Lots of interesting information and new leaked documents, hacked from the DNC's computers: https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/
This also confirms that DWS's statements that no financial documents were accessed is a lie.
You can read some of HRC's election plans too (why was this on the DNC's servers, when Hillary and Bernie were in a primary battle?!?)
I'd be interested to see what you all think.
Profile in Courage Essay Contest for High School Students
if we are to progress as a nation. Each must be addressed thoroughly and energetically. But in
order to accomplish the collective goals of our society, we must first address how we deal with
issues. We must re-examine the psychological and political climate of American politics. As it
stands, our future is at risk due to a troubling tendency towards cynicism among voters and
elected officials. The successful resolution of every issue before us depends on the fundamental
question of public integrity. A new attitude has swept American politics. Candidates have discovered that is easier to be
elected by not offending anyone rather than by impressing the voters. Politicians are rushing for
the center, careful not to stick their necks out on issues.
While impressive, Sanders candor does not itself represent political courage. The nation is
teeming with outspoken radicals in one form or another. Most are sooner called crazy than
courageous. It is the second half of Sanders political role that puts the first half into perspective:
he is a powerful force for conciliation and bi-partisanship on Capitol Hill. In Profiles in
Courage, John F. Kennedy wrote that we should not be too hasty in condemning all
compromise as bad morals. For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles
or unattainable ideals. It may seem strange that someone so steadfast in his principles has a
reputation as a peacemaker between divided forces in Washington, but this is what makes
Sanders truly remarkable. He represents President Kennedys ideal of compromises of issues,
not of principles.
Sanders has used his unique position as the lone Independent Congressman to help Democrats
and Republicans force hearings on the internal structure of the International Monetary Fund,
which he sees as excessively powerful and unaccountable. He also succeeded in quietly
persuading reluctant Republicans and President Clinton to ban the import of products made by
under-age workers. Sanders drew some criticism from the far left when he chose to grudgingly
endorse President Clintons bids for election and re-election as President. Sanders explained that
while he disagreed with many of Clintons centrist policies, he felt that he was the best option for
Americas working class.
Sanders positions on many difficult issues are commendable, but his real impact has been as a
reaction to the cynical climate which threatens the effectiveness of the democratic system. His
energy, candor, conviction, and ability to bring people together stand against the current of
opportunism, moral compromise, and partisanship which runs rampant on the American political
scene. He and few others like him have the power to restore principle and leadership in
Congress and to win back the faith of a voting public weary and wary of political opportunism.
Above all, I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American
young people see politics as a cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption. I have heard that no
sensible young person today would want to give his or her life to public service. I can personally
assure you this is untrue.
The first Berniecrat? This man is now the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He was profiled today in Frank Bruni's NYT column The First Gay President?
What an inspiration Bernie Sanders has been, while also standing against corruption, both personal and of ideals. At the same time, he has compromised on the issues as needed to make progress.
(I remember reading several such breathless headlines)
It's simple: he didn't; at least, initially, anyway.
The Washington Post reports:
Sanders: DNC vetoed union leader pick for platform committee
What we heard from the DNC was that they did not want representatives of labor unions on the platform-drafting committee, he said. Thats correct.
Yesterday, Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Nicholas was the first to report that Sanders had included RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, on his list of preferred platform committee members. "He told me that he really wanted me on the committee to advocate for Medicare for All, especially," DeMoro told The Washington Post today.
"I think it was a set-up," said DeMoro. "It fed into the 'Bernie bro' narrative and meme -- oh, Bernie picked one woman, he's a sexist. As soon as the list was out, there were articles about how he chose two 'anti-Israel' people. The truth of the matter is that they were choices the DNC had signed off on."
In an interview Wednesday, DNC platform committee spokeswoman Dana Vickers Shelley confirmed that the DNC had not wanted labor leaders on the platform drafting committee, limiting labor's presence to Paul Booth of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union.
That was cold comfort to DeMoro. "The most insidious thing, frankly, is that only one of 15 people on this drafting committee is for labor," she said. "It shows you how insidious the DNC has become. Labor built this party. Labor built this country. One person is enough to represent all of that? If you look at the composition of who they chose, besides Bernies choices, K Streets far better represented than the labor movement."
Clinton's DNC stopping progressives from organized labor from being represented on the platform committee. Only women who have the correct beliefs are allowed. #NotMyDemocraticParty
Any Clinton supporters want to defend this? I suppose there will be many apologies for the attacks on Sanders only nominating one woman. I'll wait patiently for the apologies (but don't worry about my health -- I won't hold my breath).
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 evolved from the bitter experience of the Depression, when American banking was in shambles. Left free to speculate in the 1920's, banks naturally looked where profits seemed highest, and were inevitably drawn into risky propositions. When a few banks failed, depositors nationwide panicked. Runs on banks pushed this country over the brink of financial disaster.
Stability was restored only years later, after the Federal Government insured depositors' money and imposed tough limits on the kind of risks a bank can undertake.
Today's bankers promise they will be more careful. But to accept their assurances runs counter to the simple principles of fairness and common sense. Banks want to keep the Federal insurance that attracts depositors and then use that capital to compete against traditional, unsubsidized securities firms.
No one could complain if banks renounced their Federal insurance and then competed evenly against securities firms. But the banks simply should not be allowed to gamble with taxpayer insured dollars.
The banks' proposals also defy common sense. Given the chance to speculate, some institutions are going to gamble poorly. This in turn will undermine confidence in the whole banking system. The recent experience of the thrift industry reinforces this lesson. Congress stepped in with $10.8 billion to bail out the thrift industry. A bailout of the much larger commercial banking sector, if it got into a similar problem, would make the recapitalization for thrifts seem insignificant.
This congressman from NY is quite insightful, and should be listened to. I hope Clinton pays some attention to him. I only hope that in the years ahead that this congressman is not affected by large campaign contributions from big banks and continues to be a forceful advocate for Glass-Steagall and financial reform. If he does this he is a patriot; we may even have some hope that the campaign finance system is not rigged and corrupting!
In a May 26 interview, ABC reporter Liz Kreutz asked Clinton about her decision to use a server located in her New York home instead of a government email, as well as the audit, which was conducted by the State Departments Office of the Inspector General.
"But this report said that you, quote, 'had an obligation to discuss' using your personal email and that you didnt," Kreutz said. "So how can you really say that it was allowed? Was it an error of judgment?"
Clinton replied: "Well it was allowed, and the rules have been clarified since I left about the practice. Having said that, I have said many times that it was a mistake, and if I could go back I would do it differently."
Regarding her decision to use a private email server, Clinton said, "It was allowed."
No one ever stopped Clinton from conducting work over her private email server exclusively. But thats not the same thing as it being allowed. Offices within the State Department told an independent inspector general that if she had asked, they would not have allowed it.
The report from the State Departments Office of the Inspector General shatters one of Clintons go-to phrases about her email practice. We rate her claim False.