HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Blaming Sanders: Why Demo...

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:06 PM

Blaming Sanders: Why Democratic Party Unity is Officially Impossible

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/03/blaming-sanders-why-democratic-party-unity-is-officially-impossible/

I’m not going to suggest that people shouldn’t like Hillary Clinton if they adore her, and many do, but for her champions to continue the arrogant argument that she is anything more than a smug politician with a big stick, i.e., a cozy relationship with corporate America and the military industrial complex, is silly obfuscation. Such denial flies in the face of reality given Clinton’s attachment to and her unmovable faith in the neoliberalism of our age, which more-progressive thinkers—never mind the remnants of the Left—see as problematic.

The would-be pragmatists, the nose-holders who have embraced the “lesser-evil” mantra in the panic to stop Trump, have either forgiven her sins and moved on or never saw the sinner in the first place. Importantly, these people are settled-in and at ease with what were once called, when I studied them in school, “current events.” As a mass they cling to the “center” like a life preserver. They have an abiding faith in the way things are now playing out, have easily overcome any tinge of doubt about U.S. imperialism and our terms of perpetual war (are we winning?), the environment, and rampant poverty and inequality, to name a few of the things Hillary Clinton abhors talking about or glides over like an ice skater.

...As for Bernie Sanders, some portray his thinking as reckless “ideology,” with a pejorative usage here based on the rise among self-satisfied Americans who can’t distinguish between progressive policy and Hillary Clinton’s record. Or perhaps they can, but it doesn’t bother them. The point is that many voters are content with the way things are now; any and all suggestions that the status quo ought to be altered are dismissed out-of-hand. Neoliberalism has been kind to many while raping many others. Sanders’ thinking is frightening to a wide swath of comfortable middle-class voters—and not just Republicans—who have avoided the inherent disasters of recent policy decisions that have angered and outright economically ruined many in our country as well as large portions of the global population...Why, the usual power players, of course. They are Krugman, Feinstein, Reich, and others atop the pyramid. Great Pragmatists all. Believe me when I protest that none of these characters know poverty or oppression. If they’ve known it at any time, they’ve forgotten it by now.

...Stay in the thing, Bernie, for the hell of it. Clinton’s allies disrespect too many, take too much for granted, expect too many miracles, and act out too much like privileged children.

124 replies, 5738 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 124 replies Author Time Post
Reply Blaming Sanders: Why Democratic Party Unity is Officially Impossible (Original post)
GRhodes Jun 2016 OP
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #1
GRhodes Jun 2016 #2
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #15
GRhodes Jun 2016 #23
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #28
GRhodes Jun 2016 #30
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #32
GRhodes Jun 2016 #34
JDPriestly Jun 2016 #63
Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #93
libdem4life Jun 2016 #109
JDPriestly Jun 2016 #55
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #102
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #70
GRhodes Jun 2016 #80
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #86
SpareribSP Jun 2016 #26
libdem4life Jun 2016 #108
baldguy Jun 2016 #14
GRhodes Jun 2016 #19
Jackilope Jun 2016 #103
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #44
basselope Jun 2016 #66
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #101
libdem4life Jun 2016 #110
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #111
libdem4life Jun 2016 #114
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #115
libdem4life Jun 2016 #116
basselope Jun 2016 #119
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #124
bravenak Jun 2016 #3
GRhodes Jun 2016 #31
riderinthestorm Jun 2016 #4
Trust Buster Jun 2016 #5
GRhodes Jun 2016 #7
Trust Buster Jun 2016 #11
GRhodes Jun 2016 #17
JudyM Jun 2016 #25
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #47
libdem4life Jun 2016 #113
redstateblues Jun 2016 #52
Protalker Jun 2016 #6
bonemachine Jun 2016 #16
BillZBubb Jun 2016 #48
MFM008 Jun 2016 #8
GRhodes Jun 2016 #9
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #64
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #10
Doctor_J Jun 2016 #13
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #18
GRhodes Jun 2016 #21
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #24
GRhodes Jun 2016 #29
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #33
GRhodes Jun 2016 #37
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #43
TimPlo Jun 2016 #38
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #46
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #50
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #56
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #58
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #60
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #83
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #84
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #89
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #90
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #61
GRhodes Jun 2016 #79
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #96
GRhodes Jun 2016 #97
BillZBubb Jun 2016 #49
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #71
raging moderate Jun 2016 #105
GRhodes Jun 2016 #20
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #22
Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #51
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #57
Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #59
Tal Vez Jun 2016 #62
Doctor_J Jun 2016 #12
MisterP Jun 2016 #35
TimPlo Jun 2016 #39
MisterP Jun 2016 #41
TimPlo Jun 2016 #42
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #65
TimPlo Jun 2016 #69
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #75
TimPlo Jun 2016 #77
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #78
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #87
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #118
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #122
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #123
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #67
MisterP Jun 2016 #72
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #74
MisterP Jun 2016 #76
redstateblues Jun 2016 #54
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #68
PowerToThePeople Jun 2016 #27
bbgrunt Jun 2016 #36
seabeckind Jun 2016 #40
B Calm Jun 2016 #45
Buzz cook Jun 2016 #53
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #73
GRhodes Jun 2016 #82
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #85
GRhodes Jun 2016 #92
LoverOfLiberty Jun 2016 #81
GRhodes Jun 2016 #88
LoverOfLiberty Jun 2016 #91
GRhodes Jun 2016 #94
LoverOfLiberty Jun 2016 #95
GRhodes Jun 2016 #98
seabeckind Jun 2016 #100
think Jun 2016 #107
xynthee Jun 2016 #99
Zambero Jun 2016 #104
LWolf Jun 2016 #106
oberliner Jun 2016 #112
coyote Jun 2016 #117
Orsino Jun 2016 #120
Stevepol Jun 2016 #121

Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:10 PM

1. Unity is impossible because Bernie refuses to say it's necessary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:12 PM

2. I posted the article

because of posters like you. I doubt you read it though, probably just the title of the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:43 PM

15. Well, how do you unite with a group that doesn't want to unite?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:58 PM

23. It isn't that people don't want to unite

I don't see, based on the mindset of many Clinton supporters, what we could realistically unite around, other than blind partisan loyalty or bumper sticker, vague nothings. How do you bridge the gap on foreign policy, economic issues, corruption (especially given her and the DNC's obvious corruption), etc? It wouldn't require the establishment, the rich, and corporations sacrificing anything at all. That's my opinion, some other people that support Sanders disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #23)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:13 PM

28. You compromise, which is why it isn't happening

 

I see little to no willingness among Bernie's supporters to give any ground to make it work. Precedent makes it Bernie's job, but even if we say it's a two way street, what happened been the offer from his side?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #28)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:57 PM

30. Compromise

Who exactly has compromised? Inequality has exploded. It is a fact, a proven fact, that most of the wealth has gone to the super rich during the recovery. In recent decades, wealth inequality has exploded, private debt has as well (and this has been felt most among those with the least income), deindustrialization has decimated working people but benefited mobile capitalists (and the jobs lost paid much better than those that have replaced them), finance has benefited at the expense of almost everyone (since finance's product is debt). People HAVE compromised for decades, and the rich have not. They haven't sacrificed a single thing, they've monopolized a good portion of the economic benefits. So don't tell me people are against compromise, what is being offered isn't a compromise, it is a further reduction in living standards, and more going to those with too much damn money to begin with. It's a one sided class war. I have the data and facts on my side too, it isn't just my opinion. We could give the entirety of economic growth to the working class and poor over the next five years and it still wouldn't make up for the "compromises" the corrupt politicians like Clinton, Trump, and those running the two parties have forced on us.

What people are asking in this "compromise" is to capitulate to a politician in Clinton that has made no secret of wanting to maintain this system as is, with slight modifications at most, and that's if she were to do everything she is now promising. She has no longer term vision of structural change, and those in power (including those in the media), benefit from this system and don't want to see any structural change as a result. What exactly would we compromise on? The issues are structural, not superficial, and what is being offered as a result are non-solutions.

Obviously, I am not speaking for Sanders or his supporters. No one asked GRhodes to post on democraticunderground to speak on their behalf, and some Sanders supporters don't agree with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #30)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:09 PM

32. You're saying the only path to unity is to adopt Bernie's entire platform.

 

And then you wonder why the party isn't uniting. Gee, what a shock!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:28 PM

34. I'm saying

that your argument that there should be compromise means a continuation of the things I identified. You don't have to do anything, but if you don't offer real solutions, peoples' responses might be to leave the party (which is happening), to become an independent, or to go to something like the Green Party. A much larger share of the public is now independents. If your attitude is to say, oh well, be gone, good luck. You'll exist in a shrinking bubble. The problems we are dealing with are structural, if you don't offer structural change you aren't offering real solutions. If you have ideas different than Sanders' ideas that deal with those structural issues, fine, present them. Clinton doesn't offer solutions to structural problems, she offers (at most) tinkering around the edges, and that's if she gets everything she wants and even plans on truly fighting for those things. I doubt both of those things, and I am far from alone.

I've said what I want to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:44 AM

63. You are, sadly, right.

So unless Bernie pulls off the nomination, and there is a better chance he will than "rational" people on DU think at this point, this is a wasted election cycle.

Maybe they will make Bernie the VP in order to unite the Party. That would be quite an empty gesture, but would make it a little more possible for Democrats to win the election in November.

Obama and the Democratic Party leadership have a gordian knot to untie. Wonder what they will do. Probably smugly count on "rational" decisions by voters. We shall see.

I'm seeing Obama in a much darker light than I have since he first came on the political stage. He really should continue to stay out of the contest and remain neutral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #63)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:52 AM

93. count me irrational

 

"and there is a better chance he will than "rational" people on DU think"



I try to be sensible, but something in my heart is senseless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #63)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:31 AM

109. I think it's desperation. She has been a thorn in his side, but now it's

 

global, and she's still calling the shots. He's got no choice. He's spinning the same wheel she is. They are terrified California isn't going to fall for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #28)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:35 AM

55. So then, you prefer losing in November to giving ground to Bernie.

Interesting.

Hillary has not yet won. She has a lot of problems. Bernie isn't perfect, but his problems are minor, negligible compared to Hillary's.

It's just getting interesting.

How important is it to Hillary supporters to unite the Party and win against Trump in November. No matter who wins the nomination, that is the real question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #55)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:03 AM

102. I thought the complaint was that Hillary has already co-opted too much of Bernie's message?

 

Now you say she hasn't given any ground to him? Again, I will ask the basic question: what is Bernie and his supporters willing to give ground on in the sake of unity. The losing side didn't get to dictate terms eight years ago, so why should they now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:08 AM

70. The problem is you seem to think it's "obvious corruption" for Bernie to lose elections.

He was not cheated, he just got fewer votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #70)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:25 AM

80. No

the obvious corruption is her getting massive amounts of money from banks and other corporate interests and her and her husband pushing for policies that have benefited those groups since they entered politics. You might as well be arguing against the existence of gravity. To also claim that the DNC, the media, and the way in which the voting has taken place hasn't benefited her is dishonest, and you know it. It is what it is at this point though, you all chose her to lead the party and will have to live with what follows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #80)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:37 AM

86. As a matter of fact the way the voting has taken place has benefited BERNIE.

The difference between percentage of delegates and percentage of votes speaks for itself: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:08 PM

26. You make a good argument

instead of being smug and condescending?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:28 AM

108. Four minutes...speed reader.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:38 PM

14. Democrats shouldn't expect to "unite" with people who've never been Democrats in the first place.

 

One main goal of the "Not Hillary" Party is the destruction of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:46 PM

19. Have you seen the large and growing

percentage of the public that refuses to identify with either party, or the large percentage of people that want a third party option now? The two major parties have decided to nominate the two most unpopular candidates in polling history, and the person leading your party is corrupt as a politician can be. The Democrats have done a great job in destroying their own party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #19)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:19 AM

103. ^^^ This ^^^ I do not understand those who label

That any one standing up against the corruption in the Democratic Party or who have grave issue with HRC as "not Democrats". It is deep denial over the fracture that is happening within the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:09 AM

44. Unity is impossible because WE don't share the same principles.

I have come to realize that our party has been infiltrated with people that have entirely different concepts of ethics, morality and fairness than I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:58 AM

66. It's not up to Bernie to say anything.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #66)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:01 AM

101. Then it's not up to Democrats to give him status in the Senate. Fair is fair, eh?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #101)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:38 AM

110. He was elected from Vermont and he's done a good job for his state

 

and with progressive Democrats, so no, I don't think he'll take a hit.

