Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Ferd Berfel
Ferd Berfel's Journal
Ferd Berfel's Journal
April 25, 2016
Who is the real Democrat -- Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Why are fringe candidates getting all of the attention this year? Who are the moderates? These questions can all be answered by understanding something that has been unfolding for 40 years.
Historical perspective on Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton
Who is the real Democrat — Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Why are fringe candidates getting all of the attention this year? Who are the moderates?
These questions can all be answered by understanding something that has been unfolding for 40 years: The center of American politics has shifted steadily to the right. Today, neither party is even remotely similar to what it was when Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, for example, first entered politics.
In the late 1970s, as large corporations turned into transnational giants, they pumped huge amounts of cash into the political system. This largesse lured, first, the Republican Party, in the 80s, followed by the Democratic Party in the ‘90s, and precipitated a rightward political shift as both parties rewrote their policies to compete for the same corporate contributions.
There Is a Moderate Republican in This Race, But She’s Running as a Democrat
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.htmlWho is the real Democrat -- Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Why are fringe candidates getting all of the attention this year? Who are the moderates? These questions can all be answered by understanding something that has been unfolding for 40 years.
Historical perspective on Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton
Who is the real Democrat — Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Why are fringe candidates getting all of the attention this year? Who are the moderates?
These questions can all be answered by understanding something that has been unfolding for 40 years: The center of American politics has shifted steadily to the right. Today, neither party is even remotely similar to what it was when Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, for example, first entered politics.
In the late 1970s, as large corporations turned into transnational giants, they pumped huge amounts of cash into the political system. This largesse lured, first, the Republican Party, in the 80s, followed by the Democratic Party in the ‘90s, and precipitated a rightward political shift as both parties rewrote their policies to compete for the same corporate contributions.
April 25, 2016
Breaking down the national poll numbers reveals some surprising results.
Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is on the verge of catching up to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, if national polls of the primary are any gauge.
HuffPost Pollster’s average, which includes all publicly available surveys, shows Sanders trailing by about 4.3 points, down from a deficit of more than 20 points at the beginning of the year.
National primary polls, however, aren’t an especially good gauge for a number of reasons. For one, there’s no such thing as a national primary — states vote individually, and attempts to survey them all at once omit the significant differences between, say, the Iowa caucuses in February and the New Jersey primaries in June. For another, at this point in the calendar, many of the people included in national polls live in states that have already voted rather than those that still have upcoming contests.
National pollsters often don’t try to differentiate between those groups, viewing their results as a barometer of political attitudes rather than a tool for predicting who’s likely to win. But the NBC/SurveyMonkey tracking poll, which has been following the race since the beginning of the year, was able to look at the divide between the states that have already voted and those that have yet to do so.
Bernie Sanders Is Seeing Gains In States That Have Yet To Vote
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-upcoming-primaries_us_571a7d4de4b0d0042da93713Breaking down the national poll numbers reveals some surprising results.
Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is on the verge of catching up to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, if national polls of the primary are any gauge.
HuffPost Pollster’s average, which includes all publicly available surveys, shows Sanders trailing by about 4.3 points, down from a deficit of more than 20 points at the beginning of the year.
National primary polls, however, aren’t an especially good gauge for a number of reasons. For one, there’s no such thing as a national primary — states vote individually, and attempts to survey them all at once omit the significant differences between, say, the Iowa caucuses in February and the New Jersey primaries in June. For another, at this point in the calendar, many of the people included in national polls live in states that have already voted rather than those that still have upcoming contests.
National pollsters often don’t try to differentiate between those groups, viewing their results as a barometer of political attitudes rather than a tool for predicting who’s likely to win. But the NBC/SurveyMonkey tracking poll, which has been following the race since the beginning of the year, was able to look at the divide between the states that have already voted and those that have yet to do so.
