Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't Enough

Good points, Miriam. I'm here, snug and safe in good old semi
progressive Washington State, beating my chest like a Neanderthal.
And I can't argue with your statements, since I have never faced
voting in a Swing State. In fact, I always thought I was voting as an
American Citizen. I know that my little vote will be lost in the
total shuffle, not making even a whisper of a statement, but frankly,
I don't give a Damn. I can't bring myself to support any part of a
government that will not support me or my people. We, the working
class, have been abandoned. But we are still expected to support one
or another of the Corporate Candidates? Shoot me in the left foot or
shoot me in the right foot. It makes no difference. Sure, things
will be wild and crazy under a Trump presidency. But Trump will be
either reigned in, or run out before he can mess up the plans of the
American Empire.
In some ways, Hillary could be worse. Putting her in the driver's
seat will give us a collective sigh of relief. And while we're
sighing, she and her Owners will be busy moving the working class
closer and closer to becoming the Indentured People of America.
Of course I'm speaking of us White Working Class folk. People of
Color have always been treated as Indentured Servants. Meanwhile,
Hillary will lie to us, telling us how important we are, while she
steers us away from protests and toward compliance. Trump would do
what Trump does best. He would continue to pit faction against
faction. We would become a nation at war against itself.
Can anyone see one or the other as being "Lesser of Two Evils"?
Since I'm going to get screwed either way, I might as well get screwed
standing for my beliefs. I cannot sell out my Working Class roots by
pretending to support either of these "Aliens To Freedom".

