Jump to content


Sinclair Broadcasting: "Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy"


24 replies to this topic

#21 George Powell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 11:09 AM

 D. C. Sessions, on 20 October 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

There are plenty (Obama was one) -- but ain't no saints. We've never had a saint in the White House, and I defy you to find any saints running any country, anywhere, ever.

On the other hand, there's a long way down and eternal vigilance etc.
I deleted my reply but with the slow internet you had already replied.

See edited version. The jist is simply that I hope you are right.

#22 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8604 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 20 October 2018 - 11:56 AM

Clinton, let us recall, was part of a generational pattern where Democrats got beat up as being too pacifist in a hostile world. She's basically the same age as $HERSELF, who as a student was in Chicago for the summer of '68 and the epic police riot at the Democratic convention there. The first Presidential election that Clinton was allowed to vote in was the still-champion trouncing of 1972 when McCarthy (and the entire Party) got shellacked for being too pacifist and too radical on race relations.

The generational lesson was that the American public demanded a more moderate Democratic Party. She and Bill took that to heart as the price of not having a repeat of Nixon. If you want to have a seat at the table, you have to give as well as take. I don't know whether you remember the shit that Democrats caught for using the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War to (gasp!) take better care of Americans, but it wasn't pretty. The man of the decade, looking back, was Gingrich: someone who was less interested in policy than power. The current era is far more his than Bill's.

Would Clinton have had a better electoral chance if she had been more overtly pacifist? Looking at the present, it's hard to make that counterfactual. Everything I've seen says that she was an exemplary Secretary of State, though. She got people to the table, she spent herself lavishly on the task, and pretty near everyone (at least those who weren't implacable enemies of the USA and in particular US women) was on better terms with us as a result.

Did she support Obama's uses of military force? Yep -- and he might have been right, recalling the practical limits on Presidential power [1]. In the end, SecState doesn't make the broad scope of policy. Remember, though, that she (like $HERSELF) came of age during the Vietnam war and besides the obvious lessons of that disaster, learned another that we can't afford to forget: If you want to see your policies enacted, you have to get the power to do it. You have to be elected -- otherwise, it's just pub talk.


[1] Don't complain. Absent those limits, wispy as they are proving, do you really think that we wouldn't be at war with Iran already?
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#23 Rich T Bikkies

    Trainee Basil Fawlty. Practising Victor Meldrew

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3760 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, UK

Posted 21 October 2018 - 02:45 AM

Thanks for a very thoughtful piece, DC.
Reality is a hallucination caused by alcohol deprivation.

Only Satan can rebuke sin. The righteous don't know enough.

God is not dead. He was merely voted out of office.

You can do anything with anybody if you just save them the trouble of thinking.

#24 andydp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3263 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY near Albany

Posted 21 October 2018 - 05:17 PM

View PostRich T Bikkies, on 21 October 2018 - 02:45 AM, said:

Thanks for a very thoughtful piece, DC.
Agreed. It’s a lesson the Democrats need to relearn. The GOP is about to (hopefully) discover what their policies will bring them. In the early days of the Tea Paty farce the GOP found out it wasn’t enough to just pick someone who was non establishment, you had to vet them or you get the “anti masturbation Wiccan” running for senate In Delaware.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Rev Martin Luther King Jr.


Obamacare took my guns away and put me in a FEMA reeducation camp.

Anonymous

If you've got public schools paid for by taxpayers, you're in a socialist nation. If you have public roads paid for by taxpayers, socialist nation. If you've got public defense (police, fire, military, coast guard) paid for by tax dollars, socialist nation. If you're in a nation that has nationalized or localized delivery of services that are not paid for by users alone, you're in a socialist nation- the only question is how socialist. As I see it, we have the military pay to protecting the shipping lanes for our fuel needs which makes up very socialist. In a capitalist nation, the people supplying the oil would pay for their own defense force.


DC Coronata

#25 George Powell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 04:46 AM

The GOP are the masters of policy of change, offering something seemingly different and progressive but in reality changing nothing. They are masters of illusion and ultimate sophists. The DEMs need to learn that to do good you have to be cunning not just sincere.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users