A President and A WomanWhat Diffference Does It Make?
Feminists have been telling us for decades that men and women are not different, even that gender is arbitrary. If you feel like a man, you are a man. And vice-versa.
Now they claim that Hillary Clinton's nomination is historic and that perhaps we should vote for her because she is a woman, much as many voted for Obama because he was Black, even if he was a poor choice. We knew little about Barack Obama until he became President. Clinton is a known quantity and what we know is not good. In fact, it is horrible.
I was not thrilled about making history because I do not believe this nomination is historic, since it must be qualified with the term "major party."
I volunteered in her 1992 campaign against Bush, Perot and Bill Clinton, who later masqueraded as the "first Black president." (Really! I'm not kidding.) Hillary Clinton and her party undermined Fulani's attempt to be the first president who was Black and female. Their adjuncts in the press strained to ignore and slander this Black woman.
During the campaign, I met Dr Fulani, heard her speak. She is impressive, far more impressive than Hillary Clinton will ever be. On the other hand, Fulani has never achieved serial-liar status or had to be pardoned by the FBI.
It was not Republicans, it was Democrats working to derail her presidency, including attempts to keep her off the ballot and silence her, as they did later with Ralph Nader, as they do routinely. They went so far as to fly Democratic Party operative Ron Daniels to California to cheat Fulani out of the Peace & Freedom Party nomination she won in the primary. After he became the nominee, he crawled back under the rock from which he had emerged, never to be heard from again.
So much for Democrats giving women and minorities a chance to succeed. Maybe they didn't like Fulani informing Blacks, gays and other favourite Democrat fall-back voters that blindly supporting one party was not in their interest, unless that party earned their votes. (A novel idea back then.) Maybe they simply were confirming their racism.
Because Democrats are statist, pro-war, anti-middle class and antithetical to actual leftists, they need radical poseurs in the media to fool radicals like Sanders supporters that the party represents them, when really it resents them. The shameless trashing of Fulani personally continues to this day in the Progressive (Democratic-party apologist) press, whenever they deign to mention her. They always refer to her as a fringe person, as they tried to do with Bernie Sanders.
I loathe socialism and big government, but I believe in democracy, so I must be a fringe voter. But I'd rather be a fringe than a fool.Posted 31 July 2016
Not to let Republicans off the hook, but Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself mailed me this faux survey.
Both major parties use these imitation surveys to confuse you, then hit you up for money. Were I registered Democrat, which I was for years, I could understand. But I changed my registration in 1990, when they offered corrupt Dianne Feinstein as an alternative to slimy Pete Wilson for governor. (I voted for neither.) Consider the questions. Section II is "The Republican Threat." Seems harsh, but it implies there is some difference between these parties. (There isn't.)
1) Straw horses. Most Republicans do not deny that the climate is changing, or reject diplomacy. They are pledged to eliminate the Unaffordable Care Act, well along to being the biggest federal failure ever. (They probably won't.) Gutting Social Security and Medicare is bullshit. One could argue that the Democrats's expanding these programmes without addressing their impending collapse is worse than anything Republicans could do, although it cannot be overemphasised that this is textbook demagoguing. "Comprehensive immigration reform" is code for passing a huge bill that will wreak havoc on the nation without reforming anything.
2) Appealing to Trump haters is one way to distract from Hillary Clinton's negatives, which are huge. The phrase "women's reproductive freedom" seems to mean opposing abortion that is free, on demand, even through the ninth month of pregnancy. About 50% of women are anti-abortion ("pro-life"), so they don't count.
3) The phrase "most catastrophic" aims at Democrats who vote the party line without thinking. The third choice is odd because states with Republican governors seem to be doing a lot better than Democrat-run strongholds like New York and California; the cities with the most violence, poverty and disintegration have Democratic mayors.
4) Sinister? Implies that Democrats have fewer wealthy supporters, and are less beholden to them. The Koch brothers don't just support Republicans, and give far less than major Dem contributors like Tom Steyer ($74 million in '04), Michael Bloomberg ($27.7 million), Sheldon Adelson, George Soros*, the unions, the lawyers, the teachers and so on. Dems claim to oppose campaign spending, but only when the money does not go to their campaigns. [See Politico or Google it.]
5) The Republicans's freeze on Obama's choice for Supreme Court justice is exactly what Democrats, like Reid, Schumer and Obama, promised to do when a lame-duck Republican was in the White House. For a change, Republicans did not wimp out. Dems charge their opponents with putting "far-right ideaologues" on the court. That has not proven to be the case. Consider Earl Warren, Tony Kennedy and Sammy Alioto. Republicans want justices that will uphold the law and the Constitution. Democrats prefer justices who will rewrite the laws and the Constitution.
DemNatCom provide a write-in choice for Priorities, choices slanted with things like "sensible laws to combat gun violence." Why not enforce the existing laws? They admit proposed new laws won't stop violence, just make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns to protect themselves, which the government (under both major parties) cannot or will not do.
2) Closing tax loopholes is a great idea. Who put them there?
3) Another partisan question for those who think politicians with a D after their name stand for something other than getting into office and staying there. If serious, propose term limits.
4) A potpourri of nonsense. Again, "protecting the right to vote and expanding access to the ballot box." Piffle!
5) I have worked on campaigns over the years. Candidates should pay workers — at least minimum wage, with overtime. That seems fair, and politicians are all about fairness. Use the money raised by unopposed candidates to aid the poor or for some other worthy cause.
Replace failed policies with some that might work. Don't expect intelligent persons to buy into your corruption and lies. Sure, Republicans are disgraceful, but so are Democrats. That is why the only times the allegedly two parties work together is to enact election restrictions to restrict independents from their chance to point out the folly of the Two-Party System of deception. And to give themselves raises and perks. .
Remember: Corruption begins at home
At the 2016 convention, Senator Elizabeth Warren decried the Republican Party's "politics of fear and division." That is rich coming from a member of the party of identity politics, pitting groups against each other and, of course, relying on certain groups to vote for Democrats, no matter what. As if voters have no free will or ability to decide on their own.
It makes no more sense voting Democratic because you are Black than it does to vote for someone because she's a woman, even if she is horrible. The right to vote also is the right to choose for yourself. Choice is good.
[If you forward a Republican quiz to me, GTSlade@yahoo.com, I'll be happy to given them the same honest treatment.]
The Official GT Slade Blog