I wasn't very impressed with Donna Brazile as a cabloid political commentator back when I used to hear her on them and I'm not very impressed with the role she's playing with her book excerpt which is being used to accuse Hillary Clinton of some vague notion of corruption. My first conclusion on reading the piece and taking into account its being released for publication now is that Brazile and her people are doing this for maximum benefit for her while screwing the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Of course, the part pointing out that Barack Obama and his operation wrecked the party apparatus to start with is ignored, why pay attention to that when you can claim that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, something Brazile's other claim to fame, cabloid-tabloid "news" has been doing for a quarter of a century.
The best thing to do with all of this is to get shut of it and all of the people who have brought us here. Hillary Clinton will not run for president again, Bernie Sanders might out of sheer ego but I can't think of anything more damaging to the Democratic opposition to Trump and so the world, at this point, Barack Obama doesn't seem to be any more interest in building the Democratic Party than he was when he had the power to do that. I think there should be a serious evaluation of the operatives used by all three of them to get rid of those who have been other than productive. I have long thought that political operatives and staffers who ended up damaging the party and the country should have no future as political operatives and staffers. With what we've learned this week about Tony Podesta, those with such family or business connections should also be excluded.
Donna Brazile, among other things, has proven herself to be unreliable through using this issue to peddle her book and her act. I wouldn't trust her from here on I think anyone in the Democratic Party who does has probably identified themselves as idiots.
I will say, again, that the Democratic Party must A. clean out the Democratic National Committee, B. rebuild its finances, C. gain control of its nomination process through bypassing the processes set up by state legislatures for primaries and caucuses. I think the idea of the Democratic Party holding a direct nomination by mail-in ballot - overseen by an independent entity (I'd see if Elections Canada might be able and willing to do it) exclusively cast by registered Democrats could almost certainly be more democratic with a far higher participation than the primaries and, especially, the caucuses and would remove the avenues of alleged and actual manipulation and corruption from the system. It would also, finally, put California, Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, New York and other states on an equal footing with Iowa and New Hampshire. There is no legal reason that the Democratic Party couldn't do that, the only restrictions are financial and logistical and those could be overcome. It would certainly not be worse than the present system, largely in the control of anti-Democratic state legislators, people with corrupt motives and open by manipulation from non-Democratic politicians political operations, big money and the media If Democrats did that they could also end the ridiculous practice of open elections for the Democratic nomination, in which Republicans and their stooges such as in the Green Party can screw with our nominations. Only Democrats should be eligible to determine who the Democratic nominee is.
A lot of the fall out from the Brazile article claim that Bernie Sanders is the leader of the Democratic Party, which is beyond bizarre in that he isn't a Democrat and he has not been interested in the wellbeing of Democrats. I can guarantee you that a lot of the people who participated in the caucus in my town as Bernie supporters were not Democrats, I heard a lot of them say they were going to vote for Jill Stein if Sanders didn't get the nomination. It is seriously screwy that the Democratic Party would allow people like that to exercise any power in its nomination process. I think it's as screwy to allow what happened in 2016 to happen ever again. The Democratic Party is not a part of the government it has the power to fix this without any input for anyone but Democrats. Someone had better do it, if the people in charge of it won't try, they have already identified themselves as the problem.
So a friend of mine -- a Russian Jewish expatriate who fled godless Communism for the West during the last years of the Reagan administration, and who gives Reagan the credit for bringing down the Bolshies -- is off to attend a lecture by immoral godless materialist celebrity Richard Dawkins tonight.
ReplyDeleteI can practicaly hear your head exploding, Sparkles.
You don't have a particularly developed imagination, Simps, so I'm not surprised you'd imagine something like that. Is your "friend" another product of it?
DeleteRichard Dawkins is an idiot whose scientific claim to fame is already in decline as people catch up with the observation of far superior scientists, like Richard Lewontin [See my demolition of his First Bird To Call Out claim.]. As a philosophical and historical thinker, Dawkins is about on an 8th grade level. His magnum arguments for atheism were called about the worst arguments ever made for atheism, even by some of his fellow atheists. As I recall it was Michael Ruse who said Dawkins made him embarrassed to be an atheist.
Oh, and Pope JPII probably had a lot more to do with the implosion of the Soviet empire than Reagan, though the inherent stupidity of Marxism and the atheist mushrooms that sprang up on the ruins of Stalinism had more to do with it.
DeleteSo you're calling somebody who grew up under godless Communism less of an expert on Russian totalitarian oppression than you?
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that one, Sparkles.
That's what you got out of what I said, Simps? Your every comment reconfirms what Frank Zappa said about rock critics and their work.
DeleteI know enough about Soviet communism to know that Reagan didn't bring it down, which your good buddy is apparently stupid enough to believe. Its demise was predicted by that atheist hero for a generation with more of an attention span, Bertrand Russell, in the 1920s.
I know you figure that you knowing someone makes them an automatic expert on something but I figure anyone who is pals with you is probably more likely to be the same kind of bull shit artist, ignoramus you are. Russian Jewish or not.
Here's a clue, you hick nitwit. I don't believe Reagan won the Cold War, because a) nobody won the Cold War, which was a disaster on every level and corrupted our politics irreparably and b) Reagan didn't do anything that every president since George Kennan came up with the theory of containment had done.
DeleteThat said, I wouldn't have the astounding gall to tell somebody who actually suffered under Russian communism that they were full of shit for thinking that he did.
Are you so stupid that you don't remember that it was YOU who said your imaginary buddy, and I quote," gives Reagan the credit for bringing down the Bolshies."
DeleteYOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID HE WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT, NOT ME, YOU URBAN IDIOT.
If he's so stupid that even you know he's full of bull shit, I'm not surprised he's an atheist Dawkins fanboy Though I wouldn't be surprised if you made him up, either. You're an even bigger liar than you are an idiot.
No, I didn't say he was stupid enough to believe that. You did. Goddamnit, Sparkles, English really isn't your first language.
DeleteYou said he believed it, I pointed out that to believe that was stupid, SOMETHING YOU AGREED WAS STUPID TO BELIEVE. So, which is it Stupy, that your imaginary buddy doesn't believe Reagan brought down the Soviet empire or that the idea isn't stupid because, well, see what I aid about you being logical disconnect made flesh below.
DeleteGeesh, Simps, you have to be the stupidest conceited person I've ever encountered, just one of many of the rump that didn't flee Eschaton as it became obvious that obnoxious jerks like you took it over.
Incidentally, if Dawkins is such an idiot, how come he's an advocate for legal rights for the great apes? You against that one, Sparkles?
ReplyDeleteWhy not claim he brushes his teeth and go for real gravitas, Simps.
DeleteStupy, other than through the destruction of their habitat and hunting, probably the greatest violation of the lives and rights of animals, including the apes, is in the bio-psych industry that Dawkins is a part of.
Even total idiots can see that animals have rights, some of the PETA crowd are idiots who couldn't do effective PR if they digested Ogilvy on Advertising and tried to follow it to the T. Only none of them gets atheist tech jillionaires to buy them a chair at Oxford and make it a point of the funding that their favorite atheist moron gets the first appointment.
I forget, didn't Lally get tired of him? I seem to recall reading that somewhere.
"Even total idiots can see that animals have rights"
ReplyDeleteName three Republican Party officials who have taken that position.
You're like a living collection of logical disconnects.
ReplyDeleteI can name all kinds of atheists who don't believe animals have rights, like most of those in the bio-psych industry, right now. Lots of them don't think people do, either.