i'm done. forget the democrats, i want change.

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday March 16, 2016 · 8:46 PM PDT

2016/03/16 · 20:46

Red exit sign on white-greenish plastered wall — out of here

i’m done. out of here. i won’t vote for hillary, and i won’t vote for trump either. know why? because i don’t support either of them. they both suck and they both stand for everything i don’t, just different flavors. it’s a vanilla kick in the nuts versus a chocolate kick in the nuts. how about you leave me alone and don’t kick me anywhere? so she won’t get my vote if she’s the nominee. if that means trump wins and the scotus goes red for a generation so be it. that’s the price. she didn’t earn my vote so she doesn’t get it. hillary clinton is a republican who says nice democratic sounding things every election cycle.

so what do i stand for, what do i want, what do i vote on?

war. hillary is for it. every. single. time. hillary makes money off it. see: donations to clinton foundation and arms deals. she wants a no fly zone in syria. why? might it have something to do with the arms flowing to qatar, and then to ISIS and the syrian rebels? why is qatar the number one provider of arms (bought from the us) to the syrian rebels? might it have something to do with the oil pipeline they would profit hugely from? who would that pipeline hurt? oh, russia. who supports assad and is the only major party to be impacted by the no fly zone? oh, that’s russia, too. hmm. HMMM.

Maybe just MAYBE hillary is supporting arming the syrian rebels because she is directly engaged in a geopolitical proxy war with russia over natural gas. does hillary care about natural gas, is she involved in this arena? i don’t know, does she go around the world supporting fracking?

what else do i vote on? economic opportunity for the least of our brothers and sisters here in america. where does hillary stand on this? against a living wage, for free trade deals that cost us jobs. oh, i’m sorry she’s against TPP now, i forgot. it is campaign season after all. who the fuck in their right mind thinks she has actually changed her mind on TPP? nobody. what, she doesn’t like the new draft of the treaty? what? WHAT? she can’t even read it. she isn’t in office or in congress. if you buy that she read the new draft and disagrees with it i don’t know what to tell you. you’re not going to listen to me or the facts or what’s in your face, your mind is made up and that is sad. has the media called her on this transparent bullshit? nope. hmm. interesting, that. she championed nafta and championed tpp until her REPUBLICAN opponents said it was bad. then, and only then, did she “evolve” as the new slogan for “duplicitously faked a new angle” goes. she’s for sending jobs overseas, where labor is cheaper, which would bolster the bottom lines of US based multinational conglomerates, which is after all what her fucking job is at the end of the day.

so she will bomb anyone who wants to hinder US business interests, she will lie and cheat and slander anyone who stands in the way of business interests at home, and she will spout bullshit platitudes about the fucking children and whoever else to get elected because low information voters (who are white and black and hispanic and all races so shut the fuck up) don’t know otherwise and aren’t engaged enough or informed enough to connect the dots and realize how full of shit she is. “oh, hillary clinton? i’ve heard of her. bernie snaders? who’s that? the old guy? i heard he doesn’t have a chance.” then they pull the lever for hillary. and not by chance.

it’s all by design. cry me a fucking river about CT and omg the people have spoken and this is the process. fuck that. this is by design. barely any debates. nobody challenging her. endorsements coming every day, every week from major politicians. this is the system. she is the system. the system (that is, she) is the problem. the system brought us iraq, and TPP, and this never ending recession for we the people that somehow (not somehow, by design by insiders like hillary) has meant massive profits for the 1%. at whose expense? ours. that increase in productivity and profit? that shit is fucking related, and it is why millenials aren’t getting on with their lives. i’m 30 and still renting with fucking roomates although i am in management at a multi multi million dollar firm.

what does that mean for my generation? it means we get the shaft. and you know what? we’re fucking over it. there’s a lot a LOT of rage among us for the injustices perpetrated on us and on society by the baby boomers at the top. the problem is not all boomers but the boomers gave us reagan, and iraq, and the crash, and the problems we face.

we are angry. we aren’t going to chill out and vote for hillary. no. fuck that. if trump wins then trump fucking wins and he will win because hillary is a shit candidate who was insulated from any real contest by the system itself. if it takes a racist fascist republican to break that and SHOCK THE FUCKING SYSTEM then so be it. we are young and we can live through 4 or 8 years of trump until the rest of the sleeping population wakes up and realizes it’s all a sham and we need to stick together and that the wealthy and the violent military that protects them is the problem.

jfk said if you make peaceful change impossible you make violent change inevitable.

well, the power brokers have chosen hillary. that is, they have chosen eventual violence. not now, not for years probably, but it will come. i promise you, it will come.

this might get me banned, this might get me on some list. but fuck that. i’m probably on a list, multiple lists already and this site has become part of the problem. so, goodbye. those of you who won’t miss me i won’t miss and those of you who will know where to find me.

in the streets, with my fist in the air, yelling

“THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!”

I’ll see you out there.

Poll

806 votes Show Results

would you vote for hillary?

806 votes Vote Now!

would you vote for hillary?

106 votes

hell no

635 votes

i am part of the problem

65 votes

On white people asking black people why they support Hillary

MerlynMagus

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday March 01, 2016 · 6:51 AM PST

2016/03/01 · 06:51

It’s because a lot of Bernie supporters see her record on issues centered around racial equality and the impact on black communities as lacking, to say the least. No need to hash, re-hash, and triple hash the reasons. We’ve all seen the super predators video by now and read about the impacts of welfare reform and mandatory sentencing.

But imagine if it was another group, say LGBT or environmental activists flocking to a candidate whose record is demonstrably worse than their opponent’s. If 8 in 10 LGBT people were voting for Hillary, we’d say “Why, guys? She only came out in favor of gay marriage in 2013 and had a major hand in getting DOMA passed.” If 8 in 10 environmentalists backed her, we’d point to her staunch support of fracking, her major donations from oil and gas industries and speaking fees from those same groups, and highlight her flip flop on Keystone only recently, when it became apparent it wasn’t going to happen.

It has nothing to do with white people talking down to black people. It’s a discussion among progressives about which candidate to support and why. No, you don’t need to explain your vote to anyone and nobody has the right to demand you do so. But if someone genuinely asks you why because they want to understand, saying essentially “None of your business and I don’t owe you an explanation.” that doesn’t make the question go away. It doesn’t help your candidate.

If you think Hillary is the best candidate for black Americans, I don’t see how asking for your reasons in an invitation for a discussion is offensive, racist, or rude.

Wall Street Reform: More Regulations vs. Break Up The TBTF Banks

MerlynMagus

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday January 05, 2016 · 9:24 AM PST

2016/01/05 · 09:24

Two candidates, two approaches to Wall Street reform

We already have arcane, nuanced rules and regulations designed to subtly control the financial sector. The problem is, they don’t work. And the reason they don’t work is that they rely on regulators who all too often come right out of the institutions they are supposed to be regulating.

So when we compare the two major candidates’ plans to regulate Wall Street, we see that one candidate wants to put more power in the hands of these regulators who aren’t doing their jobs, more rules for them to find ways not to enforce. Often these legal work-arounds are brain children of various Wall Street law firms, and we find that these very law firms are the ones donating most heavily to this candidate’s campaign, that this candidate has a history of coddling the largest investment banks and in fact being very cordial with them, counting them as a core constituency. This same candidate maintains that their plan is actually the tougher plan, because hey, look at all these shiny new rules! They tout their “tough” plan with a knowing wink to the same law firms donating to them, because these firms know full well they will be able to skirt the new rules with ease.

It sounds good, it looks good on its face, but it is not good. If this system worked, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Then there’s the other candidate. What we know of his plan thus far is that it is not subtle, not nuanced, does not rely on ineffective regulators to magically become effective. It does not willfully ignore the fact that corruption is rampant in the SEC or that the banks have more political clout than any other industry. It takes the problem head-on, and says simply “Break up the big banks. If you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist.” Given that the current system doesn’t work, this is the only choice that will deliver the results our economy needs. It’s not corruption or lawyer-proof by any means but it is much harder to maintain consolidated power when the large financial institutions are broken up. We will have this fight again, even if this second candidate’s plan goes through. Like gravity, major institutions have a way of merging again. Capitalism will always seek monopoly power, it is woven into its very nature. But this candidate actually recognizes that and seeks to reform the system in a way that speaks to the truth of the situation we find ourselves in, not in a way that relies heavily on ignoring the concrete truth that the system is itself broken and enforcement is already woefully inadequate. What good does it do to put more tools in the toolbox of regulators, if those regulators left their tools behind and are out to lunch with their old pals from the very institutions they are supposed to be regulating?

If you don’t believe that this second candidate’s plan is stronger on reforming Wall Street, just follow the money. Wall Street and their lawyers are backing and have backed one candidate, and Wall Street is the mortal enemy of the other. Wall Street knows who they want.

RSS