HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » alwaysinasnit » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Dolores
Gender: Female
Hometown: California
Home country: USA
Current location: California
Member since: Thu Nov 30, 2017, 02:58 PM
Number of posts: 3,750

Journal Archives

Another gem by Nick Hanauer, author of "The Pitchforks Are Coming... For Us Plutocrats"


"Long ago, I was captivated by a seductively intuitive idea, one many of my wealthy friends still subscribe to: that both poverty and rising inequality are largely consequences of America’s failing education system. Fix that, I believed, and we could cure much of what ails America.

This belief system, which I have come to think of as “educationism,” is grounded in a familiar story about cause and effect: Once upon a time, America created a public-education system that was the envy of the modern world. No nation produced more or better-educated high-school and college graduates, and thus the great American middle class was built. But then, sometime around the 1970s, America lost its way. We allowed our schools to crumble, and our test scores and graduation rates to fall. School systems that once churned out well-paid factory workers failed to keep pace with the rising educational demands of the new knowledge economy. As America’s public-school systems foundered, so did the earning power of the American middle class. And as inequality increased, so did political polarization, cynicism, and anger, threatening to undermine American democracy itself.

Taken with this story line, I embraced education as both a philanthropic cause and a civic mission. I co-founded the League of Education Voters, a nonprofit dedicated to improving public education. I joined Bill Gates, Alice Walton, and Paul Allen in giving more than $1 million each to an effort to pass a ballot measure that established Washington State’s first charter schools. All told, I have devoted countless hours and millions of dollars to the simple idea that if we improved our schools—if we modernized our curricula and our teaching methods, substantially increased school funding, rooted out bad teachers, and opened enough charter schools—American children, especially those in low-income and working-class communities, would start learning again. Graduation rates and wages would increase, poverty and inequality would decrease, and public commitment to democracy would be restored.

But after decades of organizing and giving, I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion that I was wrong. And I hate being wrong."


More by Nick Hanauer

Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy
Nick Hanauer
'Middle-Out' Economics: Why the Right's Supply-Side Dogma Is Wrong
Eric Liu Nick Hanauer
Rich Americans Aren't the Real Job Creators
Nick Hanauer
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:46 PM (6 replies)

Former US attorney testifies before Congress that evidence in Mueller's report sufficient to convict

45 of multiple counts of obstruction.


At a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Vance asserted that prosecutors “would have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial” that the president obstructed justice by trying to subvert the Russia investigation.

Vance said that she had reviewed both volumes of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

“The facts contained in that report would be sufficient to prove all of the elements necessary to charge multiple counts of obstruction of the evidence,” she explained. “And I would be willing to personally indict the case, and to try the case. I would have confidence that the evidence would be sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict, and to win on appeal.”
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Mon Jun 10, 2019, 03:27 PM (3 replies)

Here we go again...



Does any of this sound familiar? A body of water called a “gulf” where a ship was “damaged” in an “attack,” and nobody can verify either the attack or the damage. A lying idiot in the White House itching to launch an attack on a regime he hates. A lying national security adviser whispering in the ear of the lying idiot that if we don’t “do something,” our “resolve” will be questioned and we will look “weak.”

Here we fucking go again. Gulf of Tonkin? Persian Gulf? The North Vietnamese? The Iranians? What is this, 1964?

All we need is a bunch of sold-out politicians in Washington D.C. willing to believe black is white, night is day, and up is down . . . ooops! Who’s that I see over there still talking about Hillary’s emails and Benghazi? Why, it’s any kowtowing Republican walking down one of those corridors in the basement of the Capitol where all the TV reporters shove microphones in their faces so they can blather unhinged nonsense supporting the lies of the man in the White House so he won’t Tweet at them tomorrow morning at 6 a.m., that’s who it is!

What’s that you say? The Iranians are attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and re-starting their nuclear program? John Kerry should be arrested and prosecuted because he talked on the phone to somebody in Iran yesterday? The FBI is a radical leftist cult intent on launching a coup against the president of the United States? Overthrowing Saddam was a really, really good idea, and anybody who doesn’t believe it is a lily-livered peacenik?


These mother fu*kers are desperate to distract us from the shit raining down around us.
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Wed May 15, 2019, 08:18 PM (18 replies)

Excellent analysis of the Mueller report for those who, for whatever reason, don't read the whole


Posted by alwaysinasnit | Sat Apr 20, 2019, 04:53 PM (49 replies)

A question for the legal beagles here. I watched Rachel tonight and in discussing

Mueller's report, she mentioned the two paths to make 45 accountable; impeachment or criminal charges once 45 leaves office. In describing the criminal charges path, Rachel mentioned that there is a statute of limitations of 5 years from the date of the criminal act (obstruction of justice). Mueller made a point of saying that he is following the DOJ's prohibition against indicting a sitting president. If that is the case, can a valid argument be made that that same DOJ policy justifies the tolling of the statute of limitations?

Any thoughts?
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Fri Apr 19, 2019, 10:26 PM (9 replies)

Here's the most crucial paragraph from the Mueller report (Rawstory)


Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of “corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not permissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

This paragraph is so important because it lays out why the obstruction portion of the report matters. Attorney General Bill Barr has dismissed the obstruction charges, saying that because Mueller didn’t make a determination about whether Trump committed a crime, it was up to him as the head of the Justice Department to make that call.

Posted by alwaysinasnit | Thu Apr 18, 2019, 06:06 PM (6 replies)

Why tRump is desperate to hide the Mueller report and his tax returns

From David Cay Johnston's DCReport


What the FBI May Have on Trump

What FBI agents know, or might know, about Trump’s financial dealings during the years he worked with Sater would be of immense concern to Trump, especially if he laundered money for Russian-speaking individuals or their organizations.

The documents also help explain why Trump falsely testified under oath in a civil case that he barely knows Sater, even though the two men worked closely together for years. Trump gave the mobster an office in the Trump Organization suite in Trump Tower after he was sentenced, just a few doors down from his own office, said Michael Cohen, who was for years Trump’s lawyer and fixer.
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Tue Apr 9, 2019, 02:35 PM (4 replies)

Two of capitalism's biggest defenders just confessed that it's no longer working for a lot of



Most of us have figured that out but I think it is significant that some experts are now admitting it too. It's a start at any rate.
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Mon Mar 18, 2019, 02:38 PM (13 replies)

While we are being distracted with 45's shenanigan's, this is happening...


The Federal Reserve said it would adjust the structure of its annual “stress tests,” which measure the ability of leading banks to withstand a potential economic or financial storm. The changes are likely to make it easier for banks to get regulatory approval to pay higher dividends or buy back their own shares.

Separately, a federal oversight panel announced that it planned to no longer designate big, non-bank financial institutions — insurers, asset managers and the like — as “systemically important.” The classification subjected such firms to more intrusive government regulation.

Taken together, the announcements on Wednesday represented a big win for the financial industry, which has been arguing since the Obama administration that a flurry of regulations imposed following the financial crisis were onerous and made it harder for banks to make loans and support economic growth. Bank executives also argue that because the industry is much financially stronger than it was a decade ago,many recent regulations are now unnecessary.
Critics, however, argued that the relaxation of the rules, while financially beneficial to bank shareholders and executives, will lead to a less safe, less transparent financial system that is more vulnerable to a repeat of last decade’s devastating crisis.


Opening the door to another severe recession like the one we had 11 years ago????
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Wed Mar 6, 2019, 11:20 PM (4 replies)

To the thoughtful senders of hearts, my sincere appreciation and I wish you tranquility and health.

Posted by alwaysinasnit | Sat Feb 9, 2019, 03:17 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »