HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If you have a better sugg...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:19 AM

 

If you have a better suggestion, let's hear it.

While recognizing the common argument that Republicans are worse, Cenk Uygur is asking Democrats who will particpate in the Iowa caucuses to do something for the rest of the country which those in states which have primaries cannot. He is asking for something other than having a Democratic candidate run in opposition to President Obama. He believes that Obama will be re-elected and he points out that Obama is a politician who can be influenced by actions.

He is asking that the Democrats in the Iowa caucuses re-send the message that was sent in the 2010 by voting for "uncommitted."

***
His words: "And civil liberties abuses are the tip of the iceberg in disappointment with this president.
Then there is the comedy of financial reform which doesn't reform a damn thing. There are
the zero prosecutions of the top bankers who destroyed our economy through their fraud,
took our money and now spit in our face with it. There is the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
There is the cave in on nearly every negotiation (the payroll tax cut being the exception
that proves the rule (by the way, he "won" on more tax cuts, a profoundly Republican idea).
His crowning achievement of healthcare reform was a proposal originally written by the
Heritage Foundation. There isn't a Republican idea that President Obama didn't want to cuddle
with and adopt as his own."

***
"The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley
(and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican
who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all.
Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side.

***
"But there is one thing we can do right now that doesn't really hurt the chances of the president
getting re-elected and doesn't help Republicans one bit. *** If "uncommitted" beat President
Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa, that would make some news. That might even get the
attention of The Establishment. So far, he has only responded to right-wing pressure. He is the
consummate politician, so if there was actually a little bit of pressure on his left he might have to
respond to it, especially during an election season. Wouldn't it be amazing if President Obama
acted like a progressive on some issue because he was worried about the voters?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/vote-against-obama-in-iow_b_1174314.html#comments

=======
Of course, some will respond criticism to anyone who would participate in a democratic way instead of marching in lock-step with those who say that they want to re-elect Obama because he is not Gingrich, not Perry, etc. Some may even engage in name calling and call others "purists," etc. But it is unknown how many are sincere and how many are simply Rovian plants.

If you have a recommendation that is better than Cenk Uygur's, what is it?




59 replies, 5772 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply If you have a better suggestion, let's hear it. (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 OP
treestar Dec 2011 #1
FreakinDJ Dec 2011 #8
surfdog Dec 2011 #11
FreakinDJ Dec 2011 #15
surfdog Dec 2011 #19
FreakinDJ Dec 2011 #22
surfdog Dec 2011 #26
FreakinDJ Dec 2011 #27
treestar Dec 2011 #36
FreakinDJ Dec 2011 #49
treestar Dec 2011 #53
Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #56
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #17
surfdog Dec 2011 #23
treestar Dec 2011 #25
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #29
treestar Dec 2011 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #40
treestar Dec 2011 #47
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #54
treestar Dec 2011 #58
annabanana Dec 2011 #46
Vincardog Dec 2011 #38
treestar Dec 2011 #14
SixthSense Dec 2011 #16
treestar Dec 2011 #32
SixthSense Dec 2011 #37
treestar Dec 2011 #48
SixthSense Dec 2011 #51
treestar Dec 2011 #52
SixthSense Dec 2011 #59
hfojvt Dec 2011 #20
treestar Dec 2011 #33
Whisp Dec 2011 #30
treestar Dec 2011 #34
warrior1 Dec 2011 #2
NYC Liberal Dec 2011 #3
liberal N proud Dec 2011 #4
Richardo Dec 2011 #5
joeybee12 Dec 2011 #6
MADem Dec 2011 #7
geckosfeet Dec 2011 #9
cbayer Dec 2011 #10
MilesColtrane Dec 2011 #28
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #12
theaocp Dec 2011 #44
Laelth Dec 2011 #13
sufrommich Dec 2011 #18
MineralMan Dec 2011 #21
phleshdef Dec 2011 #24
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2011 #35
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #41
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2011 #45
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #55
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2011 #57
toddaa Dec 2011 #39
Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #42
theaocp Dec 2011 #43
Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #50

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:22 AM

1. I just think he's wrong

This demand to "prosecute bankers." Who? For what? Maybe the DOJ doesn't have a case to pursue? Ask them first.

He may think the financial reform is no good, but many people think it is a good thing.

What's with the obsession with who gets appointed to what position? Do these guys have friends who wanted the jobs? Congress and the President make the law. Geithner, et al are part of mechanisms to enforce it. It hardly matters who is in those positions other than that they be competent.