But he does have standards, and if those standards cause fear and loathing and payback for some, well then, sobeit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #110)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:40 AM

111. I mean his seniority. Only been a Dem a year. He's bottom of the ladder, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #111)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:49 AM

114. Did you forget that he's been caucusing with Progressive Dems for years?

 

If you read my post, that is what it states. Often, especially in progressive type issues, one vote is the make it or break it. I'd make a guess that a lot of them respect him for standing up for his views and discovering new voters and to have the cojones...in the face of the Clinton Machine.

The only reason he COULD run was that he wasn't controlled by the DNC...when all the other "appropriate" primary candidates flowed down the River of the Coronation Denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #114)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:12 PM

115. They've been generous to give him rank. They don't have to, if he fights past the campaign's end.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #115)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:17 PM

116. Yes. Generous. How civil of Them. Maybe his values transcend his perks?

 

That would likely be a first in politics, but would not surprise me. In fact, he could comfortably retire.

The only person with personal equity in this is HRC. The decades coveting the Presidency, losing once, screwing up State, the ending of the Clinton Machine...she has A Lot to lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #101)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:12 PM

119. Don't really care much what the democrats do.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:09 AM

124. IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY HYPOCRITICAL FOR BERNIE TO ENDORSE AN AVOWED AND CAREER CORPORATIST

WHO IS NOTED MOSTLY FOR THIS SORT OF THING... FIBS AND OBFUSCATION AS WELL AS PITIABLE DECISIONS THAT COST THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AND OTHERS... WE SIMPLY CANNOT ACCEPT THIS SORT OF PERSON IN GOVERNMENT... WSJ HAD IT SPOT ON THE OTHER DAY... HERE IS A FINE SET OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE COLUMN DESCRIBING HILLARY IN THE WSJ...

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:12 PM

3. Trump will unite us. He already is uniting us.

 

Fuck Donald Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:01 PM

31. Yes

fuck Donald Trump, and fuck the inequitable and corrupt system Clinton wants to maintain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:12 PM

4. K&R!!! Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:13 PM

5. Got to love this poster. In this posters last paragraph, he/she suggests that Sanders stay in it

 

because "Clinton allies disrespect too many". That after this poster spent three paragraphs disrespecting Hillary supporters. You just can't make such hypocrisy up......LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:21 PM

7. Respect is earned

and I have been outright appalled at the behavior and mindset of Clinton supporters on this site. I don't see any difference between most of them and the right wing in their worldview and attitude towards the less fortunate, the victims of policies that Clinton has supported, and I am sick of their arrogance. I have yet to see a single response to a post or article that was critical of Clinton, a single one, that acted respectfully, thoughtfully, and maturely.

What I posted also wasn't my words, it was snippets from the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:27 PM

11. If you've missed the outrageous behavior of the Sanders supporters on this site, then you have

 

chosen to be willfully ignorant. In fact, embedded in you very response, you smear Hillary supporters as being "Right wing in worldview". What a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:44 PM

17. I will say this again

Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

I have yet to see a single response to an article critical of Clinton (not her supporters) in which Clinton supporters responded with some thought, respect, and understanding as to where people are coming from. Poor people and working people have been falling further and further behind, the environment is getting progressively worse, there is a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure gap, and many of her supporters clearly see these things as abstractions, the attitude of many of her supporters has a strong upper-middle class tinge. Instead of understanding why people are being radicalized, and why they may have major problems with people like Clinton, her supporters respond with arrogance, personal attacks, lies and sliming. It's clear that the people that support her and act that way are relatively well off and don't give a damn at all about those less fortunate than them.

You can't claim that Sanders supporters have blatantly lied about her supporters liked Clinton supporters have either. Remember the "English only" lies? How about the outright lies about violence in Vegas? The lies about the sexist "Berniebros"? What do you expect people to do in response to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:03 PM

25. In solidarity with your posts. Well spoken representation for so many of us here.

Thanks for being here - welcome to DU, GRhodes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:15 AM

47. Priviledge, that is what you are describing

 

and they have gotten really personal. Just tonight one actually dared tell me that I am not a reporter or I did not take photos I took.

This is the kind of erasing that is systemic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:44 AM

113. Hillary's record = Haters. Progressive Point=TrumpTrumpTrumpTrump

 

Or just a plain old shaming. Usually with one line in the title.

No text...because there is little to refute. Nobody knows what she stands for. So why take a chance and put it in writing on a message board. That's a standing order for Roasted Crow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:28 AM

52. Really. Extreme hyperbole

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:15 PM

6. Bernie, Run Bernie Run

Hillary hit the ball out of the park. The general is on. I will vote for the nominee of our party. Votes matter and I hope for unity. If folks can't or won't, so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Protalker (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:43 PM

16. Hardly out of the park...

An inside the park homer, at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonemachine (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:17 AM

48. And the sheriff is hot on her heels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:21 PM

8. 65

Delegates is all she needs.
The first state called for her Tues puts her over.
You have 13 days to continue the sour grapes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:23 PM

9. The article was

for pampered, out of touch people like yourself as well. It also isn't sour grapes, I just have a moral compass and a social consciousness, and that is unusual to lots of bourgeois Clinton supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:46 AM

64. Another uniquely virtuous progressive

Are you sure you haven't adjusted your views to fit into that self appraisal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:25 PM

10. Well, I think that some of us see

that because the GOP controls both houses of Congress, the difference between what a President Clinton and a President Sanders can actually accomplish is minimal. And, it could very well be that a President Clinton can accomplish more.

We've seen what the GOP is doing to completely stifle any and all Obama initiatives. Why do Bernie supporters feel that the GOP will treat him differently? So many of these GOP congressman come from little right wing districts that reward them for doing absolutely nothing to cooperate with a Democratic president. The more progressive the President, the easier it is for these guys to totally obstruct.

As we are constantly reminded, "You need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything." We're not likely to have anything like 60 votes to 2017.

I am going to support the Democratic nominee in November no matter who that might turn out to be and I know that no matter who it is, he or she is going to be up against it he or she wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:35 PM

13. I don't want anything that Clinton and Ryan want to inflict on the country, tyvm

 

Any "accomplishment" by Mrs Clinton will move the country to the right. No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:45 PM

18. Well, I know that a negative attitude is sure to get me nothing.

So, I'll opt for progress, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:54 PM

21. Can you cite

evidence of progress economically, environmentally, or in regards to infrastructure, since about 1980? Me neither, regression across the board. Obviously not for many people supporting Clinton, but for the general public, working class people, the poor, regression. Saying that she stands for incremental progress requires evidence that people like her have delivered incremental improvements (not evidence that she has done some okay things, that she can prove her policies result in an overall net improvement. I know the data, they haven't for most), and it also requires evidence that moderate solutions will do anything other than make things less bad. Given that our problems are almost entirely structural, that argument isn't convincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:00 PM

24. Of course I can cite lots of data showing growth since 1980.

I think that much of the change that we need concerns distributional issues.

And, I know how the GOP feels about distributional issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:45 PM

29. Who is denying growth?

I didn't say growth, growth in what exactly anyway (private debt, the infrastructure gap, carbon emissions, inequality, deindustrialization?), I said progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:15 PM

33. Listen, things have gone well for me since 1980,

but how could I begin to know what you mean by progress? Music, art?

I thought the obvious answer might have something to do with economics. In that area there has been growth, but huge distributional inequities exist. And, if people wonder why people who are not at the top have not progressed as much as those at the top, it is not because the people who are not at the top voted too often. Rather, a major cause of distributional inequities has resulted from a lot of people not voting enough. So, whatever someone might mean by progress, if it has anything to do with politics, that person should be voting more often, not less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #33)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:32 PM

37. "how could I begin to know what you mean by progress?"

Maybe by reading my post above, since I said exactly what I meant. Economic progress (I detailed in numerous posts the long term economic regression for most), environmental progress, progress as far as improving infrastructure. All of that has gotten worse, the latter two without question, and economic regression for a large and growing share of the public. Young people are utterly screwed, their parents got a society that was in much better shape economically, environmentally, and politically, than the one they're handing over.

I've said what I want to say. Think what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #37)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:03 AM

43. I don't know about Krugman or some of the others that you describe as living atop something,

but I certainly knew some poverty when I was young. And, the only reason that I'm not poor now is because I found pragmatism to be a very useful concept. I can remember pretty much every small step of the way. There was never a morning when I woke up to some huge change of circumstances. It was just a lot of work. But, I liked what I did.

There are needs in this country. Everyone needs health care sooner or later. And, there is nothing more important than educating our young. Some people manage to handle these challenges themselves. Many need help and there is a need for the government to be involved in providing just that kind of help. If you want progress without government involvement, then there is no reason to vote. But, if you want the government to help, then you need to use your influence to get the government to help. The key to that kind of progress is in fact pragmatism. You take what victories you can get. Anyone who thinks that they can change the world overnight with government resources is going to change nothing. It's all about pragmatism and incrementalism and struggle. And, it doesn't end. It will never end. There will always be someone on the other side of the political football wanting to push you back.

This country needs more people voting, not less. If every eligible voter voted, we would have a better health care system. We would educate more of our young.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:42 PM

38. "And, I know how the GOP feels about distributional issues."

 

You mean like people on HRC camp saying that universal health care and college are just lazy kids wanting free stuff? We spend more money last year on a supplemental payment for bombs to throw at ISIS than it would cost to send everyone to college for a year. Could that be because the Public owned colleges don't "donate" as much money to our elected crocks as people who makes those bombs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimPlo (Reply #38)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:13 AM

46. Well, some of the issues that you raise are perpetual issues.

They will always be with us.

As for universal health care and educating our young, those are two of the most important functions of government, in my opinion. But, that's just my opinion. Other people disagree and a lot of them vote as often as I do. If you want to have any influence on the outcome, I would suggest that you keep on voting.

I have always been convinced that if everyone voted, the government would be performing the health care and educational functions that I want to see my government performing. But, too many people can't be bothered. It's just too hard for them, I guess.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #46)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:19 AM

50. Let me tell you what some of the folks locallyq

 

who are very poor, I mean desperate, told me one day. We were working on a poverty story. This is also reflected in the Princeton Study on oligarchy. First off, when you are working two or three jobs, you don't have time to vote, or find out who or what is running. Second, even if you vote. they don't listen to poor people.

Nope, there is no way I can argue with that one

By the way, here is the actual study

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

I grew up in a country where we knew this, and we still voted in larger numbers and it still made no difference by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:35 AM

56. If I remember correctly, locally for you is somewhere in San Diego.

If that's true, I know something about this area. I grew up poor and pretty ignorant. I was uneducated and married at 19 (this was in the 1960's) and we had two children by the time we were 20. I worked and went to school. I voted every chance I got. Usually, my candidates lost. And, when I finished my education at the age of 27, I ran for the school board - unsuccessfully.

Always, I knew that whenever I wanted to see what poverty was really like, I could just cross the border and stop by neighborhoods where people got their water from a dirty tap at the end of the street. Every year we took toys and such down there for Christmas time. So, I never really felt all that poor, but for the U.S., we were in fact below the poverty level.

Poor people can vote. And politicians respond to votes. When politicians raise money, they raise money to get more votes. Everyone should vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #56)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:39 AM

58. I worked as a paramedic in TJ

 

and there are areas in the East County that are near that bad.

Read the Princeton study, Please do. I beg you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #58)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:40 AM

60. I'll read that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #58)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:30 AM

83. Well, I did read that and I will have to read it again to understand it better.

I have no doubt that there exists a nexus between economic power and political power. That is probably true of every society that ever existed. And the two tend to feed each other - economic power provides certain advantages in gaining and exercising political power and, at the same time, political power can be used to yield economic advantages. I wonder if these facts are more or less unavoidable. They seem universal.

And there there is no question but that interest groups, including business groups, tend to exercise more than normal levels of political power, at least with respect to those issues in which they have a common interest. On the other hand, with respect to issues in which they are in conflict, then their power is of course more limited and diffused.

Personally, i believe that the "average citizen" power is often underestimated. When I look at the success that Trump experienced in the Republican primaries this year, I can't say that economic elites or interest groups carried the day. I think that Trump won in spite of the opposition of these groups. He was opposed by a ton of money. He was opposed by what the press styles as the Establishment. I think he won because a lot of very ordinary people got up off their butts and voted. And, they showed up at these crazy rallies. I think that Trump's campaign is an example of what can happen if a lot of ordinary citizens begin moving in the same direction. Of course, come November (hopefully), Trump may lose to some of these other forces, but they haven't beaten him yet.

If Trump can happen on the right, it can happen on the left. Sanders has run a hell of a campaign. I am convinced that ordinary people can run this country, but, people have to vote and then they have to come back and vote again, As your study points out, ordinary citizens are up against it in that there will be constant opposition possessing some powerful natural advantages. I ask, though - why can't voting become a habit? Why can't ordinary people appreciate and learn to exercise the power that they possess?

I don't know. But, I'll show up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #83)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:33 AM

84. I will show up

 

who I pretend to vote for is my business, but I do not believe voting is what will bring any change, Without pressure, voting is a waste of time.

What they point out though and we see it in San Diego often, is that the well connected get all the hearings in City Hall, while the not well connected, are politely listened to, but steamrolled in the end.

There are some pols that are very good, but they are the exception,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #84)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:39 AM

89. Of course, you'll vote as you see fit.

Thanks for sharing the article. I bookmarked it and I'll read it again. I'm too old and slow now to get it in one bite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #89)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:40 AM

90. It is a complicated one

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:41 AM

61. I'd like to see how your statistics are counted

Because if you count increases in wealth since the recovery started you'd see a big jump in stock prices. What ought to be factored in though is where the stock market was before the dip.

Growth has been slow since the recession but we are inching our way forward. At this point in a recovery, we expect to see trade-offs between job growth and strong wage growth. Earnings growth in May was encouraging. So far this year, average hourly earnings for private employees have increased 3.2 percent at an annual rate. As we get closer to full employment we'll see more growth in wages.

I don't know what you want to eliminate inequality. Do you want to confiscate everything from the haves and hand it out to the have nots? That would be very problematic. Barring that solution we will have inequality. I don't see the problem with some people getting more. I see the problem with some people not getting more or even getting less.

Hillary is not the tool of the elites you guys love to say she is. She has a very liberal voting record. We can continue to make progress if the Republicans don't take over everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #61)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:21 AM

79. The stock market

has next to nothing to do with how well working people are doing. It is a fact that companies have spent a lot of funds buying their own shares to bid their prices up. If you want to challenge me on that, I will provide the evidence tomorrow morning. This isn't arguable. Not a single underlying problem we had in 2007 has been truly addressed, forget solved. Not a single one.

"As we get closer to full employment we'll see more growth in wages."

What do you mean full employment? We aren't getting to full employment. You know damn well that the official numbers don't accurately reflect the real unemployment numbers.

"I don't know what you want to eliminate inequality. Do you want to confiscate everything from the haves and hand it out to the have nots? That would be very problematic. Barring that solution we will have inequality. I don't see the problem with some people getting more. I see the problem with some people not getting more or even getting less."

Who said to outright eliminate inequality? Did I say everyone should make the same exact wages? I said that inequality is the highest it has been in a long, long, long time, and the policies that Clinton have supported have increased inequality. If you want me to post the actual data, I will, but I'd rather not have to look for it and I'm sure you know that inequality has exploded in recent decades, and has massively increased under Obama. The freaking IMF just released a report that acknowledged that inequality harms economic development and growth, which it does. The rich have a lower marginal propensity to consume and a lower propensity to consume, the opposite is true of the poor and working people. If the object is to grow the economy, we know theoretically and from empirical data that the best strategy is to give the poor, since they inject that money right back into the economy.

As you also may know, the taxes on estates, carried interest, dividends, the top marginal tax rates and capital gains (all things which benefit the rich) have been massively cut since Carter was president. Obama made most of Bush's tax cuts permanent, something that Rove and Norquist went on TV and bragged about. How can anyone, even on the center-left, not recognize all of this as horribly immoral and extremely right wing? Throw in the trillions in tax shelters and the trillions that the banks have been given by the state that sit at the Fed collecting interest.

"Hillary is not the tool of the elites you guys love to say she is. She has a very liberal voting record."

Nonsense, she has a center-right economic record, and has gotten (along with Bill) over three billion dollars from corporate interests and the rich since they entered politics. Her top donors over her career are giant banks and other corporate interests, she's gotten more money from Wall Street than all the other candidates combined this election cycle in BOTH parties and has gotten filthy rich thanks to their bribes/speaking fees. She and her husband have strongly backed policies that have benefited those groups and she recently said that she would put him in charge of our damn economic recovery, which was tone deaf in the extreme. I also don't know what the word "liberal" means but if it means on the left, hell the fuck no. Being on the left, since the French Revolution, has meant very concrete things, and she isn't on the left on economic issues or institutional power, never has been, never will be. Liberal, to me, is a useless word. Lots of libertarians are "liberal", in fact more "liberal" than Clinton, on a number of issues, yet they aren't on the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #79)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:56 AM

96. When I brought up the stock market

it was because I suspect it skewed the data to make it look like the wealthy have made more gains than they actually have. The stock market does effect how well people at the bottom are doing. When it crashed we lost 6 million jobs.

Obama agreed to continue some of the Bush tax cuts because the Republicans threatened to end the tax breaks for those lower on the ladder.

The IMF weighed in on inequality because its a global phenomena. It has many causes including globalization and technology making many jobs unnecessary.

I didn't say we are reaching full employment. I said we are getting closer to it and the wage growth I mentioned was just released from the Labor Department today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #96)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 02:07 AM

97. The stock market crashed

along with everything else. It didn't cause the crash, other structural problems caused the crash and none of them have been resolved. Your comment on the tax cuts is not really inaccurate. Obama could have done nothing and the tax cuts would have expired entirely. He could have then made the case to cut taxes on the lower income brackets, good luck to the Republicans on that debate, even with their own damn base. The excuse for what he did was that he got an additional year of unemployment benefits. The IMF report I was referencing attacked a lot of its own sacred cows, but it did the same thing a few years ago in regards to austerity. Its staff economists showed how stupid austerity was, something that Malthus identified two centuries ago, the IMF turned around and continued to push for austerity thereafter. The IMF has, in the last few days, walked back that report and it likely won't change much. Reality never meant much to economists, but that report was great to read. The report did strongly critique Chile's neoliberal policies, which is huge, cause when the right comically pushes for the privatization of Social Security, they bring up Chile as a model to follow. It has been a disaster in Chile, something conservative Chileans even acknowledge now (such as the recent right wing president of Chile, Pinera), as have lots of other stuff they implemented under Pinochet. I don't see the point, personally, in talking about full employment, since we are miles away from that. In this economic context, without radical changes, we'll get to full employment by massively driving down wages and environmental regulations, the Milton Friedman path to full employment.

