton proposes more
> "public-private partnerships" aimed at handing over public assets to
> profit-making companies. This would accelerate the contracting out of
> good-paying jobs and continue the slashing of public sector jobs, which
> fell
> by more than 600,000 under Obama.
>
> 3. "I want to expand incentives like the new market's tax credit,
> empowerment zones and other ideas that bring business, government and
> communities together to create good jobs in poor or remote areas. Places
> that have lost a factory or a mine, where generations of families used to
> work."
>
> Translation: Companies will be given waivers from federal job safety,
> environmental and wage and hour laws in order to entice US and
> international
> corporations to exploit economic desperation in areas already ravaged by
> deindustrialization.
>
> 4. "Rewrite the rules, so more companies share profits with employees and
> fewer shift profits and jobs overseas."
>
> Translation: Boost the efforts of the trade union bureaucracy to push
> so-called profit-sharing schemes, in lieu of wage increases. These hold
> workers' livelihoods hostage to economic crisis and the shortsighted and
> even criminal business decisions of the corporate bosses, over which
> workers
> have no control.
>
> 5. " Let's liberate the millions of Americans who already have student debt
> by making it easier to refinance, just like a mortgage. Let's make it
> easier
> to have debt forgiven by doing national service."
>
> Translation: There will be no amelioration of the crushing levels of
> student
> debt. Instead, students will be able to be subject to the same predatory
> schemes that mortgage companies used in the run-up to the housing market
> crash in 2007-08. Heavily indebted students should be turned into
> indentured
> servants and forced to do "national service,"
> which most ominously could include, if the Pentagon needs more manpower,
> going off to fight America's imperialist wars.
>
> Clinton made sure to pay tribute to the trade unions—which have
> collaborated
> in the slashing of wages and shifting of health care and pension costs from
> the employers to workers, while reducing strikes to the lowest level since
> World War II. Saying "I believe we should strengthen unions," she assured
> the labor bureaucracy that their financial interests would be protected
> under a Clinton administration, which would provide government funding to
> union apprenticeship programs and facilitate the investment of union
> pension
> funds in infrastructure and commercial development projects.
>
> In a nod to the AFL-CIO, Clinton endorsed the economic nationalism promoted
> by the unions, which has long been used to divide American workers from
> their brothers and sisters internationally, subordinate them to the profit
> interests of their "own" capitalists, and pave the way for trade war and
> militarism. Earlier in the week, she denounced Trump for using Chinese
> labor
> to produce his brand name suits and ties.
>
> Well aware that the millions of workers and young people who voted for
> Sanders largely hate her pro-business policies and record, Clinton urged
> young people in particular not to "grow weary" with their miserable
> situation. "There are great ideas out there," she said pathetically, "we
> are
> going to be partners in a big bold effort to increase economic growth and
> distribute it more fairly."
>
> As the Socialist Equality Party's candidate for US president, I reject the
> right-wing economic policies advanced by Clinton, which are dictated
> entirely by the profit needs of American capitalism. The working class in
> the US and around the world did not create the global economic crisis and
> must not pay for it!
>
> The SEP calls for a vast redistribution of wealth to secure basic social
> rights, including the right to a decent-paying job, quality education,
> affordable housing, universal health care, a dignified retirement and
> access
> to leisure time and culture.
>
> The SEP advances a program not for the improvement of capitalism, but for
> the establishment of socialism. The social rights of the working class
> cannot be secured without a direct attack on the interests of the
> capitalist
> class and the domination of the financial aristocracy over economic life.
>
> This means an end to the private ownership of the large corporations, with
> all those valued above $10 billion transformed into publicly owned
> enterprises under the democratic control of the working class. To provide
> quality jobs to all those who need them, the SEP calls for a
> multi-trillion-dollar public works program to rebuild infrastructure
> throughout the country.
>
> We furthermore call for an end to the squandering of trillions of dollars
> on
> weaponry to conquer and oppress workers in other countries.
> Instead, trillions should be poured into social needs, to hire millions of
> doctors, nurses, teachers, construction workers and others to raise the
> material and cultural level of the population and put an end to poverty and
> want forever.
>
> Regardless of who is elected in November, whether it is Trump or Clinton,
> the ruling class is preparing to escalate the assault on the working class.
> I call on all workers and young people to prepare for the struggles to come
> by supporting our campaign and joining the Socialist Equality Party.
>
>
>
> Sign up for the latest news from the SEP Election Campaign
>
> To receive the SEP Election email newsletter, including the latest news,
> videos and statements from the campaign, sign up here.
>
>
> Share this article:
>
>
>
>
>
> Digg
>
>
>
>
> Delicious
>
>
> StumbleUpon
>
>
> Blogger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Commenting Discussion Rules »
>
>
>
>
>
>
> New Today
>
> After Brexit, mounting warnings of global slump and financial panic
>
>
> The way forward after the Brexit referendum
>
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Amid mass abstention, right-wing PP wins Spanish elections
>
>
> Taiwanese airline cabin crews strike
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> The 2016 SEP US Election Campaign
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party election campaign: Naomi Spencer for West
> Virginia House of Delegates, 16th District!
>
>
> Video: The demise of Sanders' "political revolution"
>
>
> The working class must stop the Carrier factory closures!
>
>
> Hillary Clinton and the "Spirit of 9/12"
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> The 2016 US Elections
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Bernie Sanders confirms he will vote for Clinton
>
>
> Congressional Democrats stage "sit-in" stunt on gun control
>
>
> Mideast war architects back Clinton over Trump
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> US Politics
>
> Clinton seizes on Brexit vote to tout her credentials as defender of
> Washington's global interests
>
>
> Divided Supreme Court rejects challenge to affirmative action
>
>
> Bernie Sanders confirms he will vote for Clinton
>
>
> Congressional Democrats stage "sit-in" stunt on gun control
>
>
> Clinton's right-wing economic agenda and the fight for socialism
>
>
> more articles »
>
>
> Mehring Books
>
> The Truth Behind the Bankruptcy of Detroit
>
> undefined
>
> By the Socialist Equality Party
>
>
>
> Get Involved!
>
> Donate to the WSWS
>
>
> About the ICFI
>
>
> Join the IYSSE
>
>
> Join the SEP
>
>
>
> Socialist Equality Parties United States Germany Australia United
> Kingdom Sri Lanka Canada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow the WSWS
>
>
>
>
>
> Youtube
>
>
> RSS Feed
>
>
> Daily Podcast
>
>
> WSWS Newsletter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Political Lessons of Syriza's Betrayal in Greece
>
>
> Socialism and the Struggle Against War
>
>
> The political struggle against war and the tasks of the Socialist
> Equality Party (Sri Lanka)
>
>
> The IYSSE's campaign against war and historical falsification at
> Humboldt University
>
>
> The return of German militarism and the tasks of the Partei für Soziale
> Gleichheit
>
>
> The Fight Against War and the Political Tasks of the Socialist Equality
> Party
>
>
> Capitalist breakdown and the drive to war
>
>
> Seventy-five years since the outbreak of World War II
>
>
> Oppose the Israeli invasion of Gaza
>
>
> Who is responsible for the catastrophes in the Middle East?
>
>
> One hundred years since Sarajevo
>
>
> Australian imperialism and the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia"
>
>
> Does Washington want war with Russia?
>
>
> More on imperialism and war »
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Seventy-five years since the assassination of Leon Trotsky
>
>
> Why and how the GPU murdered Trotsky
> --An interview with David North
>
>
> Socialism and historical truth
> --A lecture delivered by David North at the Leipzig Book Fair
>
>
> The IYSSE's campaign against war and historical falsification at
> Humboldt University
>
>
> Berlin IYSSE protests Professor Jörg Baberowski's suppression of
> democratic discussion at Humboldt University
>
>
> Appearance of Robert Service in Berlin ends in fiasco
>
>
> The philosophical and political foundations of historical falsification
>
>
> Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth
> Lecture by David North
>
>
> More on Leon Trotsky and the defense of historical truth »
>
>
> SEP/ICFI
>
> Four-part series from Sri Lanka: The LSSP's Great Betrayal
>
>
> Resolutions of the SEP (US) Third National Congress
>
>
> 2014 International May Day Rally
>
>
> Resolutions of the Second National Congress of the SEP (US)
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party (Australia) holds Second National Congress
>
>
> The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality
> Party (Sri Lanka)
>
>
> Socialist Equality Party (UK) holds First National Congress
>
>
> The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality
> Party (Britain)
>
>
> The Historical Fondations of the Partei für Soziale Gleichheit (SEP
> Germany)
>
>
> Report to the Second National Congress of the Socialist Equality Party
> by David North
>
>
> more ICFI documents »
>
> Fund
>
> DVD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lectures and Reports
>
> A tribute to Dave Hyland
>
>
> US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria
>
>
> Seventy-five years of the Fourth International
>
>
> Twenty years since the dissolution of the USSR
> The capitalist crisis and the radicalization of the working class in 2012
>
>
> 25 years since Keerthi Balasuriya's death
> South Asia's foremost Marxist of the second half of the 20th century
> by Wije Dias
>
>
> The enduring significance of the life and work of Comrade Keerthi
> Balasuriya
>
>
> In Memory of Keerthi Balasuriya
> by David North
>
>
> more documents »
> .
>
> About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
>
> Copyright © 1998-2016 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserve
>
>
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)