Bill Maher: She Knew

May 6, 2017

Advertisements

46 Responses to “Bill Maher: She Knew”


  1. […] via Bill Maher: She Knew — Climate Denial Crock of the Week […]

  2. J4Zonian Says:

    Most of the anti-Clinton people who were not actual Trump supporters were saying exactly the same thing, and it has been proved true.

    Il Drumpfe has been exactly as terrible, horrible very bad no good a president as we expected. But because of him, the resistance has been phenomenal@! and seems very likely to push beyond simply saying no to what the Republicans want but to saying yes to, and actually getting passed, universal health care, reversal of the disappearance of voting rights, getting some of the money (Citizens United, McKutcheon) out of politics with momentum for more, shutting down the Koch Constitutional Convention, getting a livable wage, and above all, taking real action on climate. (Still mainly with the half-assed carbon price, as if putting a tax on cigarettes actually stopped smoking) If we don’t get those it will create such pressure we’re likely to end with a president and both houses of congress held by, if not the left, at least the Democratic half of the corporate duopoly. And we’ll be within striking distance of doing enough to actually save our asses from utter destruction, all because of the awakening that came with T. Wrecks (Trumpus vulgaris) taking office.

    If Clinton had been elected none of that would have happened. Most people, thinking everything was taken care of, would have gone back to sleep for years, waking up to 2 even worse candidates enabled by the Evil Lessers Gambit and cluelessly wondering why they kept ending up with such terrible choices. We would have ended up losing 4, or more likely 8 more years of doing not nearly enough, falling farther and farther behind on clean safe renewable energy, reforesting and transforming agriculture. Because the insane man in the White House reflects the insanity of our society, but was just a tiny bit ahead of the pressure wave coasting toward fascism, what’s happening has begun to reveal the insanity of the entire system we have to dismantle to get anywhere on climate catastrophe.


    • The Resistance will not be able to make up for what Trump will do to this country. No matter how much we may want it.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        If Clinton had been elected she would have done a little to look like she cared about climate change more than she cared about the US empire. But it wouldn’t have been enough, and the delay on taking the real actions needed–radical action to change everything about civilization–very likely would have made it too late to then ramp up and try to do something real before the lukewarm lying of the Democrats once again drove people to vote Republicans back in at every level. Never in a million years would Clinton and the other half of the corporate duopoly have done what it will take to save us from calamity. Electing her would have meant the end of civilization and the extinction of millions of species. Do you think Der Gropenführer is going to do worse than that?

        To save time I’ll just tell you the only rational answer: No. He may do as badly but not bloody likely with the massive resistance he’s awakened. It came down to a choice between dying in our sleep (or most people’s sleep, anyway) under president Clinton or fighting for a fighting chance under the Clockwork Hair Job.

        Either choice was horrible. We knew that going in; they were the 2 most hated candidates in modern US history and cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination didn’t make her any more popular. But to say that because the Monarch Monarch is terrible we’re better off ignores the larger picture, and besides, is just plain silly.

      • lracine Says:

        Oh I think it comes way to easy to the folks on the blog to lay all of our woes at Trumps (whom I find a disgusting person) door.

        If blame must be parsed out than perhaps we need to delve into the issue deeper.

        Start by asking yourself what is YOUR carbon foot print??? Then ask yourself what you would need to do to get down to a carbon foot print that is equivalent to the lowest one possible… think third world life style!! Think of all you would have to give up. That is WHY we are where we are today… Think of how our society is structured and the mayhem that would result if a transition to this type of life style were imposed on our population.

        The belief that technology will solve this problem is a MYTH and just another form of denial!!!!! To date Technology has not even come close to adequately dealing with global greenhouse gas emissions and we are out of time to scale up any technology that might, possibly, “hail Mary kinda throw”, be feasible, to allow us to maintain our current lifestyle.

        The Powers That Be have decided that is not the road they will do down… they are currently consolidating their wealth and power, anticipating the mayhem to come when the drastic effects of climate change start to happen. That is why we have a militarize police, why laws are being passed to limit protest, why so much money is being put into our military defense, why we are tightening up our border and limiting immigrants into the US (it is trickle now compared to the desperation that will occur when large swaths of the global population start to die from climate change, think Bangladesh and the current famine that is starting in the horn of Africa, Sudan etc)… they are anticipating what is to come and preparing accordingly. They are going to continue to deny that climate change exist because at this point it is in their best interest to do so… keep the general population ignorant, fat, dumb and happy for as long as possible, they are easier to control that way.

        The writing is on the wall…. “we have met the enemy and he is us”. We (collectively) have allowed this to happen.

    • andrewfez Says:

      We’re on a bad trajectory that started with Buckley vs. Valeo ushering in Reaganomics, which has set the stage for a total corporate takeover of politics and the impoverishment of the middle class. We’re now at a critical mass where because the cost of healthcare is rising faster than GDP growth every year, and rising significantly faster than stagnant wage growth, millions of people go without insurance, because the cost of it is similar to the mortgage on a $300k home; the middle-middle class has to decide: do they buy health insurance and live in a cramped 1 bed apartment and put the baby’s crib in the living room, or do they buy a home and hope nothing ever goes wrong with them medically. Buying a home itself is a gamble: during recessions the price of your home will now tank; they’ve turned the real estate market into an extension of the equities market. This critical mass goes beyond unaffordable health insurance, unaffordable college, unaffordable bubbled up homes: 70% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck and wouldn’t be able to cover a several hundred dollar unexpected cost, like a dead alternator on their car. The 1% has vacuumed up trillions of middle class wealth over the last 40 years.

      People could stomach Clintonesque, ‘take the corporate money then screw the constituents long term, economically’ back before the ramifications of such were felt. Now they are felt. Now we are at critical mass. They voted for Obama to get away from that, but Hope and Change didn’t come; the corporate hold over politics was too powerful. Fool me once (Obama) shame on me; fool me twice (H Clinton) shame on you.

      The Clinton loss is just one small symptom of a larger problem; the Democrats have been wiped out everywhere: state level, SCOTUS, House, Senate. This is not a fluke that just happens to coincide with the impoverishment of the middle class. This is the results of Democrats taking corporate cash, and now with the free exchange of ideas on the internet, circumnavigating the corporate propaganda on TV that masquerades as news and political coverage, people are well aware of what Democrats actually stand for: nothing – they are now a center right party that no longer works for the middle class.

      People are hungry for a populist. The old ways of winning elections are gone. If the Democratic Party wants to remain relevant, survive even, they are going to have to adopt the Sanders model: take zero corporate cash and zero PAC money.
      And when the DNC puts its thumb on the scale for Andrew Cuomo in 2020, forcing Elizabeth Warren out of the race, this being decided in a smoke filled room prior to the primary; you’re going to get 8 years of Trump.

      Trump may be the least popular president of all time but guess who is even less popular right now? Clinton and the Democratic Party. Who is the most popular out of everybody? Sanders.


      • “you’re going to get 8 years of Trump”

        If that occurs it will be because of the same damn people who refused to vote for the lesser of two evils in 2016. [as if they were too good to say yes to anything but exactly what they wanted. see how well that’s working out for them now.]

        That would be very, very stupid, along with unforgivable.

        • andrewfez Says:

          I don’t think the shaming model is working Nicole. You can’t shame people into voting for you; it doesn’t work; it didn’t work. Sander’s message is in line with what the people want. Clinton’s stances are far right of what the people want. Yet during the primaries there was a ‘Bernie Bros’ (similar to ‘Obama Boys’) narrative being spun to shame people into voting for her by calling them sexist if they didn’t. Basically you were a sexist for voting in line with what you and the majority of Americans actually want. All it did was garner resentfulness such that there was no excitement to actually vote Clinton in the general. When people are in a deep hurt economically, you can shout ‘sexist’, ‘racist’, ‘whatever-ist’, ‘childish’, ‘stupid’ all you want, but the candidate with the more liberal economic message will still win. And which candidate in the general election had the more liberal message?

          Clinton’s Message: ‘America is already great!’; doesn’t care for single payer healthcare – RomneyCare/ObamaCare is good enough; on record for saying she will work with Republicans to cut Social Security; Wikileaks showed she’s for free and open trade across borders and a staunch supporter of NAFTA and TPP (the former has been sucking jobs out of the country; the latter would do the like, on steroids); she’s on the side of Wall St. with regard to housing prices.

          Trump’s Message: ‘The American Dream is Dead’ (similar to Bill Clinton’s ‘I feel your pain’); ‘I’m not going to let people die in the streets. Everybody will be covered (regarding healthcare) and the government is going to pay for it.’; against NAFTA & TPP; said he wanted American steel to be used for government projects; had other protectionist rhetoric; had the reinstatement of Glass-Stegal put in the Republican platform; said he’s not going to touch Social Security and Medicare; said Medicare drug prices were too high; said we’re going to do infrastructure spending; ran anti-Wall Street ads, &c.

          From an economic perspective Trump’s messaging made him look like the lesser of two evils, even though most of what he said was off the cuff with little thought put into it.

          You can’t defeat rightwing populism with center-right corporatism mixed with identity politics shaming; it can only be defeated by leftwing populism. It’s not enough just to say ‘Republicans are bad – vote for me!!’ without actually stating what policies you want (the scientific evidence is in: Clinton ran the least substantive campaign in history).

          Incidentally I ran the number’s on Clinton’s climate ad a year or so ago; what she was promising regarding clean energy infrastructure was already projected to happen by EIA or one of the other large energy information institutions. Couple that with her love of fracking and her silence on DAPL (which she was probably going to approve) and she isn’t that dissimilar to what will happen under Trump regarding the US climate response.

        • funslinger62 Says:

          I don’t vote for evil politicians period.

          If all you Clinton voters had got off your asses and voted for Gary Johnson, he would’ve won. See how that feels? One should never be attacked for voting their conscience.

          Again, I never vote for evil politicians. And Clinton was one. If the Democratic Party wants my vote it needs to select a candidate worth voting for such as Elizabeth Warren.


  3. Throughout the election, the idiot purist liberals [and yes, I am a progressive liberal] made me crazy. They seemingly have no damn ability to discern the differences between people they don’t particularly like, and people who are completely nuts and unsuitable for the position of dogcatcher, much less, the president of the united states. They are exactly the type of morons who would cut of their noses to spite their faces all in the service of liberal purity.

    Re Maher’s last comment, count me in strong agreement.

    [I’m talking to you Glenn Greenwald, et al!]

    • J4Zonian Says:

      The position you’re talking about is one that was not held by most anti-Clinton progressives. It was exactly what you continue to make it: a straw person assumption forced on them by Clintonite trolls who just couldn’t fathom the difference between what you’re projecting on them and not being willing to watch the continued degradation of the world enabled by the Lesser Weevil Gambit.

      After the election was over it would have been impossible to make any headway convincing people of what should have been obvious to all. It would have been a repeat of the Obama years, just like the election was–blindness to the Lesser Evil Gambit and blindness to the corporate gray pawnicity of the politicians–Obama, Clinton and the rest of the Democratic half of the duopoly. Education had to be done during the campaign, when there was the tiniest chance of turning things around and getting Clinton to quit or be ousted in favor of Sanders as it became more clear she wasn’t going to win. It stayed too close for that and in any case it was obvious the duopoly preferred Trump to Sanders–preferred the mentally ill moron to the competent destroyer of the system they sucked on.

      The idiot purist liberals, who were mostly, like me, neither idiots nor purists nor liberals, had and have a more nuanced and accurate vision of what was and is happening than the stubborn Stockholm syndrome-infected Clintonite duopolists. We have a chance now to win everything we need. We have an opening to get control of all 3 houses (Senate, House and White) by those who will vote for all 3 things we need: political changes, economic changes and a rapid massive immediate climate mobilization.

      http://www.theclimatemobilization.org

      • Paul Whyte Says:

        All the winning the 3 Senate, House and White House, will take is unity.

        What will that take?

        Who will lead the end to destructive bickering?