I'm done with all this though. Have a good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:19 AM

49. You'll opt for nothing then. Your fooling yourself if you think Hillary means progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:10 AM

71. These factually baseless accusations are beyond tiresome.

Hillary doesn't have any common ground with Paul Ryan, and she will not move the country to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #71)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:27 AM

105. That hidden tape suggested that the Clintons do have some common ground with Ryan.

Bill Clinton was captured on tape agreeing with Paul Ryan that you only have to do the math to see that the Republicon push against the poor is necessary. Of course, the Clintons are NOT Republicons, and they are not really center-right in this country. I made enough phone calls and walked enough neighborhoods for the Democrats to know that. (Bernie Sanders did not start this fire, and he is not my Leader. He is just saying a lot of things I came to think while I was working for Democrats all those years). I realize that a Democratic candidate must walk a fine line to avoid triggering the jingoistic and Randian sentiments which have been carefully spread through the American public.

However, a case can be made that the Clintons have sometimes been slightly too open to the influence of far-right ideas which sound innocent but are really a cloak for some pretty nasty schemes to consolidate wealth, comfort, and power for a tiny minority at the top. There was that email to Hillary thanking her for changing President Obama's mind about sending military intervention to suit the convenience of a wealthy corporation. I realize that part of the State Department's business is to encourage US business interests abroad, but also these far-right elitists are expert at using flattery and access to luxury to sway government officials to do their bidding. Couldn't Hillary Clinton think about what we have been trying to say and maybe make a few changes just to acknowledge that we may have noticed some problems that she could correct? I have sometimes wondered whether the Clintons have been drinking out of the Republicons' water glasses by accident. This elitism is contagious, you know.

And, if you guys are going to go along with Might Makes Right, could you not also adopt the ideal of Noblesse Oblige? True nobility is shown by mercy, and there is a moral obligation of good sportsmanship for the winners of a contest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:51 PM

20. "And, it could very well be that a President Clinton can accomplish more."

So the argument is that the Republicans are going to work more with Hillary freaking Clinton? Is that the argument? Be honest, they'll work with her if she gives away the store to her and their donors, which is likely to happen. Besides, if she is "centrist" and is negotiating with the Republicans, and if all negotiations result in a middle position between two negotiating parties, where will that compromise be? Things are going to continue to get worse, and people will, as a result, continue to be radicalized.

"Why do Bernie supporters feel that the GOP will treat him differently?"

They won't, but he has an actual long term vision that people can organize towards and it calls for needed, and long overdue, structural changes. I don't see the logic in voting for a president with only the short term in mind, especially when our problems have no chance of being solved by superficial changes. This is to say nothing of her horrific polling. She's starting the election from a bad position and has lots of things hanging over her head that could make things much worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:55 PM

22. I am going to vote for the Democratic nominee.

I hope that you will be able to join me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:24 AM

51. That's just a platitude.

 

A saying meant to cover up the fact that you're voting for the status quo and all the inequality that it entails. You're saying that you're happy to vote for a label, no matter what's actually in the can. How is that in any way acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:38 AM

57. I don't know if you've yet noticed,

but we all have our own opinions and I have never felt that I was voting for the status quo.

But, here's a question - if not the status quo, what are you voting for if you don't vote at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tal Vez (Reply #57)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:40 AM

59. That would be a protest vote.

 

As if to say "None of these candidates represent my interests" or "no one of these candidates is materially better or worse for me than the others."

I, of course, will be voting. If not for Bernie himself via nomination or write-in, then for someone neither Hillary nor Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #59)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:42 AM

62. Well, I acknowledge that any voting is better than none.

Give em hell!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:32 PM

12. Hillary and her supporters view her as the perpetual victim.

 

IWR? Bush's
Syria chaos? Obama's fault
Classified information on an unsafe server? Powell did it too, but he's a man so he got away with it
Honduras? Not her fault
DOMA, DADT? Just doing what everyone wanted

Her contempt for the law and everyone who doesn't aggrandize her is very unique.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:31 PM

35. one argument I heard was that the Secretary of State isn't involved in foreign relations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #35)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:45 PM

39. Maybe the SoS from 2008-2012

 

Do deals made with foreign countries to donate to a foundation in your name and you then have the Government push through deals for that country count as foreign relations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimPlo (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:56 PM

41. the Clintons very good at generating protectors who'll circle the wagons around them

any controversy either 1. originates from the GOP or 2. helps the GOP because it weakens a Dem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #41)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:03 AM

42. Actually I think GOP has helped her more than Hurt her.

 

They have been doing such stupid wild things that when she actaully has a issue like the private email server, she can let it slide off. If GOP have not been so rapid over the years the email server would been a major issue from the start, instead it is just now poking it's head out like a turtle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimPlo (Reply #39)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:55 AM

65. There were no deals

Most of the countries weren't donating while she was secretary. Those that were were mostly friendlies. The foundation smear is just right wing sleaze picked up by opportunistic progressives with little regard to their factual basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #65)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:05 AM

69. Yup no deals at all. motherjones is a RW news source now I guess?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimPlo (Reply #69)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:13 AM

75. No, they're just shamelessly latching on to RW smears.

A disturbing number of progressives have done that this year in hopes of changing the outcome of the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #75)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:18 AM

77. Yea you need to stop and think for a minute.

 

"in hopes of changing the outcome of the primaries."

MAY 28, 2015 6:00 AM <--Date of Article and at this time Clinton said she was not running, she wanted to give speeches I guess
Apr 12, 2015 <<--- Date Hillary said she was running.
-----
------
-----
------

No primary was even hinted at at that time. Try again with another made up deflection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimPlo (Reply #77)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:20 AM

78. So nobody knew a year ago that the primary was going to happen?

Get serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimPlo (Reply #69)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:38 AM

87. They got that from an International Business Times story that was full of holes.

First we have that Saudi Arabia did not donate while Hillary was secretary. They did before but no quid pro quo was possible because it wasn't known that she'd be secretary.

Arms deals are extremely complex and take up to seven years to complete. Most of the work is carried out under the Pentagon, not the State Department. You couldn't just sell one.

The Saudi Arms deal was a major initiative of the entire administration. It started under Bush but was expanded under Obama for two major reasons. First, it was expected to produce 50,000 or 75,000 jobs. This was at a time when the 2008 crash left the country with high unemployment and the arms jobs were among the few that could be produced. The administration also wanted to build a barrier to Iran. The Saudi deal was the largest arms sale ever. It was inconceivable that Hillary wouldn't approve it. Tying the approval to donations to a foundation the Clintons got no direct compensation from is far fetched. Its like a whole city being flooded by a hurricane and somebody saying the flood was caused by someone letting their faucet drip.

IBT found that countries that did not donate also saw an 80% increase in arms sales. That was because we needed the jobs. IBT shows a chart with donors getting bigger increases. But all those countries with the huge increases were all Saudi allies from the Gulf Cooperation Council. They were part of the same initiative to build the wall against Iran. What IBT tries to make look like a pattern is just a single initiative, that went all the way to the top, above Hillary.

The fact that Hillary criticized those countries shows she wasn't bought off, not that she approved the arms deal for any other reason than policy.

IBT tried to make the deal suspicious because the sales were made to Saudi despite their horrible human rights record. We've been making arms deals with Saudi for decades despite their record. They are our best customer.

IBT also tried to question the deal because they said Israel opposed it. That was misleading at best and a lie at worst. While Israel at first made tactical objections to the deal, the weapons systems they were most concerned about were eliminated from the deal. Israel was then promised weapons that were more sophisticated than the ones the Saudis got. Israel's objections were dropped before the deal was even announced and sent to Congress.

IBT also tried to cast suspicion by saying that a defense contractor made a large donation just before the deal was finalized. But the deal was already sent to Congress with Hillary's backing a year before that. Hillary couldn't have possibly approved because of the donation because she'd already backed the deal.

Mother Jones isn't a right wing publication but they are definitely in the tank for Bernie and are out to get the Clintons. The idea that the foundation is corrupt originates with the right wing. It makes no sense, because the Clintons got no income from the foundation. In fact, $15 million that they raised giving speeches was turned over to the foundation. Why would they commit crimes when there was nothing in it for them?

People who hate the Clintons just can't stand the truth, that the Clintons did something wonderful for the world based on their own benevolence. They are great people, not the monsters the Clinton haters pretend they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #87)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 04:17 PM

118. All those that lost their homes in the housing crash don't know how good the

 

Clintons did for them. They didn't get $150,000,000 from special interests for their personal fortune helping the common folks.

And here is what Black Lives Matters thinks of the Clintons:

“Here's the truth: the Clinton legacy has left our prisons bursting at the seams. Real lives have been destroyed as a result. It is an indisputable fact that millions of Black people were locked up for drug crimes and provided the bodies for the expansion of the prison industry.

The 1994 Crime Bill that she so vigorously defended not only expanded incarceration, but stripped funding for college education from prisoners. The Clinton legacy allowed for policies that prevented anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from receiving food stamps or income assistance. Clinton-led welfare reform fundamentally ripped apart the social safety net.”


“Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's efforts to push these policies resulted in the continued destruction of Black communities and the swift growth of our mass incarceration crisis.”


They are all about amassing great wealth and power.

And many millions of Iraqi's don't have much love for the Clintons either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #118)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:18 PM

122. The Clintons had nothing to do with the housing crash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #122)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:05 AM

123. LOL. Of course not. Keep telling yourself that. The got $150,000,000 because

 

they had such great speeches. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #35)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:01 AM

67. An argument you heard from your imaginary friend?

Because nobody actually made that argument. Nobody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #67)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:11 AM

72. actually with someone I worked with for 16 years and thought I knew

the argument was more that the President sets FP, completely ignoring that the State Department is a tremendously powerful institution in the hands of someone with decades-long presidential ambitions

thanks for the feigned concern with my mental health!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #72)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:12 AM

74. Actually, I was accusing you of making up a straw man argument.

That accusation is not withdrawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #74)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:15 AM

76. Christ, were your parents brothers or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:33 AM

54. Nice projection

BSS have complained that everyone is against BS and any loss was rigged

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #54)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:02 AM

68. I've long noticed that Republicans always act like any election they lose is illegitimate.

Sad to see "progressives" making similar baseless arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:10 PM

27. DUrec

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:32 PM

36. K and R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:50 PM

40. Well said.

Your responses to the comments were dead on also.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:09 AM

45. Bernie staying in to the end and the DNC will be revealed!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:32 AM

53. It's really very easy.

Bernie says if you want my support give me X and then the DNC says how about .6 X and it goes back and forth till there's an agreement.

Easy peasy simple as pie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:11 AM

73. That article's pure straw man. Trashed. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #73)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:30 AM

82. Hit too close to home, eh?

Good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #82)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:35 AM

85. Not even close.

A lot of projection in the article though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #85)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:41 AM

92. Cool

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:26 AM

81. Unity is only possible

if the loser accepts the loss. Its democracy folks, not hard!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoverOfLiberty (Reply #81)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:39 AM

88. The American people are the losers

and they're fully aware of this reality. They don't like either of the horrible candidates the two parties have chosen, and the long term macroeconomic data is clear too on who the losers are with these two corrupt parties in charge, which is why so many people now refuse to identify with either major party. People don't have to accept these shitty choices, you just might not like what follows. I seriously doubt though, if the most unpopular nominee in the party's history loses to a candidate that was wrestling in WWE matches a few years ago, that you'll have this theory on unity come November. Trump would be a train wreck, but the Democrats nominated the one of the only Democrats he could actually beat. The only winners are Clinton and Trumps donors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #88)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:41 AM

91. You are projecting

Clinton has millions more voters than Sanders but you want to proclaim her more unpopular and "horrible". Get a grip, she beat your guy and that makes him even less popular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoverOfLiberty (Reply #91)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:52 AM

94. Yes

cause only Democrats that live in the bubble vote. Her doing much worse with independents isn't an issue, even if they're a much larger share of the public than Democrats are, and her doing worse with Republican voters isn't an issue either. She polls worse than he does, by a mile, versus Trump, is not liked or trusted. In fact, she's the most unpopular nominee in this party's history and would be the most disliked major party nominee in polling history if she were running against anyone but Trump. How does that not make her anything but horrible? No need for quotations, the word was made for candidates like Clinton.

If anything breaks badly for her, and lots of stuff can and is now swirling around her, she's toast. She's a horrible, weak candidate, and her likely winning her party's nomination says a lot about the modern Democratic Party. The general public supports the more progressive and less corrupt candidate running in this race more than the Democratic Party does. The Democrats have chosen the center-right, corrupt, war hawk. I don't notice any of you bragging about her advantage in "electability" anymore. Wonder why? Reality catch up and pop your bubble?

Good night liberty lover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #94)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:55 AM

95. She is absolutely more electable

Your center-right, corrupt, war hawk bs is just what you say to justify believing your candidate is better. But you know what? He's not, and millions of votes would tell you that IF YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE EYES TO SEE AND EARS TO LISTEN!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoverOfLiberty (Reply #95)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 02:07 AM

98. Cool

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoverOfLiberty (Reply #95)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:54 AM

100. Argumentum ad populum.

Lemmings avoid extinction because of a few, not the many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoverOfLiberty (Reply #95)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:57 AM

107. Hillary's taking millions in INCOME from TBTF banks that are corrupting our govt.

 

Banks that rig markets, cheat their customers, and deceive congress.

She already proclaims that a new version of Glass Steagall is not necessary to break up to big to fail banks. Banks that routinely violate the law while growing ever bigger even after being called too big to fail during the last crisis.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/goldman-sachs-admits-it-defrauded-investors.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-banks-rigging-lawsuit-idUSKCN0WU1E8

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-04-14/goldman-sachs-misled-congress-after-duping-clients-over-cdos-levin-says

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/



5 too big to fail banks can't pass Dodd Frank living will requirements currently which is suppose to be a requirement that if not met these banks should be broken up. But the banks are now given an extension and the regulators are suggesting the rules be watered down so the banks can pass the test.

5 'too big to fail' banks are violating Dodd-Frank rules

by David Goldman @DavidGoldmanCNN
April 13, 2016: 9:19 AM ET


Five major U.S. banks are in violation of Dodd-Frank rules that are meant to prevent "too big to fail" institutions from causing another financial crisis.

Federal banking regulators rebuked JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America (BAC), Wells Fargo, Bank of New York Mellon (BKPRC) and State Street (STT) for their so-called living wills -- bankruptcy plans in the event of a failure.

The Dodd-Frank rules apply to banks with assets of $50 billion or more. Each bank has to outline its plans for a quick and orderly bankruptcy in the event that it encounters severe financial distress or if the company goes under.

But the Federal Reserve and the FDIC said the living wills of America's largest banks were "not credible or would not facilitate an orderly resolution" under the standard established in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The regulators warned that they will hit the banks with even more stringent requirements unless each of them get up to code by October 1.

Goldman Sachs (GS)' and Morgan Stanley's (MS) living wills were also found to be deficient, but regulators did not specifically outline plans for bringing them up to snuff. Citigroup's plan was approved, despite some shortcomings that the bank must address.

Read more:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/investing/dodd-frank-banks-living-wills/


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-13/five-big-banks-living-wills-rejected-by-u-s-banking-agencies



Hillary is taking millions in INCOME from a health care industry that doesn't want universal healthcare.
She was paid 6 figures for a speech to a health care association that is actively fighting single payer in Colorado. Meanwhile the US is the only one of the 25 wealthiest nations not providing universal healthcare for it's people.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/sep/01/dan-gecker/dan-gecker-says-us-only-wealth-nation-without-univ/

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511817230


And that's just getting warmed up in regards to Hillary's blatant potential conflicts of interest with mega corporations in America.

So please do open your eyes and see that Hillary has chosen to take tens of millions in INCOME for speeches from mega banks and corporations that have powerful influence already over our govt and lives.

It may be too late. She may be the Democratic nominee for president. But to act like she's not taking massive amounts of income from powerful corporate interests is just naive.

Don't expect the too big to fail banks to be properly regulated. Expect their interests to be represented over the interests of the American people.

Expect the Hillary will not fight for or inform the American people about the universal healthcare the rest of the modern world already has and enjoys. Hillary has already made it clear that if she's president single payer will NEVER happen.

So pardon me if I'm less than thrilled that someone that corrupted by the se large corporations may be our nominee...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:21 AM

99. Thanks for this article and all your excellent responses!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:25 AM

104. Even though the Democratic Party does not wish to unite

Donald Trump's daily rantings will ultimately assure it. There could not be a better unifier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:46 AM

106. "Clinton’s allies disrespect too many,

take too much for granted, expect too many miracles, and act out too much like privileged children."

Terry Simons says it better than I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:43 AM

112. Terry Simons at Counterpunch has been urging Bernie to leave the Democrats and run Green Party

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 02:45 PM

117. Voting for the lesser evil still gets us evil.

 

As long as the two-headed snake of the partisan divide controls us with fear, we go nowhere. We are now being presented with the choice between 2 plutocrats. Some deluded people believe that one of these plutocrats will bring down the plutocracy. Collective insanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:31 PM

120. We should all stay in the thing, and in every other thing.

Every facet of American lives needs more progressive voices.

The Establishment would love to sell us the meme that Sanders just wants to be president at all costs, and that he suddenly developed this ambition a years ago. Incorrect. The modern movement began years ago, and a Sanders candidacy simply became more and more viable. He couldn't have done this ten years ago.

Sanders is a leader, but he is also a symptom. Urgent crises face the nation and world, and Sanders wagered his independent status on the chance to enact major reform within the Democratic Party. He has so far met with amazing success in spreading the message, but whether the party can change is still up to us, as it has always been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:04 PM

121. Why lump Reich with Krugman and Feinstein?

Reich is a dyed-in-the-wool Bernie supporter. If Bernie's elected president, Reich would be most likely his Secy of Labor.

Feinstein and Krugman have suffered a sea change, but not Reich. You must be thinking of somebody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread