HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Ferd Berfel » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Ferd Berfel

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:39 PM
Number of posts: 3,687

Journal Archives

Why CBS Is Not Publishing The 4th Part Of The Democratic Debate

The Fascist Oligarchy is in over-drive trying protect itself. Democracy will not survive without a "Political Revolution"


John Dickerson hosted the second Democratic National Debate on November 14, in Iowa, where the candidates talked about numerous issues, starting with the recent Paris attack and ending with crises management.

That’s not what’s interesting, though. What is interesting is that CBS has chosen to publish every part of the debate on their Youtube page except part 4.

Why is that you ask? Well, this was the part that dealt with Wall Street, but more importantly, featured Sanders finally going on the offensive (that’s actually over exaggerating it). Sanders questioned why Wall Street would donate to Clinton’s campaign if they didn’t intend to get something out of it. Clinton had to fumble for a response, talking about she did have a lot of small campaign contributions and that she helped New York after 9/11.

Of course, none of these had anything to do with Sanders comment and were obvious deflections, but the fact that CBS refused to publish this on their main Youtube page is telling about the bias they have towards Hillary and against Sanders.

Democratic Party Hopes No One Watches Democratic Debates


In a misguided attempt to protect Hillary Clinton's coronation
as the Democratic nominee, the Democratic National Committee is doing its best to insure that as few people as possible watch the Democrat's own Presidential debates, even as tens of millions tune in to the Republican debates.

In doing so, the DNC and the Clinton campaign are demobilizing its own base, telegraphing that they don't think Hillary can stand up to sustained scrutiny, and increasing the likelihood that an energized Republican Party will take back the White House.

First the DNC limited debates to 6, compared to 26 in the 2008 campaign that nominated Barack Obama, and 12 Republican debates this campaign season. Next, it passed a rule that any candidate who showed up for a debate that the DNC didn't sanction would be banned from appearing in any officially-sanctioned Democratic debate. (That's the why the candidates couldn't address each other on Rachel Maddow's candidate forum, which, lacking the drama of a direct confrontation, was viewed by only 2.3 million people and only 417,000 in the key 25-54 year old demographic. Compare that to the 13-24 million people who've watched the various Republican debates.) In all, over 60 million people have watched Republican debates and only 15 million have watched Democratic debates.

Now the DNC has scheduled the Iowa debate for this Saturday night, the night of the week the least people are home watching TV, especially among younger 18-35 year old voters who are a key constituency for Democrats to mobilize if they want to win. WTF?


There's no rational explanation except that the DNC wants as few people as possible to tune in to the Democratic debates, despite the fact that Presidential debates are one the best ways to get a party's message out to large numbers of voters at once


It's a loser's strategy. It goes along with the Democrats' abandonment of the 50-state strategy initiated by Howard Dean

Debbie-poo, YOU'RE FIRED!

Thom Hartmann: Today's Republicans Aren't Conservative

Here's one to share with your republican friends...............

Republican presidential hopefuls took to the stage in Milwaukee on Tuesday night to duke it out for the fourth time and to try and win the hearts and minds of Republican voters.

One candidate after another took their turn trying to convince Republican viewers that their policies are more conservative than any of their opponents'.

They disagreed on immigration policy, they disagreed on the role of the US military in world affairs, and they disagreed about how best to gut Obamacare and what agencies to gut in order to balance their budget.

But they could all agree on a few things.

For example, they all attacked Dodd-Frank with claims that it's killing community banks and making it easier for big banks to get bigger.

And they all had their own ideas for how to reform the tax code to even further line the coffers of corporations and the superrich.

But those ideas aren't really "conservative", and the Republican party isn't really a conservative party anymore.

Did GOP Insiders Steal the Kentucky Governor's Race for Tea Partier Matt Bevin?

Lower down the ballot, many Democrats got tens of thousands more votes than Bevin.

We see, again, the nightmare scenario I've warned about for so many years: a U.S. election where all of the pre-election polls suggest Candidate X is set to win, but Candidate Y ends up winning by a huge margin instead and nobody even bothers to verify that the computer tabulated results accurately reflect the intent of the voters.

We've seen both Democrats and Republicans alike fall victim to similarly anomalous and unverified results. And, while none of it bodes well for 2016 and beyond, neither does it bode well for those immediately and directly impacted by Tuesday's elections


This is how the Reich plans on 'winning' 2016. This has been going on for a decade (at least). DNC...DWS. Are you awake?

Congress Will Honor Dick Cheney With A Statue In The U.S. Capitol

Are you fucking kidding me!??!?!

Starting in December, the likeness of former Vice President Dick Cheney will grace the U.S. Capitol, in accordance with a Senate tradition honoring former vice presidents.

The Huffington Post was tipped off by a Senate resolution "authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for the unveiling of the marble bust of Vice President Richard Cheney on December 3, 2015."


THIs is sick. It must be stopped!