He's in a little corner, demanding that the rest of us see things his way and think they are terribly wrong. Then he can come up with nothing but opposition to the side that will do more for what he thinks he may want (if he had any sense of reality).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:28 AM

8. Bullshit - DOJ / SEC is in "Full Cover Up" mode

Gimme a Break

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:34 AM

11. Well

 

I started a thread asking for the Wall Street's crimes to be listed and as of now nobody can list one

Why don't you be the first and go list a crime that was committed by Wall Street.

you would be the first

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surfdog (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:44 AM

15. WTF - the Newspapers arn't enough for you

or you trolling for anyone to reply to you specifically.

Personally I grow tired of having to relentlessly prove over and over again that which has been in National Media over and over again for 2 years now. Or is not Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, and Wall St Journal sufficient



If there's one thing we've learned about Wall Street crimes, it's that they're difficult to nail down with certainty and get convictions on. The defendants have access to the highest-priced, fanciest defense lawyers and bottomless PR resources. The law makes it difficult and sometimes impossible to tell with certainty the difference between conscious fraud and merely poor "business judgment." And, of course, there's an entire major political party and theory of governance that says it's not only perfectly legitimate for the wealthy to be able to smash and grab whatever cash and assets they can get their hands on, but that it's something actually ordained by God.
But those worries will all be behind us now, once it becomes legal to indefinitely imprison American citizens without charge or trial. Huzzah!

Just think of it! With the right paperwork filed, all those banksters you thought you could just never nail could be rounded up and thrown in the slammer. And you'd never even have to worry about "evidence" or any of that other junk, because there's no trial involved! And who cares if what they've done isn't exactly a crime? Because you don't need a charge, either! What would be the point, anyway? Why charge a person you're not going to try?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/17/1045776/-Too-difficult-to-prosecute-Wall-Street-crime-Dont!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:00 PM

19. Well that was a long winded post

 

That gave excuse after excuse as to why you can't post one crime that was committed by Wall Street

Thanks for proving my point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surfdog (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:04 PM

22. Ignorance is Bliss ??

or just trolling for insults you can use the alert button on

Not very convincing why anyone should be beholden to vote for Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:09 PM

26. Go ahead

 

Instead of insulting people ...just simply list the crimes

You keep posting but you don't list any crimes, very telling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surfdog (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:15 PM

27. UBS, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Credit Suisse, Lloyds-TSB and ABN Amro

Only two years ago UBS paid $800 million in fines to the Justice Department for a multi-year illegal scheme to solicit wealthy American citizens to hide their wealth from the IRS by letting UBS move the assets to tax havens on behalf of 52,000 Americans. The fine would have been far greater had the Swiss government not intervened to warn the US off putting UBS in a fragile financial position. In 2008 the Swiss Central Bank had to inject funds into UBS to rescue it from insolvency.

Best known is the $550 million fine paid by Goldman Sachs for defrauding investors in the offering of sub-prime mortgage backed bonds that were primed to fail. Further investigations into Goldman’s actions are bound to result in further cash settlements down the road. In Massachusetts GS had to pay $10 million for s0-called “trading huddles” where certain good clients were tipped to market news before the general public learned of them.

Just for starters Bank of America has paid fines of $428.6 million for various and sundry violations including rigged bids for municipal financing business. More to come from investigations into the bank’s huge mortgage operation, much of it inherited from Countrywide Credit.

Then, there’s the lesser known $1.2 billion paid by Credit Suisse, Lloyds-TSB and ABN Amro (part of Royal Bank of Scotland) for systematically and secretly violating sanctions against Iran, Libya, Cuba and the Sudan by accepting dollar deposits from those outlawed nations and aiding and abetting their public finances. A great part of these banned operations were done through shell companies established to hide the identity of the rogue state beneficiaries. Their crimes were uncovered by t he District Attorney in NYC, Robert Morgenthau.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/09/18/wall-street-pays-for-its-crimes/

Fines which are ultimately paid for by the end consumer (you and me) offer no deterent to these crooks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:27 PM

36. So you've just listed some cases that WERE prosecuted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:07 PM

49. Ignorance is Bliss ? - Settlement is not prosecution

More like the SEC grabbed their cut of the money as the cost of the fines were passed down to the end consumer

You have a unique view

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:39 PM

53. It is not unique to see fines as punishment

criminal penalties include fines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surfdog (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:45 PM

56. derivatives

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surfdog (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:49 AM

17. Start with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.. §§ 1961-1968

 

The fact that no one has taken the time to inform you of this, the mail-fraud statute, etc., and the fact that no one has taken the time to describe the elements of such crimes and how there are facts to support the establishment of the elements (and then some), doesn't not mean that no such crimes were committed.

