merrily
merrily's JournalEd Shultz Show Tonight: Ed Interviews one DUer after another.
About every other other day, I read on DU how the population of DU does not reflect Democrats in general. So, I guess everyone Ed Shultz showed or interviewed on his show tonight must have been a DUer.
Let's start with Senator Harkin, who said that there is a general feeling that the "center" has moved too far to the right. Who knew he and all the people who gave him that general feeling post at DU? Wonder what his screen name is.
A few other Iowans, not famous (that I know of) who Ed interviewed said they wanted a real primary. One's face lit up when said he really wanted to hear more from Bernie Sanders (after Ed had named Biden and a few other Democrats). One said he wanted as many people as possible in the primary. Several said Hillary had to be taken left.
I don't know how Ed knew all of them were DUers. They weren't wearing signs or anything. They never said they were DUers. However, every single person Ed approached sounded just like the supposedly highly atypical population of DU. Ergo, they all just had to be DUers, right?
Some of the mixed reviews from Iowans can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-hamby/
What do you want from government?
I want these things.
Drinkable water
Breathable air
Good health care that everyone who needs health care can access, including appropriate, humane care and facilities for segments of the population with special needs, like mental and emotional illness
Our Constitutional rights, no word games, just our rights
Clean elections
People in office, including in federal agencies, who actually represent voters and the general public, not lobbyists and big business
Peace
Jobs with safe working conditions and fairness to employees for everyone who wants a job
Protection from retaliation if we want to unionize
Affordable, safe housing and efforts to end homelessness
Affordable, good education
Safe cities and towns, safe from criminals and safe from rogue law enforcement
Did I mention jobs?
A fair, progressive system of taxation
An honest, reliable banking system
Maybe a couple of frills, like some safe, well maintained national parks and something like the BBC
Oh, and jobs.
What do you want from government?
Are mainstream media conspiring against unions?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025537798(Thread in General Discussion).
Are mainstream media conspiring against unions?
As you all know, unions are among the strongest supporters of the Democratic Party, in both donations and person power. But this past Sunday alone, I saw on TV two pot shots against unions.
The first was in the MTP (NBC) interview of Senator Sanders by Chuck Toad. Perhaps less noticed than other things in that interview was Toad's attempt to get Sanders to disavow union support.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5534145
Shortly before I watched that video yesterday, I had watched an interview of Seth Moulton, who defeated long time U.S. Rep. Tierney (D. MA) in a Democratic primary. The Moulton interview was on a Boston station (same one that employed Scott Brown's wife before he ran for Kennedy's seat) that is an ABC affiliate. The hosts of that show also tried to get Moulton to discredit union donations and support.
Was that sheer coincidence, or is there a concerted effort to shame Democrats about accepting money and help from unions?
If so, how do they justify that in the wake of Citizens' United? It's okay for billionaires, American and not American, to spend whatever to buy elections and politicians, but not okay for US workers and their unions?
If it is some kind of concerted effort by the msm, I hope Dem candidates get some piercing answers ready.
Encourage Bernie Sanders to run for President (link)
https://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/encourage-senator-bernie-sanders-to-run-for-president-in-2016-as-a-democratIt's a petition to encourage the Senator to run for President as a Democrat.
There is also a facebook link.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/US-Senator-Bernie-Sanders-for-President-2016/253576231398947
From Senator Sanders' wiki:
Possible 2016 presidential run
In a March 6, 2014 interview with The Nation, Sanders stated that he is "prepared to run for President of the United States" in 2016[6] but did not officially announce a campaign. When pressed on the issue, Sanders said, "If the question is am I actively right now organizing and raising money and so forth for a campaign for president, I am not doing that. On the other hand, am I talking to people around the country? Yes, I am. Will I be doing some traveling around the country? Yes, I will be. But I think it’s premature to be talking about a campaign when we still have a 2014 congressional race in front of us."[6]
TheNutcracker started a thread today on Sanders' appearance on Meet the Press this morning.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5534033
On the thread, in addition to a lot of praise for Sen. Sanders, is a clip valerief was kind enough to post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5534145
Regardless of how you intend to vote in a primary, if you can watch that clip and be indifferent to having Sen. Sanders in the race, even if he loses, this post is not for you.
For everyone else, please show your interest by clicking on both of the links at the beginning of this post and show Senator Sanders and everyone else that we do not appreciate oligarchy.
Does Obama really buy into John Yoo's view? (Or Bybee's?)
In 2009, two days after taking office, President Barack Obama in Executive Order 13491 repudiated and revoked all legal guidance on interrogation authored by Yoo and his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.[5][6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
I googled for the full text and look where I found it first.
Gotta love DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2017065
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Hell, at the time, Biden claimed that it had not even authorized Dimson's invasion of Iraq because Dimson had not fulfilled all the conditions or some such. I even posted that on another board at the time; and a Republican lawyer, who hated Bush, but not as much as he hated Democrats, I guess, posted the full text of the resolution, without additional comment.
But, the AUMF against Iraq is not the only authorization to use military force of that fateful era.
Authorization for Use of Military Force may refer to:
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 authorizing the Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm: H.R.J. Res. 77
Authorization for Use of Military Force I, also known as "Public Law No: 107–40", authorizes the use of military force against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force II, also known as "Iraq Resolution", "Iraq War Resolution" and "Public Law No: 107-243"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force
"What was the middle one, again?"
Full text of "the middle one" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
US schools are battlefield for the hearts and minds of USians.
Over the years, I've seen stories about prominent Republicans, mostly women--Mrs Bush 41, Mrs. Bush 43, Mrs. Cheney, et al. writing books for very young kids. I'm guessing that those books are not going to be spreading liberal ideas.
Over the years, I've seen stories about how Texas, being (collectively) the largest public school district in the country, in essence, decides what public school textbooks say. I'm guessing that those books are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, ideas, either.
Over the years, I've seen stories about religious groups and churches volunteering to teach classes, such as American history, in public schools in Texas, at no cost to the schools--and the schools allowing that. I'm guessing that those public school courses are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, either, or secularist ideas.
Over the years, I've seen bipartisan, but still partisan, stories of private charter schools being funded with public tax money and being allegedly superior to public schools. I'm guessing that people who think that private schools funded by public money are superior to public schools funded by public money are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, either.
And then of course, there are church youth groups and like, also probably not spreading liberal ideas.
Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Eagle Scouts, Brownies and Girl Scouts? Dunno. Never joined.
Anyway, anyone have any thoughts on the so far highly predictable result of the above?
Members of the House sued Obama over Libya.
In that case, the court held that the several members who sued had no standing to sue, citing, among other things, the fact that the group had not shown in any way that they represented the House as a whole.
The suit was, of course, over the Constitutional issue, given that the Constitution requires Congress to declare war. (And for damned good reason, IMO). Originally, the suit had also cited war powers legislation, which allows the President to proceed on his own for a certain period of time. However, that claim was dropped. (In my opinion the constitutionality of war power legislation is itself questionable.)
When Obama drew his "line" about Syria, a Republican started a movement to require Obama to "at least" consult Congress before taking miitary action. He got over 100 signatures from both sides of the aisle. Then, Boehner sent Obama a letter with something like 14 legal questions for Obama to answer.
So, it looked as though the House, as a body, might well take bipartisan legal action against the Executive. That whole scenario was avoided when Obama refrained from taking action.
Then, the right wanted action, so the Constitutional objections flew out the window.
Of course, none of us has standing to sue for enforcement of the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war. The standing doctrine sucks, IMO. So does the bipartisan AUMF.
Good question. Have you Asked the Administrators?
If not, perhaps cross post your OP in ATA.
For those who still think this was court mandated, no, it was not.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877886
To the countrary, the Supreme Court had previously told the FCC that, if the FCC wanted to regulate internet service providers heavily, the FCC should re-classify the providers. Instead, the FCC went back into court without reclassifying, a "strategy" that seemed destined to lose the case to the providers, and lose was just what it did. I can't see how the FCC possibly could have expected anything else. I doubt it did.
Maybe that is because the FCC's legal department has lots of lawyers whose resume included, or consisted of, lobbying for the likes of Verizon and Comcast.
Of course, when confronted with the above, some say that re-classifying was not an option. That, is bs, just as the claim that the court mandated the end of net neutrality was s.
Executive agencies do reclassify. If reclassification were not an option for the FCC and telecommunication industry, why did the Supreme Court not say that from the jump? Just to have the black-robed fun of watching the FCC waste taxpayer dollars on reclassifying, holding reclassification hearings and then losing another case in the SCOTUS, while the Justices LOL and yell "Gotcha?" Come on, now. (Guess I slept through Justice Ashton Kutcher's confirmation hearings?)
As to Chair Wheeler himself.
Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
Wheeler succeeded Genachowski, whose pre-FCC resume included paving the way for FOX and who joined the Aspen Institute* and The Carlyle Group after leaving the FCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_Institute
Genachowski, in turn, replaced Acting Chair Michael Copp, who served only until Genachowski could be confirm and was the only one of the three who actually is a "fierce advocate" of net neutrality.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Michael-Copps-former-FCC-commissioner-on-net-5626535.php
BTW I have written Wheeler in the past, despite my view that my letter would do nothing. His form letter response was that he is for net neutrality. IOW, Orwellian Double Speak. (I know it is a form letter because others received the identical letter.)
So, the key in writing Wheeler may be to specify that you oppose tiers of service (which Wheeler has enabled) and leave out the apparently more ambiguous term "net neurality."
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AMNumber of posts: 45,251