        • J4Zonian Says:

          I think it’s up to people like Maher (and a little bit like many posters) to stop so viciously scapegoating and attacking those of us with a different view–a deeper, more truthful view, btw. That view recognizes deeper reality than looked at by those who fall, time after time after time, for the Lesser Evil Gambit of the corporate duopoly party and thus collaborate in moving the whole country to the right every time, no matter which party’s candidate gets elected. They’re unaware of this, of course.

          I’m trying to educate people about what Jung called the psychoid–the gray area between physical and psychological–and how it operates in the US political system. The psycho-political system has created the corporate duopoly, a sham, dichotomized political structure that sets up fake elections. The scam works by having 2 fake parties, both captured by corporate money, so that no matter which party wins, it further empowers and enriches the rent-seeking oligarchy. It allows people to be split evenly and be lied to with targeted messages that satisfy each half’s engineered misconceptions and character limitations. It’s important for the success of the scam that it be 2 and they be equal because that sets up perpetual conflict driven by mutual projections, causing animosity and the impossibility of reconciliation. It keeps people busy while the oligarchy does what it does–rules, steals, and prepares for its mass-murder suicide contract on the Earth.

          Only by revealing this system and making it conscious for a significant part of the population can we do anything more than impotently waggle back and forth between the 2 fake parties, accomplishing nothing. The first step is to stop allowing ourselves to be duped by the tactics of the duopoly, including especially the LEG. We all need to unite to accomplish that.

          Each pseudo-party tries hard to not solve problems they can blame on the other party so they can use them in fake elections to get more power and money for themselves and their cronies. This is mostly unconscious, like everything else humans do.

          • funslinger62 Says:

            We desperately need a viable third party!

          • J4Zonian Says:

            Hell, funslinger, we desperately need a 2nd party.

            PS LOL I notice a couple of people opposed my moving a paragraph in my previous post. Wow. They must be very upset by change or vicarious criticism. Maybe they had a bad experience with an editor as children. QED

        • J4Zonian Says:

          Oops, the last paragraph should have been 2nd.

      • jpcowdrey Says:

        Or… the clowns in charge will whip up such a climate of fear, hatred and uncertainty that the country will slide even more towards fascism.

        I cannot stand the meme that Hillary cheated Bernie. The underbelly of hardball politics may not be pretty when exposed, but that is how the game is played. It’s been that way forever. The demographic facts are that the majority of Democrats are Liberals, not Progressives. I remember Clean Gene getting royally screwed by Humphrey and Progressives saying the same thing. What we got was a fractured Democratic Party and four more years of Nixon. Forming a circular firing squad is not a winning strategy. The truth is, progressive policies have only come about when progressives and liberals work together. The Roosevelts were not flaming reformers. They were autocrats who tended to sympathize with the plight of workers. Lyndon Johnson was the most cynical of political operatives ever. Look what he accomplished other than Viet Nam. (Actually begun by de Gaulle and Eisenhower.)

        Don’t be an idiot and learn from history.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          “I cannot stand the meme that Hillary cheated Bernie. ”

          You are joking, right? She and Obama colluded with the DNC to subvert a fair and impartial primary – WHICH IS THE CHARTER OBLIGATION OF THE DNC.

          That was not “politics as usual”. That was “cheating the public” for the love of power and profit, pure and simple. You want to excuse that? – YOU are the idiot.

          • jpcowdrey Says:

            Sweet Jesus, no. I’m not joking. There was a great deal of anger among the party faithful about Bernie’s ersatz conversion to the party. I think Debbie Shultz did a pretty good job of not letting it affect the primary process. She couldn’t stop it though. Once it was out there wild speculation in the press ran rampant on the sparest of evidence, and she was left without a pot to piss in. Hillary and Obama and every party member has every right to advocate for the candidate of their choice, including the irrelevant backwater dickholes who were saying nasty things about Bernie. It’s called Democracy.

            Now that you’ve had your moment of factional bickering, what do you think of the rest of my little screed?

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            jp, I really don’t understand what weird parallel universe you inhabit if you believe that Schultz did her best to run a fair primary. The DNC admitted under oath it did NOT run a fair primary for heaven’s sake.

            I don’t care if the DNC thought Sanders was the antiChrist. They had an obligation to the American people and the democratic process to run a legitimate primary and let the people decide. You are defending oligarchy. corruption and dishonesty.

            To say nothing of the fact that Sanders – according to multiple polls, nay! virtually every poll – would have easily defeated Trump. The DNC, not disgruntled Bernie voters, lost this election. They – and you, by proxy – are still pointing fingers at anyone and everyone but themselves.

          • jpcowdrey Says:

            “The DNC admitted under oath it did NOT run a fair primary for heaven’s sake.”

            Not true. They didn’t admit the primary was run unfairly. In a motion to dismiss a lawsuit, they insisted they had the legal right to nominate a candidate by any means they saw fit.

            ““We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,”

            Like the pirate’s code, the DNC charter isn’t so much a legal document as a set of guidelines.

        • J4Zonian Says:

          It’s not a game, and fascism and utter destruction of civilization by climate cataclysm is where it ends if the left sinks to the level of the Rovian right while moving ever more to the right. Even us idiots would prefer to avoid that. Telling the truth is a necessary part of revealing and reforming the deeply unconscious system that rules us. Hillary did cheat Bernie.

          The majority of people in the US take progressive positions on most issues. Where they don’t it’s because the right, with its control of corporate media, has relentlessly blared out conservative frames for 2 generations, in every form from “news” to movies to political pronouncements. Liberals have allowed that to not only happen but intensify (wealth and media concentration, unanswered framing of everything…) and the Democratic party leadership, which is overwhelmingly corporate center-right, collaborated.

          One thing this idiot learned from history is that the Roosevelts were radical democratic reformers who together were interested in far more than just workers–they accomplished a horrifically violent task while dramatically improving the lot of every oppressed group in the US and then expanding as much of that as they could to Europe and beyond–a neat balance of opposites that people in the US now could usefully take to heart. They were not perfect of course, but were far better than say, those who founded the country while favoring the wealthy, slaughtering Native Americans and owning slaves.

          The truth is, liberal policies are completely inadequate to the task we have now; only radical reversal of the course of civilization, led by a democratic and powerful government will do it. theclimatemobilization [dot] org

        • J4Zonian Says:

          PS, jp,

          The clowns absolutely will continue down the path to fascism as long as they’re in charge, and that will end us. But the clowns in charge are not the politicians, though they’ll all keep going down that path no matter who’s in office, until we stop them. The Denialati–the wealthy and the corporations addicted and ruled by fear and nihilistic rage, like the politicians in both halves of the duopoly, have to be removed from the decision-making process if we want civilization to survive another century.

          I understand the moral quandary here. At this point the corporate duopoly and the oligarchy are so insane and have such control over decisions, it’s very likely to go badly no matter how we vote or what else we do.* I even understand voting for Clinton, although I disagree with it. (at the minimum, in safe states and while paying close attention to polls.) But what is not acceptable is for Clintonites to blame, insult and treat as treasonous those whose more complete awareness of the psychological system leads them to a different path to the same end–survival. One way or another the US system has to be disabled for us to get what the planet needs; rejecting the corporate duopoly is a necessary, and major step toward that, and not accepting the duopoly’s Lesser Evil gambit is the first part of that step.

          * https://act%5Bdot%5Drepresent%5Bdot%5Dus/sign/the-problem

          • funslinger62 Says:

            “One way or another the US system has to be disabled for us to get what the planet needs; rejecting the corporate duopoly is a necessary, and major step toward that, and not accepting the duopoly’s Lesser Evil gambit is the first part of that step.”

            Well said.

        • andrewfez Says:

          ==““We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,”==

          What’s the point of even going out to vote in the primary if all it is is kabuki theater to portray an elaborate illusion of democracy for the sake of corporate interests? The Super Delegate system is already undemocratic enough – DWS said it specifically existed to guarantee grass roots candidates don’t get the candidacy.

          Looks like the only way to participate in actual democracy now is start voting in the Republican primaries – at the least the Republicans are democratic enough that it’s possible to vote in an outsider. Might as well do that and vote for the lesser of two evils on that side – vote for the non-tea party republicans to limit the Kochs influence.

          • jpcowdrey Says:

            It could be kabuki, but it isn’t. Wasserman said unpledged delegates exist to prevent candidates from competing against grass roots activists, not at all what you said. I would go further and say they exist to prevent insurgency candidates like Lyndon LaRouche, Lincoln Rockwell or David Duke who don’t share basic Democratic values. I don’t think that is such a bad thing. It’s a shame many thought Bernie was such an insurgent. It would have been easier to make the case he wasn’t to moderate and Blue Dog Democrats if he’d not suddenly joined the Democratic Party only to run for President.

            The point of voting for progressive candidates in local elections is to build a majority coalitions in local, state and federal legislatures. That should be the first priority of Progressive activists. Electing a Progressive candidate for president is something to hope for, but as a practical matter is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Whining about how the system is unfair isn’t even on the list. It is mere childish self-indugence.

            If you aren’t willing to engage in political activism until the political landscape reflects your own priorities, it’s going to be a long time coming before you see any results. I’m not willing to step into that trap.

    • climatehawk1 Says:

      Trump’s election is on everyone (non-voters, Stein voters, et al) who failed to vote for the only candidate who had a chance of defeating him.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        I’m pretty much with you on that if you mean Bernie, and only wish the current uprising had ramped up into meaningful action while he was being cheated out of the nomination (constant surrounding of Clinton, Wasserman Schultz, etc, blockades of DNC HQ and the convention if it got that far, and so on). We’d now have a president who was almost ready to do what was necessary to avoid climate catastrophe and could be convinced by activists to go the rest of the way, as the Roosevelts were.

        The psychological system being played out means we all have parts, even those who, like an acting-out child, call attention to the rottenness of the system and those who act out the part of the bystander. The more people awake to what part everyone is playing, the more useful stuff we can accomplish–like avoiding crashing the entire biosphere.

        Those who live in safe states can’t be blamed by any stretch of the scapegoating–and most states were safe one way or the other. Since every running of the Lesser Evil Gambit moves the country to the right no matter which half of the corporate duopoly it ends up selecting, those who refused to go along with yet another iteration can only be blamed for being awake and refusing to go along with destruction while waking others.

        • jpcowdrey Says:

          Buddy, you need to calm down. The Liberals in the oligarchy want to be progressive. That is their historical claim to fame. They want an increase in the minimum wage, they want universal health care, they want to seriously address climate change. They’re Liberals. They are practical-minded and pragmatic. They believe in science and making decisions based on the best empirical evidence available with the goal of providing the greatest freedom for the greatest number. Most of all they seek to sustain a stable polity where the interests of all segments of society are considered and weighed judiciously.

          We progressives need to strengthen our own political organisation and prove to our potential allies we’re not crazy bomb-throwers, but our revolution is an inclusive revolution of practicable ideas. Without turning anyone who doesn’t fit the program into evil boogiemen. We’re all in this together. Even the crazies.

          What I hear in your screed is the muffled rumble of the tumbrils as they roll into the city square. It scares the fuck out of me.

          On a lighter note:

          http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

          • J4Zonian Says:

            The truth is I’m quite calm. Are you?

            “I cannot stand the meme that Hillary cheated Bernie”

            To make a generalization like that is not credible and not true. Even to say that some liberals want to be progressive would take some evidence, and some explanation of what’s keeping them from thinking what they want to think, as well as an explanation of how that’s possible and how anyone could possibly know it about a group, since the only way would be for it to be unconscious, and i’ve never heard any such thing.

            And in the cartoon, which was all about things I’ve known for many years except it was pretty much what you’d expect a cartoon to be–simplistic and superficial–my response to every single assertion was exactly the same: reservation of judgment until corroboration could be found.

            Whatever you heard in my post was projection by you, apparently, since there was absolutely nothing there to scare any reasonable person. I can only think that you heard that small part of my position, associated it with either other people or some caricature or stereotype and assumed things about me that I assure you aren’t true. In fact, I just had this same argument with someone who also assumed the same thing. You should stop doing that.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/grist/this_kid_called_out_her_climate_denying_rep/#comment-3285436198

      • jpcowdrey Says:

        What scares me is that the only way you can win is through violent overthrow of the entire society and establishing a kind of dictatorship of the proletariat. That has been tried. It didn’t work.

        • stephengn1 Says:

          That’s not true. There will be violence, but it will be pointless. Regardless of violent acts, all human society is faced with already arriving massive change. It is coming from two primary directions simultaneously.

          1. Much of climate change is set in stone – The many and enormous human problems arriving as a result will continue to change every aspect of our lives, including politics with increasing intensity

          –if you think refugee flows (for example) are big now, wait 10 or 15 years

          2. Already arriving massive, unprecedented and accelerating technological advances will also change every aspect of our lives, including politics with increasing intensity.

          –The advent of advanced AI and machine learning (for example), a decade or more before they were forecast, has taken even Silicon Valley’s most forward thinkers by surprise

          We live in unparalleled times – get ready for the ride

          • jpcowdrey Says:

            I agree completely. All that is necessary to avoid catastrophe is a government that doesn’t stand in the way of progress. To minimize future suffering it would be nice to have a pro-active government, though, don’t ya think? My concern is J4Zonian’s political ideology (my ideal preference as well), which currently represents perhaps 20% of the population and about 40% of the Democratic electorate. A winner take all electoral system like we have in the US, inevitably resolves into a two party system. The math isn’t all that hard. The path to legislative success is through intra-party coalition. By alienating everyone else as evil, greater or lesser, he is just exacerbating the polarization that already exists. That kind of rigidity invariably leads to violence. Progressive politics, in order to succeed, works by addition, not subtraction.

            I believe there are a lot of Trump voters and tea-baggers who would vote for a progressive minded candidate, if only there were such activated candidates in their districts and a lot of discouraged Conservative voters conceivably backing a moderate Democrat. That is what forward looking Bernie Sanders and the Resistance is doing. He is not crying over spilt milk. As Joe Hill said to Mother Jones, “Don’t grieve, organize”. I just cannot understand why so many of his supporters insist on being whiny little bitches when there is so much practical work to be done. We’re supposed to be the rational ones.

      • stephengn1 Says:

        Look more closely that alternate version of history. If HRC would’ve become president, GOP anger would’ve continued on its ridiculous, hysterical and irrational trajectory. You’re fooling yourself if you believe investigations into HRC this or that and demands for a special prosecutor and demands for impeachment hearings would not have begun immediately.

        Then, in 2020 we would’ve been looking at “elect to me because I want to destroy the government via incompetent leadership” crowd – Donald J Trump, Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Sam Brownback et al – once again.

        This infectious right wing boil on the neck of America has to be lanced now or we’re heading into a whites only version of the Holy Roman empire

  4. stephengn1 Says:

    Coming from Louisiana and knowing about “vote for the crook, it’s important” (which I did in 1991), I know the difference between purity and necessity. I don’t know how many people voted for none of the above or, far worse than abstaining, Trump. I only know that I held my nose and a little vomit and voted for Hillary and got as many people as I could to do likewise.

    Still…

    Her candidacy laid bare a VAST gulf between the poilicies of the left (which is what is needed in spades if something as gargantuan as climate change is to be addressed) and the policies of the current version of the Democratic Party (which is a tepid, center right, status quo facsimile of a political movement that hardly ever mentions the words climate and change in the same sentence)

    It should be obvious to anyone reading this or watching this segment of Bill Maher that things must change – A LOT. The anger and action that we are now seeing at town halls and in the streets gives me hope for 2018 and beyond. That’s the only thing I seem to be left with these days – A choice between hope and despair

  5. J4Zonian Says:

    Ginger,

    “Sanders … would have easily defeated Trump. The DNC, not disgruntled Bernie voters, lost this election. They – and you, by proxy – are still pointing fingers at anyone and everyone but themselves.”

