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
AntiBank
AntiBank's Journal
AntiBank's Journal
June 12, 2016
UEFA threatens to BAR England from Euro 2016 if violence continues after two days of carnage
Source: The Daily Mail UK
UEFA have threatened to ban England and Russia from Euro 2016 if there is further violence following ugly scenes in the Stade Vélodrome last night. It comes as thousands of English and Russian supporters travel to Lille, in northern France, for their second games of the tournament.
Last night several hundred English and Russian fans squared off in Marseille, hurling beer bottles and chairs and drawing volleys of tear gas from riot police who struggled to contain the fighting in the narrow streets of the Old Port district.
Inside Marseille's Stade Vélodrome the Balaclava-clad Russian thugs - wearing gum shields and mixed martial arts gloves and wielding telescopic truncheons - then charged at their English counterparts at the final whistle - as well as firing a flare gun into the England fans.
The French government on Sunday announced a ban on alcohol near Euro 2016 venues and fan zones, after three days of drunken violence among fans in the southern city of Marseille. 'I have asked for all necessary measures to be taken to prohibit the sale, consumption and transport of alcoholic drinks in sensitive areas on match days and the day before, and on days when fan zones are open,' Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.
England fans hurled themselves over railings and concerned parents were seen carrying their children away from the fighting, with stewards - rather than police - left to intervene between scuffles. Russian fans then paraded the English flags they had stolen as trophies in a square in Marseille.In a statement UEFA said: 'Such unacceptable behaviour by so-called supporters of the national teams of England and Russia has no place in football, a sport we must protect and defend.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637663/UEFA-threatens-ban-England-Euro-2016-violence-continues.html
June 11, 2016
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ campaign aides say they’re looking to replace current Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Politico reported Tuesday.
Gabbard, the previous vice-chair of the committee, resigned from the position back in February in order to campaign for Sanders. Now Sanders appears interested in rewarding that loyalty, despite a record that upon closer examination is anything but progressive. Hailing from Maui, Hawaii, arguably the most progressive county in the United States, Tulsi is the daughter of Mike Gabbard, a Hawaii state senator and a former Republican who was mired in controversies in the 1990s for his anti-gay positions and policies.
It would appear the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The congresswoman, while now echoing the Democratic Party’s line on equality, sounded a different tone as a state lawmaker herself, referring to her father's critics as “homosexual extremist supporters.”
Her reactionary politics are manifested in more than just old comments. Last year she voted to bar war refugees from entering the United States at the same time she voiced support for the dictators and airstrikes that helped create them, breaking with her fellow Democrats to join the most far-right xenophobes in Congress.
That record is why author and Democratic Party activist Shay Chan Hodges has decided to run against Gabbard this year. Hodges argues that Gabbard simply isn’t progressive enough to represent Maui. Here are five reasons why she’s spot on.
snip
5 Ways Bernie's Pick for DNC Chair Is Right-Wing as Hell
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/5-Ways-Bernies-Pick-for-DNC-Chair-Is-Right-Wing-as-Hell-20160609-0025.htmlU.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ campaign aides say they’re looking to replace current Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Politico reported Tuesday.
Gabbard, the previous vice-chair of the committee, resigned from the position back in February in order to campaign for Sanders. Now Sanders appears interested in rewarding that loyalty, despite a record that upon closer examination is anything but progressive. Hailing from Maui, Hawaii, arguably the most progressive county in the United States, Tulsi is the daughter of Mike Gabbard, a Hawaii state senator and a former Republican who was mired in controversies in the 1990s for his anti-gay positions and policies.
It would appear the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The congresswoman, while now echoing the Democratic Party’s line on equality, sounded a different tone as a state lawmaker herself, referring to her father's critics as “homosexual extremist supporters.”
Her reactionary politics are manifested in more than just old comments. Last year she voted to bar war refugees from entering the United States at the same time she voiced support for the dictators and airstrikes that helped create them, breaking with her fellow Democrats to join the most far-right xenophobes in Congress.
That record is why author and Democratic Party activist Shay Chan Hodges has decided to run against Gabbard this year. Hodges argues that Gabbard simply isn’t progressive enough to represent Maui. Here are five reasons why she’s spot on.
snip
June 10, 2016
EURO 2016 .... game on! Heja Sverige!!!!!
June 10, 2016
Snowmen in summer?! This is northern Sweden right now
https://twitter.com/TheLocalSweden/status/741227379994021888?lang=sv
June 8, 2016
When Donald Trump emerged as the presumptive Republican nominee in May, a GOP in denial reassured itself that the divisive, name-calling candidate who dominated the primaries would make a dignified turn toward the general election. A month later, Republicans are beginning to wake up. Trump might never change. “For those of us who had hoped we would see the 2.0 version, I think the realization is coming that we got what we got,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who has yet to endorse Trump. “That is not somebody who can win the White House.”
For months, Trump has made remarks and taken policy stances that many warned were dangerous, unlawful and even racist. Instead of moderating since he emerged as the party’s presumptive nominee, he kicked it up a notch with a sustained, racially-tinged attack on a federal judge presiding over lawsuits against his business.
With Trump’s repeated claims that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Latino heritage made him biased against the mogul -- claims that he continued to make even after widespread GOP condemnation -- Republicans are not only growing increasingly aware that there nominee may squander their best chance in years to put a Republican in the White House. They are now openly worried that Trump’s behavior could imperil the GOP for generations with minority voters.
“It's time to quit attacking various people that you competed with or various minority groups within the country and get on message," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Tuesday during his Capitol Hill press conference. He repeated his serious concerns that Trump could alienate Latino voters from the GOP in the same way that 1964's nominee Barry Goldwater turned off African American voters from the party for decades.
snip
--------------------
I have watched in satisfaction as out and out pure racists and bigots such as the shallow-end-of-the-gene-pool mouth breathers at cesspools such as Free Republic, etc, have tossed off all pretence of the intellectual conservatism of the Old Right (ie H. L. Mencken, Russell Kirk, Robert A. Taft, etc) and laid bare their simple-minded, naked, inherent racism and ethnographic scapegoating.
GOP Lawmakers Wake Up To The Nightmare: Trump Ain't Changing
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-judge-republican-senatorsWhen Donald Trump emerged as the presumptive Republican nominee in May, a GOP in denial reassured itself that the divisive, name-calling candidate who dominated the primaries would make a dignified turn toward the general election. A month later, Republicans are beginning to wake up. Trump might never change. “For those of us who had hoped we would see the 2.0 version, I think the realization is coming that we got what we got,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who has yet to endorse Trump. “That is not somebody who can win the White House.”
For months, Trump has made remarks and taken policy stances that many warned were dangerous, unlawful and even racist. Instead of moderating since he emerged as the party’s presumptive nominee, he kicked it up a notch with a sustained, racially-tinged attack on a federal judge presiding over lawsuits against his business.
With Trump’s repeated claims that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Latino heritage made him biased against the mogul -- claims that he continued to make even after widespread GOP condemnation -- Republicans are not only growing increasingly aware that there nominee may squander their best chance in years to put a Republican in the White House. They are now openly worried that Trump’s behavior could imperil the GOP for generations with minority voters.
“It's time to quit attacking various people that you competed with or various minority groups within the country and get on message," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Tuesday during his Capitol Hill press conference. He repeated his serious concerns that Trump could alienate Latino voters from the GOP in the same way that 1964's nominee Barry Goldwater turned off African American voters from the party for decades.
snip
--------------------
I have watched in satisfaction as out and out pure racists and bigots such as the shallow-end-of-the-gene-pool mouth breathers at cesspools such as Free Republic, etc, have tossed off all pretence of the intellectual conservatism of the Old Right (ie H. L. Mencken, Russell Kirk, Robert A. Taft, etc) and laid bare their simple-minded, naked, inherent racism and ethnographic scapegoating.
June 8, 2016
Did Hillary and Bill Clinton plant Donald Trump in the election to ruin the Republican's chances of winning the election? Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, John Iadarola, Michael Shure, and Jordan Chariton, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, John Iadarola, Michael Shure, Jordan Chariton
Is Donald Trump A Clinton Plant?
Did Hillary and Bill Clinton plant Donald Trump in the election to ruin the Republican's chances of winning the election? Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, John Iadarola, Michael Shure, and Jordan Chariton, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, John Iadarola, Michael Shure, Jordan Chariton
June 8, 2016
In 2008, in a move that surprised Democratic superdelegates as well as many in the media, Hillary Clinton issued a stern warning via letter to both the media and elected Democratic officials clarifying that “at this point, we do not yet have a nominee.”
Even more surprising, Clinton’s letter to the most powerful members of her party and the entirety of American media noted that even “when the last votes are cast in early June,” neither she nor her primary opponent would “have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates...to help choose our party’s nominee.”
Citing the then-recent election results in West Virginia and Kentucky — elections whose results in 2016 would make the same case today Clinton was making in 2008 — the Secretary observed, seemingly with some surprise, that “even when voters are repeatedly told this race is over, they’re not giving up...” She noted that those two recent votes only underscored that Americans “want a President who shares their core beliefs about our country and its future and ‘get’ what they go through every day to care for their families, pay the bills and try to put something away for the future.” The letter implicitly acknowledged that it wasn’t yet clear to many of the Party’s 700-plus superdelegates whether the candidate answering to this description was her or her opponent.
We’re in the same situation today.
Clinton isn’t receiving Democratic superdelegate support because of her popular votes or pledged delegates — the superdelegates have made that clear — nor because she’s a strong candidate, nor because her political views, inasmuch as anyone can discern them, are particularly representative of the views of the Party’s base.
As we know from the fact that nearly 400 of Clinton’s 500-plus superdelegates issued their non-binding endorsements of her in 2015 — before the Democratic field was even set — what guides the candidate’s popularity among Party officials is that she is a Clinton and that it is her turn. That, and she raises obscene amounts of the money for the Party machine.
Clinton in 2008 Opposed Early Call of Primary, Told Media ‘Nomination Will Be Up to Superdelegates’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-in-2008-opposed-e_b_10245288.htmlIn 2008, in a move that surprised Democratic superdelegates as well as many in the media, Hillary Clinton issued a stern warning via letter to both the media and elected Democratic officials clarifying that “at this point, we do not yet have a nominee.”
Even more surprising, Clinton’s letter to the most powerful members of her party and the entirety of American media noted that even “when the last votes are cast in early June,” neither she nor her primary opponent would “have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates...to help choose our party’s nominee.”
Citing the then-recent election results in West Virginia and Kentucky — elections whose results in 2016 would make the same case today Clinton was making in 2008 — the Secretary observed, seemingly with some surprise, that “even when voters are repeatedly told this race is over, they’re not giving up...” She noted that those two recent votes only underscored that Americans “want a President who shares their core beliefs about our country and its future and ‘get’ what they go through every day to care for their families, pay the bills and try to put something away for the future.” The letter implicitly acknowledged that it wasn’t yet clear to many of the Party’s 700-plus superdelegates whether the candidate answering to this description was her or her opponent.
We’re in the same situation today.
Clinton isn’t receiving Democratic superdelegate support because of her popular votes or pledged delegates — the superdelegates have made that clear — nor because she’s a strong candidate, nor because her political views, inasmuch as anyone can discern them, are particularly representative of the views of the Party’s base.
As we know from the fact that nearly 400 of Clinton’s 500-plus superdelegates issued their non-binding endorsements of her in 2015 — before the Democratic field was even set — what guides the candidate’s popularity among Party officials is that she is a Clinton and that it is her turn. That, and she raises obscene amounts of the money for the Party machine.
June 8, 2016
Spoiler arguments are part of an interlocking set of social control discourses that too often govern our thoughts and actions regarding elections and representational democracy. While “the spoiler” is deployed on the wings of the “lesser of two evils” and “electability/inevitability,” it most resembles corporate-inspired arguments about austerity.
Spoiler arguments are the political analogue to the “austerity” claims enforced so ruthlessly by corporate elites. Under austerity “we are broke.” But, we must add: except for the trillions of dollars in cash that the big corporations and billionaires are sitting on — at the peak of their wealth — in the richest country in the history of the world. This artificial scarcity is then imposed on the people who, the 1% insists, will have to sacrifice their jobs, incomes, pensions, social services, and security.
Elections are truly spoiled because the existing parties either do not want the American people to participate or make no attempt to register and mobilize the 40% non-voting public or to engage the millions of independent voters. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about social control discourse — given the wide acceptance of such ideas by seemingly rational people — is the degree to which these arguments are not based on facts. Speculation and ideology must masquerade as facts when facts threaten to undermine social control. So it is with “the spoiler.”
2000 Revisited
Since the election of 2000 is the most powerful reference for spoiler argument let’s unpack it........................... SNIP
great read
The Myth of the Spoiler: Why the Machine Elites Fear Democracy
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/06/the-myth-of-the-spoiler-why-the-machine-elites-fear-democracy/Spoiler arguments are part of an interlocking set of social control discourses that too often govern our thoughts and actions regarding elections and representational democracy. While “the spoiler” is deployed on the wings of the “lesser of two evils” and “electability/inevitability,” it most resembles corporate-inspired arguments about austerity.
Spoiler arguments are the political analogue to the “austerity” claims enforced so ruthlessly by corporate elites. Under austerity “we are broke.” But, we must add: except for the trillions of dollars in cash that the big corporations and billionaires are sitting on — at the peak of their wealth — in the richest country in the history of the world. This artificial scarcity is then imposed on the people who, the 1% insists, will have to sacrifice their jobs, incomes, pensions, social services, and security.
In spoiler arguments, the elites insist — and far too many progressives concede — there is a scarcity of votes. But, we must add: except for the 70-90 million non-voters that the dismal performance of government, triangulation, and our failure to organize have left disempowered and driven to the sidelines. This artificial scarcity of voters is then imposed on the people who are told by the corporate media to sacrifice their freedom, democracy, and political judgments by yielding to the parties and candidates they no longer believe in. The spoiler trains us to think that sacrificing democracy to fear is clever tactic. That is exactly why the spoiler is one of the most powerful rhetorical weapons the machines have. It functions to scapegoat dissenters and limit political engagement and competition, when we really need more democracy, more choices, more voices.
Elections are truly spoiled because the existing parties either do not want the American people to participate or make no attempt to register and mobilize the 40% non-voting public or to engage the millions of independent voters. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about social control discourse — given the wide acceptance of such ideas by seemingly rational people — is the degree to which these arguments are not based on facts. Speculation and ideology must masquerade as facts when facts threaten to undermine social control. So it is with “the spoiler.”
2000 Revisited
Since the election of 2000 is the most powerful reference for spoiler argument let’s unpack it........................... SNIP
great read
June 7, 2016
A Donald Trump surrogate on Tuesday called Speaker Paul Ryan a racist, after the Wisconsin Republican criticized the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's comments about a federal judge’s ethnicity. “Speaker Ryan is wrong, and Speaker Ryan has apparently switched positions and is now supporting identity politics, which is racist,” Jeffrey Lord told CNN. Earlier on Tuesday, Ryan called Trump’s comments regarding Judge Gonzalo Curiel racist.
"I regret these comments that he made," the Wisconsin Republican said. "Saying a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of the textbook definition of racist comments. ... I think that should be absolutely disavowed." Trump reportedly instructed his surrogates on Monday to attack those who criticize his comments about Curiel, saying that those who bring up the issue are racists.
"The people asking the questions — those are the racists," Trump said in a conference call. "I would go at 'em." Curiel is presiding over several lawsuits against Trump University alleging it defrauded students and left them with crushing debt. Trump said Curiel had a conflict of interest because he is of Mexican descent, and Trump wants to build a wall along the U.S.'s border with Mexico.
Trump surrogate calls Ryan racist
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282468-trump-surrogate-calls-ryan-racistA Donald Trump surrogate on Tuesday called Speaker Paul Ryan a racist, after the Wisconsin Republican criticized the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's comments about a federal judge’s ethnicity. “Speaker Ryan is wrong, and Speaker Ryan has apparently switched positions and is now supporting identity politics, which is racist,” Jeffrey Lord told CNN. Earlier on Tuesday, Ryan called Trump’s comments regarding Judge Gonzalo Curiel racist.
"I regret these comments that he made," the Wisconsin Republican said. "Saying a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of the textbook definition of racist comments. ... I think that should be absolutely disavowed." Trump reportedly instructed his surrogates on Monday to attack those who criticize his comments about Curiel, saying that those who bring up the issue are racists.
"The people asking the questions — those are the racists," Trump said in a conference call. "I would go at 'em." Curiel is presiding over several lawsuits against Trump University alleging it defrauded students and left them with crushing debt. Trump said Curiel had a conflict of interest because he is of Mexican descent, and Trump wants to build a wall along the U.S.'s border with Mexico.
June 7, 2016
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-campaign
For all the noise that Donald Trump makes, and all the amplification that noise gets from the media, it’s hard to see the campaign infrastructure that presumably exists behind it. Perhaps that’s because, as Trump aides and other sources close to the campaign revealed to NBC News, there isn’t any infrastructure. Instead, the Trump campaign is reportedly composed of a skeleton crew of a few backstabbing staffers unable to coordinate a coherent message about the presumptive Republican nominee’s vision for America.
The article, simply titled “Donald Trump does not have a campaign,” details the disarray within the campaign, which is described as “a bare-bones effort debilitated by infighting, a lack of staff to carry out basic functions, minimal coordination with allies and a message that’s prisoner to Trump’s momentary whims.” While the feuding between professional political operative Paul Manafort and neophyte campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is well-known, even more dysfunction exists below them. Hope Hicks, the campaign’s 27-year-old press secretary, reportedly works alone and without any support; a daunting task for a staffer responsible for managing Trump’s juggernaut media presence. A rapid-response team, crucial in traditional campaigns to rebut their opponents’ attacks before they damage the candidate further, does not exist. The Trump campaign struggles to publicize positive news, too: while Manafort corralled a host of local endorsements ahead of the candidate’s California tour last week, no press release ever went out, a source told NBC, because Lewandowski and Hicks vetoed every draft. And when Hillary Clinton delivered a devastating foreign-policy speech criticizing Trump’s temperament and credentials, Republican allies waited in vain to receive instructions on how to coordinate a counterattack. Trump tweeted about Clinton’s use of a teleprompter, but neither Trump nor the R.N.C. ever released an official rebuttal after the speech.
A lack of coordination isn’t the only reason Trump surrogates are in the dark. Trump himself is so mercurial, and his positions so inconsistent (and often at odds with the Republican Party’s own platform), that allies rarely know how to act or what to say. When Trump attacked Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over a Trump University lawsuit, for his Mexican heritage, he refused to listen to the majority of “horrified” supporters and surrogates who urged him to apologize his comments. High-profile supporters like Newt Gingrich, who is widely considered to be a top pick for Trump’s V.P., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell either repudiated his remarks or remained silent.
But Trump hasn’t backed down. On a conference call Monday, reported by Bloomberg, Trump demanded that his supporters and surrogates ramp up their attacks on Curiel. When former Arizona governor Jan Brewer noted that Trump’s own staffers had previously sent a memo asking his allies to stop referring to the lawsuit, the New Yorker exploded. “ Take that order and throw it the hell out,” he said, according to two people who were on the call. “Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks?” he asked. “That's one of the reasons I want to have this call, because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren't so smart.”
snip
The Trump Campaign Is In Full Nuclear Meltdown Mode
Sources describe the campaign as an incompetent, backstabbing skeleton crew without any coherent message. And Donald Trump is making it worse.http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-campaign
For all the noise that Donald Trump makes, and all the amplification that noise gets from the media, it’s hard to see the campaign infrastructure that presumably exists behind it. Perhaps that’s because, as Trump aides and other sources close to the campaign revealed to NBC News, there isn’t any infrastructure. Instead, the Trump campaign is reportedly composed of a skeleton crew of a few backstabbing staffers unable to coordinate a coherent message about the presumptive Republican nominee’s vision for America.
The article, simply titled “Donald Trump does not have a campaign,” details the disarray within the campaign, which is described as “a bare-bones effort debilitated by infighting, a lack of staff to carry out basic functions, minimal coordination with allies and a message that’s prisoner to Trump’s momentary whims.” While the feuding between professional political operative Paul Manafort and neophyte campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is well-known, even more dysfunction exists below them. Hope Hicks, the campaign’s 27-year-old press secretary, reportedly works alone and without any support; a daunting task for a staffer responsible for managing Trump’s juggernaut media presence. A rapid-response team, crucial in traditional campaigns to rebut their opponents’ attacks before they damage the candidate further, does not exist. The Trump campaign struggles to publicize positive news, too: while Manafort corralled a host of local endorsements ahead of the candidate’s California tour last week, no press release ever went out, a source told NBC, because Lewandowski and Hicks vetoed every draft. And when Hillary Clinton delivered a devastating foreign-policy speech criticizing Trump’s temperament and credentials, Republican allies waited in vain to receive instructions on how to coordinate a counterattack. Trump tweeted about Clinton’s use of a teleprompter, but neither Trump nor the R.N.C. ever released an official rebuttal after the speech.
A lack of coordination isn’t the only reason Trump surrogates are in the dark. Trump himself is so mercurial, and his positions so inconsistent (and often at odds with the Republican Party’s own platform), that allies rarely know how to act or what to say. When Trump attacked Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over a Trump University lawsuit, for his Mexican heritage, he refused to listen to the majority of “horrified” supporters and surrogates who urged him to apologize his comments. High-profile supporters like Newt Gingrich, who is widely considered to be a top pick for Trump’s V.P., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell either repudiated his remarks or remained silent.
But Trump hasn’t backed down. On a conference call Monday, reported by Bloomberg, Trump demanded that his supporters and surrogates ramp up their attacks on Curiel. When former Arizona governor Jan Brewer noted that Trump’s own staffers had previously sent a memo asking his allies to stop referring to the lawsuit, the New Yorker exploded. “ Take that order and throw it the hell out,” he said, according to two people who were on the call. “Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks?” he asked. “That's one of the reasons I want to have this call, because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren't so smart.”
snip
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: Los Angeles
Home country: United States
Current location: Sweden
Member since: Thu Apr 21, 2016, 04:33 AM
Number of posts: 1,339