As briefly explained elsewhere, the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) assumes "that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false."
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ig.htm

Can anyone ever prove to your satisfaction that Wall Street crimes have been committed? Let me take a wild guess. Unless you're willing to accept that Wall Street crimes have been committed, the answer is "No."

(The last paragraph is intended to be an ironic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:05 PM

23. Unreal

 

You are telling me that I should just accept that crimes were committed

Why not simply List them ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:07 PM

25. People cannot be prosecuted without their being enough evidence!

Can anyone prove to my satisfaction- yes if they have proof? A vague reference to "the newspapers" does not do it.

Who violated RICO then?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 96 > § 1962
Prev | Next
§ 1962. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
How Current is This?
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

"Racketeering activity"
(1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, (long list, see at link)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001961----000-.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:13 PM

29. In some Administrations, favored people cannot be prosecuted no matter what the evidence.

 

The Bush Administration would not even investigate Wall Street.

Shouldn't we have a change from that?

If not, why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:18 PM

31. RICO violations

are likely prosecuted on a daily basis.

What favored people? What evidence is there against them?

These accusations are just vague and one therefore suspects there is nothing there.

It's just something to fling.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:44 PM

40. RICO violations like these "are likely prosecuted on a daily basis"? Not a chance.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:05 PM

47. Are you seriously claiming that the DOJ has no pending cases under the

RICO statute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:41 PM

54. Are you seriously claiming that the DOJ has pending RICO cases for the banksters?

 

Even President Obama, who has expressed his view that Manning broke the law, has not expressed his view that the banksters broke the law.

Here's an idea. Why don't we just wait for the after the re-election and then we can all believe that someday, someday in the future, Holder will really get around to prosecuting some of the individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:15 PM

58. "the banksters"

is not a proper defendant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:04 PM

46. I need a smiley (or an animated .gif) that says

"Whoosh, right over his head"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surfdog (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:41 PM

38. Try FRAUD. I am voting "uncommitted"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:42 AM

14. Based on what?

If you know that, you know who could be prosecuted and specifically for what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:46 AM

16. If they have any trouble figuring out "who" and "for what" send them to me

 

I got enough material on bankster felonies to keep them busy for the rest of their natural lives.

Here's a good place to start, the "who" being "Jon Corzine" and the "for what" being "stealing segregated customer funds that were protected by law in order to engage in proprietary trading for personal profit" - and they can throw in the consequent SOX violation as well, when he signed off that there were risk controls in place to prevent him from doing exactly that.

- "What's with the obsession with who gets appointed to what position?"

Typically you put people in those positions because they have a record of pursuing the policies you want to pursue. Thus when Obama sticks Wall Streeters into every position of economic influence in his administration (excepting only Elizabeth Warren who was appointed under protest and only because the popular will was so strong that she be involved that it could not be ignored) it's clear that he has done so out of intent to pursue policies to benefit Wall Streeters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:21 PM

32. What policies that benefit Wall Streeters?

The law is the same on matter who is there.

And if you have so much evidence yourself, talk to the DOJ.

And if they decide your "evidence" is insufficient, it does not prove that they are corrupt. You are not necessarily right.

"stealing segregated customer funds that were protected by law in order to engage in proprietary trading for personal profit" - what statute does that come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:38 PM

37. let me bring you up to date

 

the policies that benefit Wall Streeters consist of:

- trillions in bailouts, liquidity, lending facilities,
- acceptance of junk collateral
- changing accounting standards under FASB to allow companies to lie about their financial position
- refusal to implement Frank-Dodd and unwind systemically dangerous institutions
- free trade which allows offshoring of industry and labor arbitrage, which results in big bonuses for MBA sociopaths and a world of unemployment for Americans

and so on and so forth. Better to ask, what policies have been put in place that don't benefit Wall Streeters?

as far as the statute that you asked for, here it is:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/31/656

Whoever, being an officer, director, agent or employee of, or
connected in any capacity with any Federal Reserve bank, member
bank, depository institution holding company, national bank,
insured bank, branch or agency of a foreign bank, or organization
operating under section 25 or section 25(a) (!1) of the Federal
Reserve Act, or a receiver of a national bank, insured bank,
branch, agency, or organization or any agent or employee of the
receiver, or a Federal Reserve Agent, or an agent or employee of a
Federal Reserve Agent or of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, embezzles, abstracts, purloins or willfully
misapplies any of the moneys, funds or credits of such bank,
branch, agency, or organization or holding company or any moneys,
funds, assets or securities intrusted to the custody or care of
such bank, branch, agency, or organization, or holding company or
to the custody or care of any such agent, officer, director,
employee or receiver
, shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or
imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both; but if the amount
embezzled, abstracted, purloined or misapplied does not exceed
$1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both.

The bolded part is the part that Corzine violated - I call it embezzlement but "willfully misapplies" is easier to prove (he admitted it in sworn testimony) and will do just as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:07 PM

48. Some of that was specifically sanctioned by Congress!

Political disagreement does not mean one's opponents are guilty of crime. How can anyone be prosecuted for the bank bailouts when they were undertaken under the law? Free trade is another one - be against it all you want, but it's not a crime.

What evidence is there that Corzine was an officer of a Federal Reserve Bank and that he embezzled, etc.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:21 PM

51. read the law again

 

ANY bank not just a Federal Reserve Bank, and he was CEO of a fairly sizeable one called MF Global.

This is not a political disagreement this is black letter law. Corzine stole those funds to pay for his own bets. That was not only a gross violation of his fiduciary duties, it is criminal behavior that the law I cited is squarely aimed to deter and punish.

Moreover, somehow MF Global got put into bankruptcy under the wrong chapter, which puts JP Morgan at the head of the line of creditors, even ahead of customers who had segregated accounts (the legal status of which is exactly like your bank account).

If Corzine walks your bank account is next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:36 PM

52. How do you know he stole funds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:33 PM

59. he admitted it under oath

 

He couched it in the term "rehypothecation" which he knew very people would understand. He flat-out admitted that he used rehypothecated customer assets to post margin on his proprietary trade. But rehypothecation doesn't allow for those assets to be used for that purpose, and he knows it damn well because he signed his name to a Sarbox certification that forbids such a violation of capital controls.

On top of that, they filed bankruptcy under the wrong chapter, subordinating customer claims to creditor claims - the same creditor who pulled the line of credit that caused Corzine to steal assets that weren't his to bolster his trade!

This is pure and blatant theft. If he gets away with it the next thing that gets rehypothecated is your pension, and after that your bank account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:01 PM

20. Who gets the job ends up being important - for policy reasons

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/94

"As Secretary of Labor, Perkins played a key role writing New Deal legislation, including minimum-wage laws. However, her most important contribution came in 1934 as chairwoman of the President's Committee on Economic Security. In this post, she was involved in all aspects of the reports and hearings that ultimately resulted in the Social Security Act of 1935."

The people in those jobs are the one who probably propose the solutions. They are the experts that the President consults to answer the question "What can we do about the economy?"

And they apparently are the morons who came up with "Let's pass more permanent tax cuts for the rich, that'll help."

Competent? Competent at what? At maintaining the status quo?

I don't think competence is nearly as important a factor as that old labor question "Which side are you on?"

Are you on the side of the bottom 80%, or are you on the side of the top 5%? Obama CHOSE to load up his cabinet with supposedly competent people (oh David Brooks thought they were excellent choices) who are on the side of the top 5%.

Back when he appointed them, I was a minority, trying to defend Obama on DU, saying that it was not that big a deal because Obama was still the President and the cabinet was just the cabinet. Clearly I was wrong. I suspected as much at the time, but I was still hanging on to hope. Well that hope was shattered into a million pieces on 6 December 2010, the day Obama officially surrendered to Reaganomics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:24 PM

33. Even if she "wrote" the laws, they had to be passed by Congress

Yes, they should maintain the status quo, in that they should enforce the law, not their personal opinions of what the law should be! Are you asking for corruption charges? Saying that others who would do as they please without regard to the law are the ones who should be appointed? Sounds like it.

What original solutions are there going to be at this point? No, the tax cuts for the rich were not all Geithner's doing. They came about due to a prior administration, didn't lapse because they were part of a bargain with a Republican congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:17 PM

30. or maybe it is being pursued...

''This demand to "prosecute bankers." Who? For what? Maybe the DOJ doesn't have a case to pursue? Ask them first. ''

I wonder if Obama let Cenk in on his 2 year plan to get Bin Laden. Oh no, he didn't? wtf, where's the TRANSPARENCY!^%&*$**^!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:25 PM

34. Right - no doubt the DOJ is working on SOME case involving

prosecution of those who broke the law!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:23 AM

2. last time that happened

we got the teabagger congress.

No thanks Cenk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:24 AM

3. Vote for President Obama. And if you're

one of the few liberal Dems who don't like Obama, sure - go ahead and vote for whomever you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:25 AM

4. All it will do is weaken the President and by doing so enable a GOP candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:26 AM

5. My suggestion is to turn off Cenk Uygur

His modest proposal makes no sense whatsoever, except that it's getting him brainspace and media exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:27 AM

6. Good idea...Obama and the Dems in Congress need to get a message...

They aren't listening and maybe this would work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:28 AM

7. I think his idea is idiotic--is he going to spend HIS money to walk that shit back in time for the

general election? Or will he expect the "little people" with their five dollar checks to be the ones who will send in the money to the PACS to mount the counter-attack ads?

Actions have consequences, and that action sounds like a "depress the vote" effort. I do not support it, I think it is idiotic. YMMV.

Let's win the damn election and remind our esteemed and beloved President that the time to make your mark for the history books is when you are NOT running for reelection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:30 AM

9. I find myself in agreement on the issue of finance reform.

I like Obama and will of course vote for him.

But his appointments, policies and efforts at finance reform have been right aligned.

Also, while he has made some advances on progressive issues, they have been riddled with concessions and compromise.

Glad to see the exit from Iraq.

Now, for my very own personal purple pony list: I would like to see much more effort for economic recovery and jobs, banking and mortgage reform, and education. The biggie - single payer/national health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:30 AM

10. I have a better suggestion - Vote for Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:06 PM

28. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:34 AM

12. The irony is that those whining about Cenk are the one's calling for us to "work within the system".

Which is what he's doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:59 PM

44. A classic case of, "Do as I say, not as I said!"

wolf-pac.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:41 AM

13. I think Cenk has a good idea. k&r n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:52 AM

18. Meh, I'm going to predict this goes nowhere

other than starting flame wars on the internet. Just saw on the news that Obama has more people on the ground in Iowa than all the GOP contenders combined. I'm pretty sure Cenk isn't a big worry to the democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:02 PM

21. Cenk's suggestion will have zero effect

on anything. It will go completely unnoticed in the coverage of the GOP caucuses. Besides, Cenk is an asshat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:06 PM

24. Cenk is obsessesed with being a contrarian from the left. I no longer view him as geniune.

If he isn't railing against some administration, he isn't happy. He feeds off that bullshit. He can go fuck himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:27 PM

35. Cenk? Another Reaganite heard from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:50 PM

41. If Obama expressed his admiration for Reagan and Cenk did not, which would be the Reaganite?

 

Obama's open admiration for Reagan was reported, for example, here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044712,00.html

When, if ever, did Cenk express such admiration? Or any admiration of Reagan or his policies?

If Cenk ever did so, you should easily be able to provide a link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:04 PM

45. Expressing admiration for, and actually working to elect Reagan is a whole different animal. But...

then you knew that, right? And if you don't know the difference, you're in much bigger trouble than I can help you with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:45 PM

55. Uh..., Reagan is dead. No one can work to elect him. He died in 2004.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:09 PM

57. Didn't he also work for Arlen Specter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:41 PM

39. You don't "vote" in a caucus

In an incumbent year, the chances of getting anyone to show up at all is a challenge. Getting a real opposition put together in a week to overwhelm the party operatives who run the caucus is near impossible. Caucuses are fun to go to and stir up shit with your neighbors, but handwringing over someone derailing Obama's nomination due to antics in the Iowa caucus is stupid.

Iowa is irrelevant. Everyone will be marching in a nice straight line in Charlotte.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:55 PM

42. My suggestion, which I have made many many times,


is to understand that this is a long term battle and that by abandoning the most progressive candidate that can be elected hurts our long term goals.


Cenk's idea is nothing more than a political temper tantrum. No, you can't have it now! Grow the F__ up and do the hard work which yields real change.

This is right up there with voting for Nader or a primary challenge to Carter. It does nothing but weaken our position and make things worse, again.

Screw that guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:58 PM

43. wolf-pac.com

Speaking of hard work...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theaocp (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:13 PM

50. I signed up, and bookmarked


but under comments I told them that they need to survive a year before I was willing to take them seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread