Saturday, May 28, 2016

Bernie haiku, and more...

From here:
I'm against the Establishment, money in politics, and rigging elections, so I'm voting for the guy who has been in Congress for thirty years, accepted $10,000 from Hillary Clinton's PAC in 2006, and made deals with the DNC to ensure he wouldn't have a Democratic challenger in his Senate races.
Added note:
And if he doesn't win, I'm going to vote for the billionaire whose policies run contrary to literally everything I believe in.

P.S. I'm 16.
Salon: As several of you have pointed out, Politico has taken a well-deserved hatchet to Salon. Unfortunately, they don't mention the supreme hypocrisy of a website attacking Hillary for giving speeches to Goldman Sachs, while not telling readers that the CEO of said website is a Goldman alum.

Still, there are some juicy nuggets to be found here...
It has developed a reputation for being not just sympathetic to Bernie Sanders, but overtly hostile to Hillary Clinton, unable to distinguish her from Donald Trump in the same way Ralph Nader saw no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Salon contributor H.A. Goodman has written several columns for the publication with titles like “I wouldn’t vote for Dick Cheney, so I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton: An unrepentant only-Sanders voter fires back at critics” and “Please, FBI — you’re our last hope: The Democratic Party’s future rests upon your probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails.” (The columns spurred a debate in Salon’s newsroom after a staffer sent an email to colleagues saying Goodman’s articles reflected badly on the company.)
The more stinging critique is about the quality of what Salon publishes – and Goodman’s pieces in particular have reignited lamentations about the site’s downward spiral. Walsh and Miller have been outspoken on Twitter about some of the stories from the site, as have many others. Two guys even created a vicious parody account, @salondotcom, to mock Salon’s increasingly strident brand of leftism, with fake tweets like “Ten signs your cat might be racist” and “Should GMOs come with trigger warnings?”

“It's really sad,” Talking Points Memo publisher Josh Marshall tweeted last month. “These Salon headlines are like the bastard child of World Net Daily and the LaRouche Times … In retrospect it's scary to think that Salon was maybe always just one @joanwalsh or @KerryLauerman away from derp oblivion.”
Unmitigated irresponsibility: I think this guy speaks for most other Bernie-or-busters...
Victor Vizcarra, 48, of Los Angeles, said he would much prefer Mr. Trump to Mrs. Clinton. Though he said he disagreed with some of Mr. Trump’s policies, he added that he had watched “The Apprentice” and expected that a Trump presidency would be more exciting than a “boring” Clinton administration.

“A dark side of me wants to see what happens if Trump is in,” said Mr. Vizcarra, who works in information technology. “There is going to be some kind of change, and even if it’s like a Nazi-type change, people are so drama-filled. They want to see stuff like that happen. It’s like reality TV. You don’t want to just see everybody be happy with each other. You want to see someone fighting somebody.”
Yeah. That's what Adolf was like: Reality TV.

Bernie haiku. A couple of examples from here:
A rigged election
Frustrated my destiny
Fuck you black people
Hillary Clinton
Is a cunt, whore, and a bitch
I am not sexist
Obviously, I must add my own offerings...

My fans are stoners,
whiney white gamergaters,
and paranoid loons.

Never praise Clinton
or my bros will rain hellfire!
Watch out for my goons.

Master Donald knows
My skeletonized closet.
I dance to his tunes.

My wife ran a school,
but all she knows of money
she learned from cartoons.

Wait...haiku isn't supposed to rhyme, is it? I hope I have not offended the gods...

Black comrades, become
true revolutionaries
and do what we say.

If I fail, vote Trump!
Fascism, Marxism -- whatever
keeps Clinton at bay.

Just vote GOP
That'll show the DNC!
(Have I earned my pay?)

Sorry...rhyme keeps creeping in...
The first two paragraphs with quotes, wow.
Mr Vizcarra may speak not just for most Bernie-or-busters but also for most Trump supporters.

I don't watch TV but I've followed the rise of programmes that show the rich and powerful humiliating eager-to-please lower-downers, often making them fight each other. The rich and powerful then select the winners, whilst the others become "losers" whom the viewers are encouraged to believe deserve no sympathy whatsoever.

We're talking Simon Cowell, Judge Judy, Anne Robinson, Jacqueline Gold, etc. This cultural development is at one with what is now the mass experience of having watched snuff videos. It is also at one with tying back people's eyelids to force them to watch obscene anti-human shows such as Game of Thrones while thinking it's good for them and that anyone who says otherwise is an arsehole. See also the promotion of bullying on 4chan etc. This, my friends, is the US-led West right now. This is what the ruling scum are doing to the youth, and not just the youth.

The culture goes together with the politics of removing social protection for the poor, and from the working class generally. Everyone at a given level is supposed to back those who stand above them, not passively but with passion and joy, as those who stand below them get trampled, humiliated, even killed.

And that is getting very close indeed to fascism.

I knew Trump was with this zeitgeist that's been promoted for some time. I didn't know he'd been on The Apprentice. Maybe I'm the only person on the planet who didn't. But it figures. He's got this election in the bag.

What is needed to stop him is a left-wing critique of this development. This is what the fervour of Bernie Sanders's supporters should direct itself towards. Soon. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the left needs to support her campaign, not slavishly, but vociferously and with the rallying cry of "STOP TRUMP - HELL, NO, WE DON'T WANT FASCISM". But the age-old confusion in the US of the left with liberalism is likely to prevent this. The word "capitalism" is used far more often today than it was 30 years ago, but sadly the kids still don't understand it much. The messing up of minds to focus on specific scams and dirt while shouting loud and without trying to understand the big picture has gone too far.

Some of this is similar to the German "Communist" Party's policies against "social fascism" after 1928, policies which allowed the real fascists to be victorious.

Fascism stalks the US.

Clinton's not great. She's a crook. All senators and governors are crooks. But if she wins the nomination, she should be supported anyway. I'm not particularly keen on parliamentary democracy. The left need to get involved in her campaign in such a way that they keep their autonomy, their verve. When fascism looms, it cannot be stopped simply by sheep voting for this candidate rather than that one. If it is to be stopped, it will be by a radical movement that is essentially precisely that - a radical movement - but which is also realistic and in this instance has a parliamentary side to it. In other words, for fuck's sake go out and vote.

But I think it's already too late.

b: Clinton is not a crook. Saying that "all senators and governors are crooks" doesn't make your libel of her any more true. Saying that she should be supported doesn't permit you to call her a crook without any evidence whatsoever. It is very odd for you to think you can support a candidate while calling her a crook. With supporters like you, who needs enemies?
I am a Hillary supporter. I will not support her if I know for sure she is crook. If you have such knowledge why not share it with the rest. Millions were spent over three decades to support that claim. The only thing they have to show for is easily fooled people repeating it without thinking.
Salon has a new CEO
what b said.. Let me add that Trump could be the critical mass we need to persuade the masses a major re-boot is sorely needed.

@Corby - I'm not in court and I don't need to give a senator the benefit of the doubt or to marshall evidence for pseudo-judicial consideration when I make such a non-specific claim. There comes a point where you have to allow your general understanding of the overall system to inform your take on particular cases. Otherwise your outlook is in danger of being dominated by whatever the media headlines are, with unspoken and wrong assumptions about the deeper picture made accordingly. The US authorities are corrupt. The Hill is business-owned. The assumption that a senator is as pure as the driven snow unless "evidence" shows to the contrary is not one that I share.

If the directors of Clinton's campaign do not extend an arm to people who have supported Sanders and who are now willing to support Clinton not because they like her but because they want to stop Trump, it's they who will be helping Trump win.

I am in favour of anti-Trump unity and tactical support for Clinton. When she gets the Democratic nomination, as looks very likely, I hope a lot of Sanders supporters adopt that position. I'm not saying they should shout through their loudhailers "Vote Clinton! She's a nicer crook than Trump!" I'm aware of how the right wing are using the idea that Clinton is a crook. Specifically, I'm aware of how they are using it to try to win Sanders supporters to vote for Trump. They're fighting the election already. They don't want the focus to be on the billionaire casino-owner. I'm suggesting that the focus should be on stopping Trump. What do you want those who have supported Sanders to do - bow down and worship Clinton? To eat Clinton boot and say "thank you, ma'am"?

Perhaps you want them to snivel out of the room as I guess losers on The Apprentice are expected to?

I know this almost certainly won't happen, but imagine if Clinton shows some courage and imagination and doesn't choose a running-mate whose image is positioned between her own and Trump's, as conventional public-relations realpolitik says she should. (Anyone who thinks that that's going to win this time doesn't understand the Trump momentum and must be crazy.) Imagine if she chooses Sanders. Imagine if she says "There have been divisions in our party, even at times bitter divisions, but now we've got to come together. You have shown great passion and it's my pleasure to invite you not to give up your ideals but to join me in the even bigger fight to come, which is to stop what this far-rightwing demagogue Trump wants to do." She'd be showing proper leadership and who knows, maybe Trump could even be defeated.

b: I was with you for a while until you went off the rails in Crookville. What Corby said. Nice list of cultural influences but I think you have to toss "24" into the mix since it somehow, along with Dirty Harry, managed to convince people that torture was a good way to get reliable information. And fun, too!
Well, you've got the idea of two juxtaposed images down, but you need to work of counting syllables.

Hillary, not Bill,
She has a record her own,

5, 7, 5.

I think the other rules only really apply in Japanese.
Really i think you should stop bashing Bernie and supporters. Although i am a Hillary supporter, let's face it she is going to be the nominee and will need their support in the general election. Bernie can stay in the race if he likes, but i would also hope that he would reserve criticism for Trump.

Donald Trump is a hemorrhoid on the body politic, and Hillary is Preparation H.
Hillary Clinton is not a crook, and Trump is NOT going to be president.
Before calling Hillary a "crook", you should remember that a lavishly-financed hate campaign has been running against the Clintons for 25 years, in both the "mainstream" Corporate Media and the openly right-wing lunatic-fringe media.

It has been running longer than that, if you count the years where Bill was governing the Arkanshire.

So, are you repeating truth, or are you unwittingly repeating propaganda, crafted by the shrewdest amoral minds money can buy?

Define Crook?

Do you mean had she broken any laws? Do you mean had she done things which while not open to prosecution have resulted in her becoming very wealthy?

Let's be clear about this - I have no doubt in my mind that if she is not one of the greatest commodity futures traders in the world, then she broke some campaign finance laws. Is it provable? Well within a reasonable doubt yes, but you would need to understand commodities trading to see that. She managed to make money on the short side in a pretty strong bull market. And she did so with a tiny account. You can look up odds for that on the internet, but it's not dissimilar to winning a lottery.

Since that episode she hasn't publically dabbled in cattle futures which is curious cos is a very specialized market. It's really a pros or farmers only market.

I would suggest that it is far more likely that her broker directed winning trades to her after the close if daily business. So for some reason her broker wanted to give her 100k.

I don't know why she did such a thing, but any other explanation is absurd. Find one futures trader who thinks she traded her own book. Whether you care about such a small sum, such a long time ago is the question.

Has she done anything else that is so clearly illegal. Well ignoring the email thing, I'm not aware of it. However she had become very wealthy from her career in politics. I would consider poverty exculpatory but not extreme wealth. I think you are better off suggesting that there is no proof of past corruption cos there is definitely indications of it.

This does not prove Bernie or any other politician clean. Just that HRC provides scope for reproach.



Stephen, which haiku does not follow 5-7-5? I thought I double-checked pretty thoroughly.
Harry, you go all the way back to early days for an example of where Hillary made some money without obvious expertise. You suggest no quid pro quo, just that someone may have given her a tip, which is not actually illegal at all unless it is an insider. As you yourself state, nothing she did was illegal -- and it has all been very thoroughly investigated by highly motivated political enemies. Much ado about nothing.

The Clintons are both highly intelligent, educated people with connections. They have everything anyone needs to make money and they have done so. When did it become illegal or immoral to make a good living in the USA? When did either of them ever take a vow of poverty?

Hillary is not a crook. Bill is not a crook. Yes, they have money that they have made in legal ways -- because if their methods were illegal, they would have been tried long ago. Yet the only accusations against them wind up being empty, over and over, just as this latest one about emails is empty.

In frustration, the Clinton's political enemies have decided to just call them crooks without any evidence. Who needs evidence when just repeating the lie works almost as well as proof. Political opponents believe in their hearts that the Clintons are guilty of all kinds of stuff but too slippery to convict. I believe they are innocent and impossible to convict because nothing can stick when there is nothing to find (except the obvious).

When someone calls Clinton a crook, I know exactly where they are coming from and how their mind works. They don't care about evidence or proof or innocent-until-proven-guilty or that anyone can succeed in America through hard work. They just want to block the political aspirations of the most talented political couple in our party. And they don't care how they accomplish that.
Corby, it's impossible to game the futures market. I have been so told by experts.

If you could do would be a millionaire.

Martin Scorcese is never going to make a movie called "The Wolf of the Futures Market." Not going to happen.
Fasc- or marx- isms, whatevs....

;) Fixed. And yeah, no rhymes....
Joseph, are you saying then that anyone who makes money in futures is a crook?

There are so many different ways that Clinton could have bought and sold those futures that do not involve payoffs that assuming they were paid off has to be a motivated choice. As I said, perhaps someone who knew something gave her a tip, not as a payoff of any kind but out of friendship. Arkansas is a rural state and perhaps she heard something and put two-and-two together in a way that helped her. Without suggesting, or better yet demonstrating a quid pro quo, such an accusation is baseless and grossly unfair.

The Clintons were making a variety of investments. They lost money on Whitewater. Maybe she just got lucky. I made a bunch of money myself on stocks I bought on the eve of the Iraq invasion.
Corby, I was saying the opposite.

No-one can name anyone who has made a crooked million from the futures market.

zee, I was taught that "Marxism" is a two-syllable word, even though it sounds like "Marx-izzem."
We may be pronouncing things differently.
Crooked futures, you mean like Saloman Bros Milan squeezing the Italian bond futures market in the 90s. The prosecution took place and they were found guilty.

But that's not what I'm suggesting here. The futures market isn't bent - the broker ex post allocated winning trades to HRCs account. Losing trades went to the house account. It's a very old game. "Tickets in the drawer". The alternative is to assume that HRC managed to counter trend trade an obscure futures market with a tiny main account and her brokers systems failed to keep up with the margin required for her trades, and she managed to make 100x her original margin payment.

Have anyone questioning this ever traded in cattle futures? It's a tiny weird market which only farmers and specialists specs trade. Because what do most people know of it? You are telling me HRC was an expert in beef farming?

Do you understand what the odds against anyone making they money she made with the initial investment she placed are?

The scenario you are choosing to believe is not credible. Either my understanding of what happened (basic facts) is not correct, or the broker was paying her 100k.


How much money does one make from intelligence and connections? Compare and contrast to and other congress critter or senior politician.

And do you not think the use of connections itself is questionable in obtaining "sweetheart" deals.

Is Putin not smart and connected? Tony Blair? Steve Cohen? Michael Milken?

Of course, is a matter of extent. But do you know how you avoid even the question of impropriety? That's the rule in the civil service. Do you really think the rules in the civil service are unnecessary?


Oh fer Chrissakes. You let the He-Man Hillary-haters to get one foot in the door just one time, and soon an entire parade comes barging in. No more. It ends here.

I've said it on this blog before, years ago -- and nobody has ever been able to prove me wrong. You can't rig something like cattle futures. When the story first came out, I had an actual stock broker explain everything to me in detail. The conversation lasted about an hour, and no, I cannot recall very much of what he said. But I recall his bottom line. He could not think of a way to game that particular system. In the many years since, I've asked others if they could prove that assessment wrong. I've run into a lot of people who have said: "She's a crook!" But no-one has given me specifics as to how one can rig the cattle futures market.

And no-one can point to someone who has made millions in that fashion. If it were possible, why would anyone bother with pump and dump schemes?

The discussion is closed. I've spent twenty or so years looking for a detailed explanation, and that quest is now over.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?