April 23, 2016
Chicago Board of Elections audits Chicago votes. In one precinct the actual tally was 56.7% in Bernie's favor. After count was manipulated by machine he lost with 47.5% of vote. A whopping 18.4% swing. (video)
It gets interesting around the 24 minute mark. video:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In one example noted during video, 21 Bernie votes were erased and 49 Hillary votes added to audit tally in order to match machine count. In this one precinct, this change from the actual results accounted for nearly 20% of overall votes cast. The actual tally was 56.7% in Bernie's favor. After count was manipulated by machine he lost with 47.5% of vote. A whopping 18.4% swing.
---------------
The 800 pound gorilla in the room, the question has to be, Will the 'winner' of this mess, under these disgusting conditions, be considered legitimate ?
OR will they be considered another GW Bush?
I guess it won't matter to some, as long as 'we' win.
CBE audits Chicago votes - Guess What Happened
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4fqo91/chicago_board_of_elections_audits_chicago_votes/Chicago Board of Elections audits Chicago votes. In one precinct the actual tally was 56.7% in Bernie's favor. After count was manipulated by machine he lost with 47.5% of vote. A whopping 18.4% swing. (video)
It gets interesting around the 24 minute mark. video:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In one example noted during video, 21 Bernie votes were erased and 49 Hillary votes added to audit tally in order to match machine count. In this one precinct, this change from the actual results accounted for nearly 20% of overall votes cast. The actual tally was 56.7% in Bernie's favor. After count was manipulated by machine he lost with 47.5% of vote. A whopping 18.4% swing.
---------------
The 800 pound gorilla in the room, the question has to be, Will the 'winner' of this mess, under these disgusting conditions, be considered legitimate ?
OR will they be considered another GW Bush?
I guess it won't matter to some, as long as 'we' win.
Jimmy Carter: The U.S. Is an “Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery”
April 23, 2016
Sanders Campaign’s Commitment To Victory Irritates Media, Offends Clinton Campaign
Well we should take care not to offend Her Highness..........
-----------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/21/sanders-campaigns-commitment-victory-irritates-media-offends-clinton-campaign
"It is premature to grapple with how the movement around the campaign can continue after the campaign is over when it frankly is not over yet."
Once again, for the umpteenth time in the Democratic presidential primary, there is a dominant narrative in the establishment news media that it is over for Bernie Sanders. News outlets have crunched the numbers, again, and after the loss to Hillary Clinton in New York, conventional wisdom is Sanders cannot win.
Such harping is presented as if it is a neutral perspective solely based on mathematics that is not driven by any influence the Clinton campaign may have over media institutions. However, the fact is there are 1,400 pledged delegates left to win in contests. Clinton has 1,442 pledged delegates while Sanders has 1,209 pledged delegates. It’s a lead of 233 pledged delegates, which he could still overcome in June, especially if he continues to surge in California—a state with 475 delegates to be won.
To put it more concisely, Sanders has a path to victory. His campaign is not all but done. It would be all but done if there weren’t over a thousand pledged delegates to be awarded. That is not the case.
April 22, 2016
"I don't think any Democrat's ever won saying, 'We can't think that big,'" the vice president said.
Although Vice President Joe Biden has promised to stay neutral on the Democratic presidential candidates this campaign season, he offered high praise for Bernie Sanders' message in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday: Biden will "take Mr. Sanders' aspirational approach over Mrs. Clinton's caution any day," the newspaper reports.
"I like the idea of saying, 'We can do much more,' because we can," Biden told the Times.
The vice president had harsh words for Clinton's call for slow, incremental change over political revolution. Biden said, "I don't think any Democrat's ever won saying, 'We can't think that big—we ought to really downsize here because it's not realistic," he said in a mocking tone, according to the newspaper. "C'mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I'm not part of the party that says, 'Well, we can't do it.'"
-----------------------------------------
Golly Gee Joe....Where were you 6 months ago?
Backing Bernie's Bold Vision, Biden Knocks Hillary's "No We Can't" Mantra
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/22/backing-bernies-bold-vision-biden-knocks-hillarys-no-we-cant-mantra"I don't think any Democrat's ever won saying, 'We can't think that big,'" the vice president said.
Although Vice President Joe Biden has promised to stay neutral on the Democratic presidential candidates this campaign season, he offered high praise for Bernie Sanders' message in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday: Biden will "take Mr. Sanders' aspirational approach over Mrs. Clinton's caution any day," the newspaper reports.
"I like the idea of saying, 'We can do much more,' because we can," Biden told the Times.
The vice president had harsh words for Clinton's call for slow, incremental change over political revolution. Biden said, "I don't think any Democrat's ever won saying, 'We can't think that big—we ought to really downsize here because it's not realistic," he said in a mocking tone, according to the newspaper. "C'mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I'm not part of the party that says, 'Well, we can't do it.'"
-----------------------------------------
Golly Gee Joe....Where were you 6 months ago?
April 21, 2016
Governments could be receiving an extra $167 billion annually if corporations paid Reagan-era tax rates.
If corporations paid the same tax rate as they did under Ronald Reagan, governments in the U.S. would have enough money to fund prekindergarten for every 4-year-old in America and higher education for every American attending public colleges and universities, according to a Huffington Post review of government data.
Corporations paid an effective tax rate of 31.7 percent on average during Reagan’s eight years in the White House, according to Commerce Department figures that measure corporate profits and taxes paid to local, state, federal and foreign governments.
But in the seven full years President Barack Obama has occupied the post, corporations have enjoyed a 22.8 percent effective tax rate on their profits, Commerce Department data show.
The average annual difference, if applying Reagan-era tax rates to Obama-era profits, comes out to $166.7 billion.
-----
Clinton and her supporters, wrong, as usual.
College Could Be Free In America If Corporations Paid Reagan-Era Taxes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/college-could-be-free-in-america-if-corporations-paid-reagan-era-taxes_us_57163d60e4b0018f9cbb11c1Governments could be receiving an extra $167 billion annually if corporations paid Reagan-era tax rates.
If corporations paid the same tax rate as they did under Ronald Reagan, governments in the U.S. would have enough money to fund prekindergarten for every 4-year-old in America and higher education for every American attending public colleges and universities, according to a Huffington Post review of government data.
Corporations paid an effective tax rate of 31.7 percent on average during Reagan’s eight years in the White House, according to Commerce Department figures that measure corporate profits and taxes paid to local, state, federal and foreign governments.
But in the seven full years President Barack Obama has occupied the post, corporations have enjoyed a 22.8 percent effective tax rate on their profits, Commerce Department data show.
The average annual difference, if applying Reagan-era tax rates to Obama-era profits, comes out to $166.7 billion.
-----
Clinton and her supporters, wrong, as usual.
April 19, 2016
Bernie's idea to tax financial speculation is right on the money, and not even radical. What gives?
Why is there so little discussion about one of Bernie Sanders’s most important proposals – to tax financial speculation?
Buying and selling stocks and bonds in order to beat others who are buying and selling stocks and bonds is a giant zero-sum game that wastes countless resources, uses up the talents of some of the nation’s best and brightest, and subjects financial market to unnecessary risk.
High-speed traders who employ advanced technologies in order to get information a millisecond before other traders get it don’t make financial markets more efficient. They make them more vulnerable to debacles like the “Flash Crash” of May 2010.
Wall Street Insiders who trade on confidential information unavailable to small investors don’t improve the productivity of financial markets. They just rig the game for themselves.
Bankers who trade in ever more complex derivatives – making bets on bets – don’t add real value. They only make the system more vulnerable to big losses, as occurred in the financial crisis of 2008.
(snip)
So why is it only Bernie Sanders who’s calling for a financial transactions tax?
(snip)
So why is it only Bernie Sanders who’s calling for a financial transactions tax? Why aren’t politicians of all stripes supporting it? And why isn’t it a major issue in the 2016 election?
Because a financial transactions tax directly threatens a major source of Wall Street’s revenue. And, if you hadn’t noticed, the Street uses a portion of its vast revenues to gain political clout.
Robert Reich: Why Is Everyone Ignoring One of Sanders' Most Important Proposals?
http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reich-why-everyone-ignoring-one-sanders-most-important-proposalsBernie's idea to tax financial speculation is right on the money, and not even radical. What gives?
Why is there so little discussion about one of Bernie Sanders’s most important proposals – to tax financial speculation?
Buying and selling stocks and bonds in order to beat others who are buying and selling stocks and bonds is a giant zero-sum game that wastes countless resources, uses up the talents of some of the nation’s best and brightest, and subjects financial market to unnecessary risk.
High-speed traders who employ advanced technologies in order to get information a millisecond before other traders get it don’t make financial markets more efficient. They make them more vulnerable to debacles like the “Flash Crash” of May 2010.
Wall Street Insiders who trade on confidential information unavailable to small investors don’t improve the productivity of financial markets. They just rig the game for themselves.
Bankers who trade in ever more complex derivatives – making bets on bets – don’t add real value. They only make the system more vulnerable to big losses, as occurred in the financial crisis of 2008.
(snip)
So why is it only Bernie Sanders who’s calling for a financial transactions tax?
(snip)
So why is it only Bernie Sanders who’s calling for a financial transactions tax? Why aren’t politicians of all stripes supporting it? And why isn’t it a major issue in the 2016 election?
Because a financial transactions tax directly threatens a major source of Wall Street’s revenue. And, if you hadn’t noticed, the Street uses a portion of its vast revenues to gain political clout.
April 18, 2016
by Paul Buchheit
If, sad to ponder, the presidential election comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. a Republican, we'll be left either way with a business-friendly neocon White House. Given Hillary's past deceits and reversals, it's easy to see why she doesn't inspire trust among the American people.
1. Environment
"I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change." —Hillary Clinton, 11/29/15
Greenpeace estimates that the Clinton campaign has taken $4.5 million from fossil fuel lobbyists and donors, and Naomi Klein and Grist have reported on all the money received from ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips and other oil sources. In response, Hillary explained, rather incoherently, "I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me."
2. War
"Is there really any argument that America must remain a preeminent leader for peace and freedom..?" —Hillary Clinton, 10/31/06
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, an advisor to the United Nations, called Hillary "the candidate of the War Machine." In her book, "Hillary's Choice," author Gail Sheehy claimed it was Hillary who encouraged the president to bomb Kosovo. Then, as Secretary of State in 2011, she strongly supported war in Libya, a country which today is overwhelmed with crime and joblessness and a lack of basic necessities. She backed the escalation of the Afghanistan war, and in 2012, according to Sachs, she was largely responsible for the obstruction of peace efforts in Syria.
(snip)
As noted by John Atcheson, "She only sponsored 3 Bills that became law during her 8 year tenure. One established an historic site in New York, another renamed a Post Office, and the third named a portion of a highway in New York after Timothy J. Russert."
Hillary keeps dancing around reality.
Hillary's Dance: The Two-Faced Hypocritical 12-Step
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/18/hillarys-dance-two-faced-hypocritical-12-stepby Paul Buchheit
If, sad to ponder, the presidential election comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. a Republican, we'll be left either way with a business-friendly neocon White House. Given Hillary's past deceits and reversals, it's easy to see why she doesn't inspire trust among the American people.
1. Environment
"I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change." —Hillary Clinton, 11/29/15
Greenpeace estimates that the Clinton campaign has taken $4.5 million from fossil fuel lobbyists and donors, and Naomi Klein and Grist have reported on all the money received from ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips and other oil sources. In response, Hillary explained, rather incoherently, "I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me."
2. War
"Is there really any argument that America must remain a preeminent leader for peace and freedom..?" —Hillary Clinton, 10/31/06
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, an advisor to the United Nations, called Hillary "the candidate of the War Machine." In her book, "Hillary's Choice," author Gail Sheehy claimed it was Hillary who encouraged the president to bomb Kosovo. Then, as Secretary of State in 2011, she strongly supported war in Libya, a country which today is overwhelmed with crime and joblessness and a lack of basic necessities. She backed the escalation of the Afghanistan war, and in 2012, according to Sachs, she was largely responsible for the obstruction of peace efforts in Syria.
(snip)
As noted by John Atcheson, "She only sponsored 3 Bills that became law during her 8 year tenure. One established an historic site in New York, another renamed a Post Office, and the third named a portion of a highway in New York after Timothy J. Russert."
Hillary keeps dancing around reality.
April 17, 2016
Mcclatchy: Inside Panama Papers: Multiple Clinton connections
Should read: Multiple Clinton connections...so far
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article72215012.html
Some donors to Clinton foundation used the Panamanian law firm for offshores
Connections come from the more than 40 years Bill and Hillary Clinton have spent in public life
Hillary Clinton recently blasted the hidden financial dealings exposed in the Panama Papers, but she and her husband have multiple connections with people who have used the besieged law firm Mossack Fonseca to establish offshore entities.
Among them are Gabrielle Fialkoff, finance director for Hillary Clinton’s first campaign for the U.S. Senate; Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who has traveled the globe with Bill Clinton; the Chagoury family, which pledged $1 billion in projects to the Clinton Global Initiative; and Chinese billionaire Ng Lap Seng, who was at the center of a Democratic fund-raising scandal when Bill Clinton was president. Also using the Panamanian law firm was the company founded by the late billionaire investor Marc Rich, an international fugitive when Bill Clinton pardoned him in the final hours of his presidency.
April 17, 2016
What a surprise to hear a Jewish candidate for president speak so courageously about the country where he worked on a kibbutz as a young man.
The most significant moment of the Democratic primary debate in Brooklyn -- and perhaps any presidential debate this season -- came when Bernie Sanders challenged Hillary Clinton over her refusal to criticize Israel's excessive use of force against the Palestinians in Gaza. For the first time in memory, a major American political figure insisted publicly that the Jewish state and its leaders are "not always right" -- and that in attempting to suppress terrorism, they had killed and injured far too many blameless human beings.
Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about his judgment that Israel's military response to attacks from Gaza in 2014 was "disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life," the Vermont Senator answered firmly: "Yeah, I do believe that." He mentioned that many other nations, including longtime allies of Israel, had denounced the atrocities in Gaza, along with human rights organizations around the world.
Having reiterated that he supports Israel as our ally -- with every right to self-defense -- Sanders said that "in the long run, if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity."
On Israel, Sanders Is Right (And Clinton Knows It)
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/israel-sanders-right-and-clinton-knows-itWhat a surprise to hear a Jewish candidate for president speak so courageously about the country where he worked on a kibbutz as a young man.
The most significant moment of the Democratic primary debate in Brooklyn -- and perhaps any presidential debate this season -- came when Bernie Sanders challenged Hillary Clinton over her refusal to criticize Israel's excessive use of force against the Palestinians in Gaza. For the first time in memory, a major American political figure insisted publicly that the Jewish state and its leaders are "not always right" -- and that in attempting to suppress terrorism, they had killed and injured far too many blameless human beings.
Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about his judgment that Israel's military response to attacks from Gaza in 2014 was "disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life," the Vermont Senator answered firmly: "Yeah, I do believe that." He mentioned that many other nations, including longtime allies of Israel, had denounced the atrocities in Gaza, along with human rights organizations around the world.
Having reiterated that he supports Israel as our ally -- with every right to self-defense -- Sanders said that "in the long run, if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity."
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:39 PMNumber of posts: 3,687
