HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » lumberjack_jeff » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

lumberjack_jeff

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Olympia, WA
Member since: Tue Nov 4, 2003, 09:02 PM
Number of posts: 33,224

Journal Archives

TYT: Worst lines from the MSNBC town hall



What a trainwreck.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Tue Apr 26, 2016, 10:54 AM (4 replies)

Let's ask the Sanders question of DU in a more general way.

Should PACS be allowed to, not simply promote issues, but fundraise for campaigns? Is it not the definition of money-laundering that, for instance, Ted Cruz super pac "Keep the Promise" raises millions from select high-dollar donors and use that money to shake down small donations from individual donors to finance his official campaign?

So when Ted goes to the home of a prominent fundraiser such as Bob Murray of Murray energy, should the resulting donations (the per-plate price of the dinner is twice what is allowed to the official campaign) to Cruz's super PAC be diverted into fundraising for the Cruz campaign? Does this not violate the spirit of the cap on individual donations?

This is essentially the question Sanders is asking.

I think the answer to this question should be no, but I've noticed that the definition of "progressive" has become fairly malleable of late.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Mon Apr 18, 2016, 07:17 PM (0 replies)

Why do Clinton supporters think that the gender card is a winning one?

This morning the team has decided that instead of confronting the conflicts of interest that the protestors were illustrating with dollar bills, they are gonna run with the default setting in their playbook; Misogyny! Sexists! BernieBros!

Clinging to this playbook is especially odd, (and no doubt frustrating to team Clinton) since Sanders supporters are at least as, and perhaps even more likely to be women.

To the hammer, all problems look like nails, I guess.

In addition to the stretching and logical contortions; "Last week someone called congresspeople 'corporate whores' and now today they're tossing money... how can I fit these into my narrative?"

It's not even a very good way to distract the public from the fact that she still hasn't released her transcripts.

This isn't a strategy for getting your candidate elected, it's an excuse for why she lost.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:24 AM (15 replies)

Media disinfo alert



Note that the Pope says "He knew I was leaving at the time, and he had the courtesy to greet me"

US media, after initially reporting the correct quote, now says;

"This morning when I left, Sen. Sanders was there," the Associated Press reported the pope said. "He knew I was leaving at that time and I had the kindness to greet him and his wife."


Think you're not being fucked with? Are you happy to be fed bullshit? The answer to that question is determinative of which candidate you support.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sat Apr 16, 2016, 09:00 PM (7 replies)

Notice how none of the Republican candidates are taking the "release your transcripts" bait?

You'd think that if they consider Hillary the more intimidating general election opponent, they'd be doing all they can to force her hand during the primary so they can face the comparative lightweight Sanders.

The facts are all out there;
1) Hillary refuses to release the content of her promises to Wall Street, because disclosure would lose votes.
2) If she were to release transcripts, we'd have to take them at face value - they can't be independently corroborated - she could give us "transcripts" that make her look good, unless...
3) The Republicans definitely know what she promised, have them on tape and are going to produce them as ads in October.

If we nominate Clinton, we're going to get our asses handed to us. It will be disastrous for both the country and the Democratic brand.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:34 AM (15 replies)

The preference of Washington voters is clear. Our superdelegates MUST follow our lead.

I won't vote for a single one of them, ever again, if they defy the direction of their constituents.

Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:29 PM (4 replies)

Bernie will be only the second US president not descended from King John Lackland.

The only other is Martin VanBuren.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:55 AM (18 replies)

Not all quid pro quo are bribes.

Dolores Huerta is the president of the Dolores Huerta foundation. That foundation has received significant financial support from the Clinton foundation.

I have no doubt that Clinton and Huerta have a long relationship, and I'm sure that the work done by the DHF is worthy of support. Although I agree that it is hyperbolic to call the Clinton Foundation's financial support of the Dolores Huerta foundation "a bribe", the fact that Huerta takes no salary from her foundation isn't a sufficient defense from allegations that her independence is compromised.

I run a small nonprofit, much smaller than Huerta's, and I can tell you that if you want my vigorous support for what you're doing, it would be infinitely more effective to support my nonprofit than to simply offer me a bribe.

Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sun Feb 21, 2016, 07:40 PM (0 replies)

Am I happy about Scalia's death?

No, but I am better off because of it.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:09 PM (2 replies)

Sometimes ‘poor little rich kids’ really are poor little rich kids

Wealth inequality is a massive social problem. Not only for the poor but also for the rich.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/01/05/sometimes-poor-little-rich-kids-really-are-poor-little-rich-kids/

The “affluenza” defense of Ethan Couch, a 16-year-old Texas boy who killed four pedestrians while driving drunk, has received a great deal of ridicule, much of it justified. That said, it would be foolish to allow an absurd effort to minimize one teenager’s responsibility for a horrific tragedy to obscure growing evidence that we have a significant and growing crisis on our hands. The children of the affluent are becoming increasingly troubled, reckless, and self-destructive. Perhaps we needn’t feel sorry for these “poor little rich kids.” But if we don’t do something about their problems, they will become everyone’s problems.

One of us has spent about 20 years studying and documenting the growth of dysfunction among affluent youth, and the other has written about one large source of the problem. High-risk behavior, including extreme substance abuse and promiscuous sex, is growing fast among young people from communities dominated by white-collar, well-educated parents. These kids attend schools distinguished by rich academic curricula, high standardized test scores, and diverse extracurricular opportunities. Their parents’ annual income, at $150,000 and more, is well over twice the national average. And yet they show serious levels of maladjustment as teens, displaying problems that tend to begin as they enter adolescence and get worse as they approach college.

What kinds of problems? First, marijuana and alcohol abuse, including binge drinking. Studies show that drug and alcohol use is higher among affluent teens than their inner-city counterparts. And surveys have revealed that full-time college students are two and a half times more likely to experience substance abuse or dependence than members of the general population. Half of all full-time college students reported binge drinking and abuse of illegal or prescription drugs.
...
Finally, there is a psychological toll. The proportion of affluent youth indicating serious levels of depression or anxiety is two to three times national rates, and levels of eating disorders and self-injurious behaviors far exceed national averages.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Wed Jan 6, 2016, 04:39 PM (6 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »