HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cali » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next »

cali

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: born is LA, grew up there and in New Canaan CT
Home country: USA
Current location: East Hardwick, Vermont
Member since: Wed Sep 29, 2004, 03:28 PM
Number of posts: 114,904

Journal Archives

Was at the polls at 6:00 am and it was packed

No this is not me. It's from a reddit post.


I was very surprised to see the crowds of people there as the doors opened. As usual there was a bake sale going on as well.
Lots of Bernie supporters!
What was really funny was that there were 29 names on the ballot if my count was right. I guess it doesn't take much to get your name on there

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/44whus/was_at_the_polls_in_nh_at_600_am_and_it_was_packed/

He's Just As Corrupt As I Am And Even More Hypocritical!



That's the message the Clinton campaign is sending, even if they are so tone deaf they don't get that.


It's a pitiful bullshit message.

Ted Cruz joke: Why do so many people take an instant dislike to Ted Cruz?

It saves time.


Satire or not. I can't decide: Hillary, be proud of your Wall Street speeches

<snip>

Anyway, it's ridiculous that the speeches-on-Wall-Street thing is becoming an issue for you in the primary so let me take the liberty of offering you some free campaign advice.

Folks just don't seem to understand that money-for-speeches -- while perhaps crass at times -- is just good clean fun with no connection at all to the important issues of money in politics and the power of Wall Street. In fact, I think the whole thing would go from being a negative to a positive for your campaign if you made a few simple points:

It's just show business. Every brand-name entertainer over 45 -- singers, athletes, writers and politicians -- cashes in one way or another because they have time on their hands yet still appeal to the well-heeled baby boomers who attend conferences, throw expensive parties and shell out for Vegas shows. The Wall Street firms who signed you up weren't thinking about how they could increase their power and influence -- they have K Street and "senior adviser" sinecures for that -- they just thought you'd provide some good old-fashioned entertainment. (To tell you the truth, I would have preferred Keith Richards to your husband at that meeting in 2002, but I was not involved in the event planning, and he probably would have been too expensive anyway.)

Since you got paid for a service, there is no hint of corruption. Although the Supreme Court got it exactly backward in its Citizens United decision, the danger from corruption is greatest when there is no explicit quid pro quo. If you'd been paid for doing nothing, people could rightly suspect you'd feel some loyalty or future obligation to your paymasters. But you were paid to provide specific services as laid out in some very explicit contracts and you did it. Case closed.

Your earnings reflect admirable commercial instincts. Americans appreciate a candidate with business acumen. Your speech-related earnings reflect your appreciation for the market and your belief in capitalism. Not to have taken millions in low-hanging speaking fees from easy marks would have been positively un-American. Even socialists should appreciate the extra joy -- remember "Ocean's Eleven" -- that you got taking money from people whom you may not particularly like. Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, you weren't fraternizing with the enemy -- you were picking his pocket!

snip

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/opinions/hillary-clinton-be-proud-of-wall-street-speeches-macintosh/

Pierce: Hillary's Bill Clinton Problem Is More Political Then Personal

One thing about the Clinton team: because they've been the object of sophisticated (and well-financed) ratfcking for over 25 years, they've developed a real talent for opposition research their own selves. And that was before they hired David Brock, whom the campaign needs to put in a walk-in freezer for a few weeks. (The HRC campaign is being as ill-served by its surrogates, from Brock to Madeleine Albright to the candidate's husband, as any campaign I've ever seen. And whoever leaked the possible campaign staff shakeup to Tiger Beat On The Potomac needs firing badly.) Consequently, we have this little tidbit that they spread around about something Bernie Sanders did in 1982.

The document, apparently signed by Sanders in his capacity as Burlington mayor, designates "We Believe in Marriage Week" for the city. The third "whereas" for resolution says marriage "should be viewed as a lifelong commitment between husband and wife filled with mutual respect and open, honest communications." Although saying marriage is between a man and a woman has becoming a rallying cry in recent years for opponents of same-sex marriage, nothing in the resolution explicitly says gay people should be excluded from the institution. As a whole, the document promotes marriage as a "cornerstone of the American society" and family as a societal institution, which could easily apply to married gay people.

The precedent in the woodpile, of course, is the fact that, 14 years later, President Bill Clinton signed the egregious Defense Of Marriage Act because he wanted to get re-elected in 1996, and because the execrable Dick Morris told him it was a sure-fire votegrabber, and, alas, it was, at least as far as turning off that issue for the balance of that year's campaign. (The official Clinton line is he signed DOMA to stave off a proposed constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. This is, to say the least, untested history. After all, Bill Clinton didn't even mention DOMA in his great cement block of an autobiography.) In fact, much of what has been bedeviling his wife this year has its roots in the carnival of triangulation that powered the stretch drive of Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign.

<snip>

Now all of this certainly can be defended on the grounds that it kept the wolves at bay during the Gingrich years, and it might even have bought him some conservative Democratic votes when the kabuki impeachment drama opened in D.C. Indeed, it can be argued convincingly that this was the only way a Democratic president could govern in the 1990s, as well as the only way this particular president even could stay in office. But there are other consequences as well, and some of them are bubbling up in this campaign. In 2008, HRC was hamstrung because she was complicit in a Republican president's war. This time, she's struggling with the legacy of her husband's triangulations. If you want to know why things have gotten so personal, that's part of the reason.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41958/hillary-clinton-bill-legacy/

Hillary's paid speeches: "She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs Managing Director"

Attendees of several of Hillary Clinton’s paid Goldman Sachs gigs are speaking to the media today.

Transcripts or no transcripts, thanks to Politico we finally know What Clinton said in her paid speeches.

Guess what? In the speeches, she lavished extravagant praise on the investment bank.

Surprise, surprise!

Instead of speaking about charity, leadership or female entrepreneurs, Clinton devoted her remarks to paying rosy tribute to the job Goldman Sachs was doing “raising capital and helping create jobs.”

Yup.

Heckuva job, Lloyd!

As for any criticism — even light — over the string of despicable actions her host had taken in famous major catastrophes in the recent past? Just a little, Hillary?

No way! In yet another major stunner, “[s]he spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.”

Well, OK. Maybe she just did not want to be ungracious? After all, they were paying her six figures for multiple celebrity appearances. I’m sure she laid low on direct criticism, but at the same time was respectably calm, nuanced and even-handed in her approach to the firm:

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

<snip>
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/9/1482138/-Hillary-s-speeches-revealed-She-sounded-more-like-a-Goldman-Sachs-managing-director-Read-mor



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

The deep divide in Feminism exposed by the Democratic Primary

<snip>

“It was a chick question,” Pernold told the Guardian from the same cafe. “I wanted to know how she did it.”

But the woman who made Clinton cry is undecided in 2016, reflecting a presidential race that has veered from a focus on the “highest glass ceiling” toward an insurgency: Clinton is once again braced for a loss in New Hampshire, where she trails Bernie Sanders, the septuagenarian democratic socialist from next-door Vermont, by nearly 13 points.

Perhaps more worrisome for the road ahead: at a time when more women than ever identify as feminists, Clinton is having trouble persuading women – especially young women – to rally behind her. And now it appears her candidacy has exposed very public fault lines in the modern feminist movement, as Gloria Steinem was forced to apologize over the weekend for saying “boys are with Bernie” and that “young women aren’t serious in their politics”.

Intimate interviews over the past week with 31 Democratic-leaning New Hampshire women, all of whom said they planned to vote in Tuesday’s primary, revealed a passionate divide over the complex and fractured legacy of the woman better poised than anyone in history to become the first female president.

Ranging from a juice bar packed with Clinton fans meeting Steinem to the living room of an Occupy Wall Street activist working for Sanders, the in-depth conversations were declarative (“I’m not voting with my uterus”) and defiant (“this is her time”) but very much in discord (“I want to see a female president before I die”).

<snip>
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/08/hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-women-bernie-sanders-female-voter-interviews

Michigan Is Too Busy Trying to Outlaw Anal Sex to Address Toxic Flint Water

Seeing as Flint is an issue in the primary, and that today Hillary rightly said that what is happening there is immoral, thought I'd post this piece illustrating precisely what repuke morals and values look like.


Who has time for water that cannot pass a quality test when you can legislate the love that dare not speak its name?

The Michigan Senate recently passed a bill that outlawed sodomy, traditionally defined in legalese as either oral or anal sex. If the bill passes the Michigan House, sodomy could be punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The ban was attached to an anti-bestiality bill, part of a package of bills called "Logan's Law" the state Senate is looking to pass to protect pets from abusive owners. By adding the words "with mankind" to a clause outlawing bestiality it not only outlawed sodomy and bestiality, but equated the two.

Michigan joins about a dozen other states that have sodomy bans on their books, even though the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in a 6-3 vote in the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas. That case started with the 1998 arrest of two gay men who were having consensual sex in their private apartment; the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.

<snip>

http://mic.com/articles/134600/michigan-is-too-busy-trying-to-outlaw-anal-sex-to-address-toxic-flint-water#.jfr2euTqP

I'm not sure I agree with him, but I really respect bernie

for not getting down in the muck and slime with Hillary and Bill.

It's not like there isn't plenty of ammunition.

Maybe it's a tactical mistake not to join her in the gutter, but it sure demonstrates character.

Until recently, I thought red baiting was a rethug pastime

What a disappointment to find out it's a bipartisan activity.

The Clinton and Cintpn inspired red baiting of Bernie Sanders is ridiculous. And I'm not referring to the reasonable claim that if he's the nominee, the repukes will go after him that way.

There sure are a lot of socially liberal, fine with war, who are economically moderate, in the dem party. And I'm not knocking that though I disagree.

But red baiting? Seriously? That's just fucked up.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next »