10 reasons Dem superdelegates will choose Sanders over Clinton

Superdelegates are people, too, and as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) explained at a recent Democratic National Committee (DNC) meeting, they’re already shifting away from Hillary Clinton and toward Sanders. They watch the news, follow polling trends and they’ll side with Sanders for the same reasons that he’s surged to only 7 percentage points behind Clinton. In August, writing for Bloomberg, Mark Halperin and Jennifer Epstein offered a quick breakdown of delegates and superdelegates within the Democratic Party and explained that Clinton had “secured” a great percentage of these party officials:

Final numbers are still in flux, but current estimates peg the total number of delegates to next summer’s presidential nominating convention at about 4,491, meaning that a candidate would need 2,246 to win. The Clinton camp’s claim to more than 440 delegates means she’s already wrapped up the support of more than 60 percent of the approximately 713 superdelegates who, under party rules, are among those who cast votes for the nomination, along with delegates selected by rank-and-file voters in primaries and caucuses beginning next February.

Since their only goal is electing a candidate capable of winning the White House, it’s highly doubtful Clinton’s alleged 60 percent support among superdelegates will remain until the end of the primaries. Like his surge in the polls and the Clinton campaign’s continued decline, superdelegates will flock to anders for a number of reasons.


2. Democratic superdelegates know that the Democratic Party has experienced a paradigm shift toward Sanders and away from Clinton.


3. Superdelegates want to win.


Say It Ain’t So, Hillary Clinton—You’re Open to the Idea of Raising the Retirement Age?

Say It Ain’t So, Hillary Clinton—You’re Open to the Idea of Raising the Retirement Age?

At a forum in New Hampshire on Wednesday, Hillary Clinton stood by her support for the death penalty, which made headlines. But her remarks about Social Security that day didn't get as much attention.

She offered a lot of the same rhetoric many Democrats are now saying, that we need to look at how the poorest Social Security recipients are faring and think about how to shore up payments there. But she also left the door open to raising the retirement age if there were a way to exclude people who are not working labor-intensive jobs, while at the same time not fully endorsing simply raising the tax cap, which would ensure the system is fully funded going forward.

TRIANGULATION....AGAIN. How do you justify this from a "Democrat"?

I simply do not trust her to keep Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA etc, out of the grubby hands of her Third Way DLC Wall Street Buddies.


Remember when the League Of Women Voters Moderated Debates?

The Debates were better.

Isn't it TIME for the LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS to moderate at least SOME of the debates of BOTH Parties Again?!


The League of Women Voters was founded by Carrie Chapman Catt in 1920 during the convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. The convention was held just six months before the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, giving women the right to vote after a 72-year struggle.

The League began as a "mighty political experiment" designed to help 20 million women carry out their new responsibilities as voters. It encouraged them to use their new power to participate in shaping public policy. From the beginning, the League has been an activist, grassroots organization whose leaders believed that citizens should play a critical role in advocacy. It was then, and is now, a nonpartisan organization. League founders believed that maintaining a nonpartisan stance would protect the fledgling organization from becoming mired in the party politics of the day. However, League members were encouraged to be political themselves, by educating citizens about, and lobbying for, government and social reform legislation.

This holds true today. The League is proud to be nonpartisan, neither supporting nor opposing candidates or political parties at any level of government, but always working on vital issues of concern to members and the public. The League has a long, rich history,that continues with each passing year.

NYT - What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts

When it comes to paying taxes, most Americans think the wealthy do not pay their fair share.

There is a sharp divide, however, between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to taxing the rich, who provide most of the cash for political campaigns.

All the Republican tax proposals, in fact, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Democrats, on the other hand, are prepared to raise taxes at the top, though they have not been very specific about how they would do so.


It is “absurd” to argue that most wealth at the top is already highly taxed or that there isn’t much more revenue to be had by raising taxes on the 1 percent, says the economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel in economic science, who has written extensively about inequality. “The only upside of the concentration of the wealth at the top is that they have more money to pay in taxes,” he said.


Raising their total tax burden to, say, 40 percent would generate about $157 billion in revenue the first year. Increasing it to 45 percent brings in a whopping $276 billion. Even taking account of state and local taxes, the average household in this group would still take home at least $1 million a year.


This assumes that you also kill their tax loops holes and actually make them PAY!

Chilling New Poll Finds GOP Fascism Is Very Real

A shocking number of Republicans say they can conceive of a situation in which they'd sympathize with a military coup.


According to this new YouGov poll, these same patriotic Republicans still love the military passionately but are no longer attached to that moldy old concept of civilian control:

“Republicans (43%) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (20%) to say that they could conceive of a situation in which they would support a military coup in the United States.”

More to the point, only 32 percent of Republicans state unequivocally that they would not conceive of a situation in which they would support a military coup. One would be tempted to think this is simply a matter of partisanship, but there is no evidence that Democrats have ever entertained the notion of a military coup, no matter who was president, even one as widely loathed as George W. Bush. It’s as “un-American” as it gets.

For years the right has accused the opposition of being unpatriotic and failing to properly love America. And here they are, endorsing something that’s only seen in Banana Republics and totalitarian police states.

Sorry - forgot the link; http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/chilling-new-poll-finds-gop-fascism-very-real
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »