Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 12,813
Number of posts: 12,813
- 2015 (144)
- 2014 (124)
- 2013 (72)
- 2012 (12)
- Older Archives
As to the Supreme Court argument from Clinton supporters:
Who does not recognize that corporate/Wall Street donations/quid pro quos will come home to roost with a profiteering vengeance on any presidential candidate who has accepted tens of millions of dollars from them in a combination of campaign donations, personal payments for speeches to said candidate and spouse, and "gifts" to said candidate's family "non-profit" organization. Nowhere is this more vital to said corporate interests than in appointments to the Supreme Court.
Here's the script, kiddos!
(Corporate input/expectations on Supreme Court appointments)
"Here's the deal. Your supreme court nominations can be soft on social issues. We don't give a fuck if gays marry or women can get abortions. Makes no difference to our profiteering. But by god they better leave Citizens United in place and not approve prosecution of war crimes."
Posted by Divernan | Wed Jul 15, 2015, 06:50 AM (2 replies)
That is the title of the thread I just started on GD Primaries. I cross listed it from a thread in the Israel/Palestine group because it is directly related to primaries and I was concerned that the original thread would be locked and lost. The article quotes from HRC's letter to a deep pocket Israeli who is described in the Haaretz article as "has so little regard for Palestinians that at an event last November, he endorsed Sheldon Adelson’s contention that they are an “invented people.” This same man co-sponsored an anti-BDS Summit with Adelson whose “diverse array of voices” ranged from establishment Jewish groups that defend Israeli policy in the West Bank to right-wing Jewish groups that muse about whether Barack Obama is Muslim.
Left out were those American Jewish organizations, like J Street and Americans for Peace Now, which think Israel’s undemocratic control of millions of stateless Palestinians constitutes a moral problem. Left out, in other words, were the only American Jewish groups that enjoy any credibility among the progressives to whom the BDS movement appeals. If Hillary really wanted to combat BDS — as opposed to raising money by pretending to combat it — Saban is among the last people whose advice she’d seek.
Would appreciate some recs for this in GD Primaries, if you feel it is rec worthy.
Posted by Divernan | Sat Jul 11, 2015, 08:22 AM (2 replies)
Cross-posting this from the Israel/Palestine group because it is about HRC's fundraising attempts for the primary. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134108564#post1
Peter Beinart: Why Hillary Clinton is moving left on every issue except Israel
In a letter to hawkish donor Haim Saban, she hints she may oppose a two-state resolution at the UN.
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.665148
Note: Premium article, I hope you know what to do.
Posted by Divernan | Sat Jul 11, 2015, 08:09 AM (3 replies)
Also evidenced by Hillary's support for the use of land mines and cluster bombs, regardless of how many children were killed and maimed by same. Guess she hadn't "evolved" into being a self-proclaimed champion of children yet.
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or destruction not justified by military necessity." -- Nuremberg conventions, Principle VI
Combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives." -- Geneva Conventions, part IV, Article 48
as per http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251413864
The main point: Hillary Clinton voted to let our military continue to use cluster bombs in areas with concentrated civilian populations, despite the thousands of innocent children who have died or been handicapped due to picking up unexploded cluster bomblets.
This vote was cast in September 6, 2006 on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations act by Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Before I get into why this was such an important amendment and why a no vote was so terrible, I just want to post the vote totals with presidential candidates in bold.
30 Democrats voted YEA: Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR)
15 Democrats and every Republican voted NAY (R's not listed):
Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY)
Posted by Divernan | Thu Jul 9, 2015, 02:00 PM (1 replies)
Posted by Divernan | Wed Jul 8, 2015, 05:45 PM (0 replies)
Before anyone starts waxing indignant about the writer/researcher who initially broke this story, please try to face the reality that both the New York Times and the Washington Post vetted the facts of the story and did their own interivews of Hillary's baby brother and the chief executive of the mining company.
And that "blurring" referred to above is known by inside-the-Beltway-types as The Clinton Blur.
Posted by Divernan | Wed Jul 8, 2015, 05:29 PM (1 replies)
When Mr. Clinton worked as a co-chairman of Haiti’s earthquake recovery commission, Mr. Rodham and his partners sought a $22 million deal to rebuild homes in the country. In court proceedings three years ago in an unrelated lawsuit, Mr. Rodham explained how “a guy in Haiti” had “donated” 10,000 acres of land to him and described how he had leaned on Mr. Clinton to get the rebuilding project funded amid bureaucratic delays.
“I deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials,” Mr. Rodham said, according to a transcript of his testimony. “I hound my brother-in-law, because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.
“And he keeps telling me, ‘Oh, it’s going to happen tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.’ Well, tomorrow hasn’t come yet.”
Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project never did happen. The Clinton Foundation said in a statement that it was not aware of Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project and had no involvement in it. Mr. Clinton’s office said he had not been involved in any of Mr. Rodham’s pursuits in Haiti.
Posted by Divernan | Wed Jul 8, 2015, 05:23 PM (1 replies)
While CNN published an article headlined "Poll: Clinton's honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing states," the former secretary of State's main challenger for the Democratic nomination doesn't have a trust problem with voters. The Boston Globe writes that during a campaign visit to Iowa, a former Marine drove six hours to hear Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speak and another Iraq War veteran stated, "He's the first politician that I've believed in my life." Sanders is down by only 8 points in New Hampshire, primarily because he's championed progressive causes long before they were popular. The man once stated that he's a "democratic socialist" (very different from the Fox News meaning of socialism), so Americans know that Vermont's junior senator doesn't have a public relations machine vetting his every word.
As a result of his refusal to take a poll-driven and centrist viewpoint on major issues like foreign policy and the economy, Sanders must wage a grass-roots campaign for the White House. NPR reports that his recent total of $15 million came from "250,000 donors making nearly 400,000 contributions of $250 or less." However, Sanders has the trust of the average American, and while Hillary Clinton has amassed $329 million in her career (three of her top five donors are Citigroup, Goldman and JP Morgan), some things can't be purchased with money. The integrity, honesty and bold stances of Sanders might make him a real threat to Clinton’s campaign and he's earned something that billions in campaign fundraising can't buy: the trust of the average American.
In contrast, Clinton has similar positions to Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on war and Wall Street; previously expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership; previously said she was "inclined" toward the Keystone XL pipeline; and up until 2013, opposed gay marriage, yet is expected to raise $2.5 billion from Democratic supporters. As for her rapport with the average American, Clinton's campaign is running more like a corporation than anything that could be described as "grass-roots." In Orwellian irony, the Clinton campaign recently held business round tables with "everyday" Iowans who also happened to be "selected to attend her events." In addition, her recent Twitter campaign proudly asks, "If you won a dinner with Hillary, what would you ask her?" but doesn't elaborate if Clinton would answer questions about her Iraq War vote, evolution on gay marriage or any other controversial topic. Nonetheless, Clinton is raising hundreds of millions, even though Vice News, the Associated Press and others have sued the State Department for access to her emails as secretary of State (31,830 of which she unilaterally deleted from a private home server without the oversight of a third party).
Sanders is showing that it's possible to run on an unapologetic belief in progressive values, not simply carefully crafted rhetoric that jettisons core principles. Sanders never had to cater to any interests other than his belief system; something that frightens Wall Street while at the same time endears him to working Americans.
Posted by Divernan | Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:16 AM (13 replies)
The following is a comment following the Washington Post opinion by Tom Toles.
There's a good thread on this already by babylonsister but I felt this comment following that article is worthy of it's own OP. With thanks to poster "FergusonFoont"
earlier thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128022240#post20
9:19 AM EST
Kudos, Tom. Brilliant column.
NOBODY discusses issues and solutions anymore. It's all horserace crap, wall-to-wall. The WashingtonPost in particular used to be better about that sort of thing.
People say they want incorruptibility. Well, hello, Bernie.
People say they want honesty. Hi there, Bernie.
People say they want someone who has proven right about past issues. Heeeere's Bernie!
People say they want someone to stand up to the banksters and the robber barons. Howdy there, Bernie!
People say they want worker rights. Well, how ya doin', Bernie?
People say they want a broader prosperity. That's what Bernie's all about.
The wider his message spreads, the greater his popularity will grow. They will try to stifle and beat down his message under cries of "evil socialism." We mustn't let them. Our armed forces are socialist. Our public schools are socialist. Our most popular medical care systems are more or less socialist.
Of course, socialism has its bad side. Bank robber-baron bailouts at taxpayer expense come to mind, but Bernie wants to break up the too-big-to-fail banksters.
Posted by Divernan | Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:15 AM (25 replies)
Hillary Clinton Says Puerto Rico Should Have Access To U.S. Bankruptcy Laws
Why her sudden concern for Puerto Rico, & changing the U.S. bankruptcy laws, you may ask. I mean if we're going to restructure the bankruptcy laws, the first place to start is to allow student loan debts to be included in bankruptcy proceedings. But Puerto Rico's govt. corporate debt-what's up with that? It's simple, campers! Convention delegates!
Voters in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories are not permitted to vote in the presidential election under the provisions set forth in the Electoral College. But that doesn't mean they don't have a say in who gets to the White House.
That's because voters in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa are permitted to participate in the presidential primary and are granted delegates by the two major political parties.
In other words, Puerto Rico & other U.S. territories get to help nominate the presidential candidates. But voters there cannot actually participate in the election because of the Electoral College system.
The national Democratic Party's charter, enacted in 1974, states that Puerto Rico "shall be treated as a state containing the appropriate number of Congressional Districts." The Republican Party also allows voters in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories to participate in the nomination process.
In the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Puerto Rico had 55 delegates - more than Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wyoming and several other states with populations lesser than the U.S. territory's 4 million.
Four Democratic delegates went to Guam, 3 went to the Virgin Islands and American Samoa each.
In the Republican presidential primary of 2008, Puerto Rico had 20 delegates, and Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands each had 6.
Participation in Puerto Rico's delegate selection process is open those who wish to participate as Democrats. Participants may not take part in any other party's Presidential Nominating process. Individuals who wish to participate in the Senate District Caucuses must register with the State Party by 5? June 2016.
Posted by Divernan | Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:16 AM (35 replies)