Carl Jarvis



On 10/23/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Well, I do think that guy on Democrdacy Now, Eddy, something or other, has
> a
> point when he talks about strategic voting because in the swing states like
> Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. if you don't vote for Hillary, Donald
> may
> very possibly win the state. And I do think that if Donald wins the swing
> states and the red states and becomes president, things would become very
> much worse, very quickly for minorities, Muslims, women, and anyone who
> isn't straight sexually. I do think that the effect on the supreme court
> would be disastrous. I do think that the far right and the extreme racists
> would gain a tremendous amount of power and I think that would be worse
> than
> what we have now or what Hillary will give us.
>
> Miriam.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 1:18 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't Enough
>
> On a bad day I think they believe that we are stupid. But then I remember
> that we say the same about them.
> Part of the answer is that the corporate mass media has influenced our
> thinking for many long years, and the folks in charge know how to use this
> to their advantage. They know, for example, that we are charmed and lulled
> into a warm fuzzy place by good looking smiling soft spoken people, telling
> us that we are the biggest and the very best in the whole wide world. One
> of the oft spoken phrases is, "We have to settle for the lesser of two
> evils". Even old Adolph knew that if you tell a lie often enough, or tell
> a
> lie huge enough, people will come to believe it. I can tell you that I
> don't have to settle for the lesser of two evils. I will not settle for a
> reckless billionaire(self proclaimed), nor a War Hawk, even if it's a
> woman.
> The last time I went for the lesser of two evils was in 2008, when I held
> my
> breath and marked my ballot for Barack Obama. He still hasn't figured out
> how to get us out of the Bush war. He still hasn't come to believe that he
> lied to the working class and sold them out, over and over, mostly because
> he had made a deal with the Corporate Ruling Class.
> And the last repeated lie I'll address is the one that says if I don't vote
> for the lesser of two evils, I'll actually be voting for the greater of two
> evils.
> In voting for Jill Stein, I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, nor for
> Donald Trump. I am voting for Jill Stein.
> To me it's like someone saying, "Carl, you have to pick between the
> electric
> chair or hanging.
> "I'll take a pardon from the governor," I tell them. "No, if you ask for a
> pardon, you're actually selecting the electric chair." Huh? I know I
> don't
> have a chance in getting a pardon from the governor, but how does my wild
> selection have anything to do with the choices they offered me? That's not
> my paradigm.
> And that's how I feel about picking from among the choices thrust upon me.
> Let them pick. We're headed for Hell in a hand basket, no matter which one
> they select. Our only hope is that there really is a governor, a higher
> authority, who will intercede on our behalf...boy, ain't that grabbing at
> straws!
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
> On 10/23/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>> I read The Nation, which is on BARD, every week. It is a 150 year old
>> magazine, and it is left of center. This year, for the first time, it
>> endorsed a nominee during the Democratic primary, and that nominee was
>> Bernie Sanders. This week it endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.
>> I read its endorsement very carefully, and I found it disappointing
>> and depressing.
>> Basically, everyone is saying the same thing. "We learned our lesson
>> from the Obama election. We must begin pushing Hillary immediately as
>> soon as she takes office". No waiting, no giving her time, as they did
>> for Obama. But there is so much denial in what they're saying because
>> after she is elected, they will have no leverage at all. She'll be in
>> office. Why should she listen to the Progressive base if she wasn't
>> forced to listen to them during the campaign? Every time they say
>> that Sanders forced her to move left on certain issues, I want to
>> vomit. He forced her to make public statements that sounded as if she
>> were moving left. Making statements is one thing True belief followed
>> up by action is something very different. Are they all so stupid that
>> they believe what they're writing, or is it that they think we're
>> stupid enough to believe it?
>>
>> Miriam
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 11:44 AM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't
>> Enough
>>
>> My personal belief is that any hint that Hillary Clinton is in favor
>> of overturning Citizens United, is pure hogwash.
>> But assuming she is, and announces her decision to pursue this goal,
>> she would be confronted by a solid wall of opposition that would make
>> Trump's border wall look like it was made from Papier-mache.
>> As much as the congressmen and women shed tears of frustration, they
>> are owned by the big money donors.
>> Look about you and tell me which major political party represents the
>> working class majority of American People.
>> And frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing folks telling us that all we
>> need to do is to bring pressure on Hillary, once she's in office. Do
>> we really think that we can pit our numbers against her donor's
>> billions? Even Bernie Sanders has lost considerable respect by
>> myself, as he begs folks to back Clinton.
>> Tell me just how we turn our nation away from violence and eternal
>> war, if we vote for the War Hawk Clinton?
>> No my friends, as much as we'd like to believe that we can force
>> Hillary Clinton to work on behalf of the People of America...not just
>> the 1%, the best we can hope to gain is to slow down our decent into
> Hell's Fire.
>> The only way we Americans can establish a democracy in this
>> Republic(actually, the Oligarchy) is to remove all charters to all
>> corporations, and along with that, remove all their ill gotten money.
>> Since these vast corporations, some more powerful than most nations,
>> will never agree to sharing that which they stole, we have only two
>> choices to select from. We're back to the Lady or the Tiger. Behind
>> one door is the "Lady" who will distract us and charm us and help us
>> forget that we are fast becoming Serfs of the Empire. From behind the
>> other door rages the corporate monster, eager to spring forth and
>> devour us in a single gulp.
>> Before we open this door, we'd better have a plan for killing the
>> monster.
>> If we hesitate or believe we can tame it, we are dead meat.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Truthdig
>>>
>>> Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't Enough
>>>
>>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_overturning_citizens_united_i
>>> s
>>> nt_eno
>>> ugh_20161022/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AddThis Sharing Buttons
>>> Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to MoreShare to Email
>>>
>>> Posted on Oct 22, 2016
>>>
>>>
>>> By Adam Eichen / Moyers &
>>> Company(http://billmoyers.com/story/overturning-citizens-united-isnt-
>>> e
>>> nough/
>>> )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pictures of Money(https://www.flickr.com/photos/pictures-of-money/)
>>> /
>>> (CC-BY-2.0)(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
>>>
>>> Amidst all the other headline-grabbing pronouncements in Wednesday
>>> night's debate, Hillary Clinton mentioned the importance of
>>> overturning Citizens United. While this is encouraging, focusing on
>>> Citizens United is not enough; our campaign finance system was broken
>>> well before 2010. If Clinton is serious about reducing the role of
>>> money in politics, she should appoint Supreme Court justices willing
>>> to
>> revisit Buckley v.
>>> Valeo(https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/75-436) , a 1976 decision that
>>> said (among other things) third parties could spend unlimited amounts
>>> to influence the outcome of an election, and First National Bank of
>>> Boston
>> v.
>>> Bellotti(https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1172) , a decision two
>>> years later that struck down state attempts to limit corporate
>>> spending to affect ballot initiatives. Those cases formed the basis
>>> for our inability to regulate money in politics.
>>>
>>> Moreover, altering Supreme Court case law is not enough. To ensure
>>> fair elections it is essential to pass public financing of
>>> congressional elections, create independent redistricting
>>> commissions, and reduce lobbyist influence over public policy.
>>>
>>> In their discussion of the Supreme Court, both candidates also failed
>>> to mention Shelby County v.
>>> Holder(https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96)
>>> (2013), the case that gutted the Voting Rights Act — arguably the
>>> most important piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. Since
>>> this disastrous decision, states across the country have passed
>>> anti-democratic measures that mandate voter IDs, enact draconian
>>> voter registration
>>> requirements(https://www.thenation.com/article/texass-voter-registrat
>>> i
>>> on-law
>>> s-are-straight-out-of-the-jim-crow-playbook/) , reduce early voting,
>>> and eliminate preregistration for minors (among other measures). The
>>> next president must address this democratic crisis.
>>>
>>> As Ari Berman
>>> argues(http://billmoyers.com/story/election-rigged-not-democrats/) ,
>>> the election is "rigged," but not in the way proclaimed by Trump. The
>>> Republican nominee continues to lambaste the virtually non-existent
>>> voter fraud (an occurrence less likely than being struck by
>>> lightning), while millions of Americans will be forced to sit out
>>> this election due to voter disenfranchisement.
>>>
>>> Electoral integrity is a serious matter. The United States has a long
>>> way to go to ensure a fully functioning representative democracy.
>>> Yet, refusing to concede an election on fallacious grounds, as Trump
>>> did last night, is beyond inappropriate. As law professor Rick Hasen
>>> wrote(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87772) , "Our democracy is a
>>> fragile thing which depends upon accepting the rules of the game."
>>>
>>> Democracy is a living form of government, evolving over time and
>>> requiring constant vigilance to ensure proper representation;
>>> undermining the entire process, however, is childish and dangerous.
>>>
>>> Adam Eichen is a member of the Democracy Matters Board of Directors
>>> and a Fellow at the Small Planet Institute,(http://smallplanet.org/)
>>> where he is working on a book on the Democracy Movement with founder
>>> Frances Moore Lappé. He served as the deputy communications director
>>> for Democracy Spring.
>>> Follow him on Twitter: @eichendoit(https://twitter.com/eichendoit) .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Photo of the Week: Will Islamic State Pour Into Syria After Suffering
>>> Defeat in Iraq?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Truthdigger of the Week: Julian Assange, Publisher of the Clinton
>>> Campaign Emails
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cast Your Vote: Did the Presidential Debates Make an Impact?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why Overturning Citizens United Isn't Enough
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> © 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>>
>>> Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>