    Yes! The polls were out there for everyone to see. The DNC made a conscious (yet obviously unconsciously-driven) decision, that they would rather have DON, Der Orange Narziss, and a Republican congress, than Bernie and a Democratic one. I think it’s pretty clear that they thought that allowing Bernie the presidency, backed by a strong popular movement, would have threatened the oligarchy’s overwhelming dominance. They decided, despite knowing the near-certainty of destruction by climate Ragnarok if radical-enough steps weren’t taken almost immediately, that they preferred continued profits for the short term rather than a good chance of safety for the world. They’ve decided this over and over and over in the last 30+ years–at Copenhagen, at Paris, in every election, and every day they gave money and cover to those covering up the system of lies and division. Though “they” are only partly the same as the fossil fuel corporations, they are equally responsible with the Kochs, Exxon, ALEC et al for the election results and the horrific conditions now inevitable no matter what we do from now on.


    • Sanders would have _easily_ defeated Trump. You saw what the media did to Hillary. Do you really think the RWNJs would have laid down, kept quiet and played nice about a candidate who both claims to be a socialist _and_ happens to be Jewish?

      They’d have torn him to shreds. He might have won, but there’s no way on this planet it would have been easy.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        I worked on both Sanders’ and Dennis Kucinich’s campaigns and the thing we heard over and over and over was “I really like him and his positions are exactly what I think on everything, but you know, he can’t win so I’m voting for…” If the DNC hadn’t cheated it would have been much closer (it was already way, way closer than Kucinich ever got) and that argument would have started to crumble. Once Sanders was in the general election and up against such a hated candidate, with favorables way, way higher, and attractive for many of the same reasons the Kumquat Caligula was (attractive to independents, anti-establishment people, etc.) I think it would have virtually disappeared.

        There could have been no direct attacks on his Jewishness and I think even 3rd party dogwhistle attacks would have been revealed and backfired, while not being nearly as effective as those same kinds of attacks on women, African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslims (how many people do you think would have believed the inevitable nut-case rumor of him being Muslim?) Many people would not in fact vote for a woman, even though they would never admit it, so I think the polls were off both in who people would vote for and why, so Bernie’s old white guyness would likely have been a great boon taking the Clownfish’s votes in the Republican’s supposed rock-solid base.

        I think it’s likely all this would have snowballed and turned into a landslide for Bernie, not just the relatively narrow win (6-7 points in one poll I seem to remember.).

  6. Sir Charles Says:

    The French were just a wee bit smarter today. I’m surely not a supporter of Macron. But Le Pen would have been a disaster for whole Europe.

  7. shastatodd Says:

    the limits to growth are not political… this is math and science we ignore at our own peril.

  8. J4Zonian Says:

    jp,

    Wasserman-Schultz was obviously lying. Superdelegates may sometimes function to stop anti-democratic candidates or whatever that fracking fluid was that she said, but everything about them says they were really created to stop more democratic candidates and favor the center-right corporate candidates. They were created after McGovern; they consist of the richest, most ensconced and establishment people in the party, and consistently vote for the most conservative candidate unless there’s an almost equally conservative one that the whole rank and file prefers, and not voting for him or her would make the supers look bad. (Clinton v. Obama). All the conservative, southern primaries are loaded at the front of the season, making it hard for leftists and easy for conservatives. Media of course is strongly rightward tilted and can be counted on to ignore left-leaners until they begin to make a splash and then it’s time to start ridiculing and smearing them. And then there’s the fact that the DNC cheated to help the conservative, corporate candidate rather than take a chance and let all those lines of defense be enough of a stacked deck. Sorry, mixed metaphor.

    Actually, committing violence is the only way we can’t win. Peaceful direct action in a massive revolution is the only way to get our unconscious and unwilling society to act quickly and radically enough to avoid climate catastrophe. I said that quite clearly in the post I linked to. Building a party up from local candidates, etc. is definitely the best way but can take decades, especially since we’re going against vastly more money, media control and decades of framing by the far right that a lot of people have bought into. (It plays into people’s natural tendency to deny unpleasant reality.) Since we’ve delayed action so long on the ecological crisis, there’s no time for that to work.

    You seem to assume a lot of things about me and/or the situation. I run into that a lot with right wing denialist trolls. I know you’re not like that, so if you’ll please stop doing that we’ll get further with this discussion.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: