HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 96 Next »

JackRiddler

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 24,773

Journal Archives

"Trolls are the dog-piles in the lawn of life." - Bill USA.

(btw, in context, obviously, you mean dogshit. Dogpiles are fun, and quite the opposite.)

So in other words, this GOP campaign will exactly mirror the logic of the Hillary camp being employed here, of "When did you stop being a Republican?" Except that Sanders never was one of those. He was also never a communist, but he lets you call him a socialist even though he barely qualifies as that. It sure has damaged him so far!

If only he'd been a neoliberal willing to claim any position for votes, armed with 400 politician endorsements ("superdelegates"), a hundred million in corporate donor PAC-dollars, 100% name recognition, the party machines all working for him, and the corporate media treating him 24/7 like he's the single, pre-ordained candidate. All of which was true of Clinton a year ago when Sanders was but an insurgent blip.

Why did he fuck up like that? Play the game and win it the professional way, man! First serve your masters for a few decades, then pretend this is a democracy!

Tuition-free public universities? That might cost 10% of our Beautiful Pentagon! Outrageous!

Nuff said. Kick this. Throw your talking points at it!

Yeah, looks like a real barrelful of fun.

Ah, the Bubble Existence! Soon you'll be here alone, in a cavernous echo chamber protected from the uglier 99% of the Internet, not to mention reality itself.

No, Frank passed a law to prevent the break-up of the banks.

He worked for that exactly at the time when we had the best chance to break them up.

Of course, that wouldn't pass as such, so the deed of saving Wall Street from the pitchforks is packaged as a "reform." Thus it happens that the Dodd-Frank bill to Save the Banksters included a provision that could be used to break up the big banks. Of course, such a thing could only happen in the unthinkable case that a real political leadership comes to power and is willing to do that.

A real political leadership would be something rather opposite to the present-day Wall Street employee ("consultant") Barnie Frank, whose "opinions" (mouthpiece statements) about Sanders should come with a prominent conflict-of-interest label.


PS - Oh and spare me the inevitable "but Sanders voted for it" dodge. I would have fought against it and fought to strengthen it all the way, as Sanders did, and when it was too late, sure, I would have voted for it as the best that that could be done. And then continued the fight - exactly as Sanders has! You think Sanders is going to get a "consultancy" pay off from Wall Street at the end of this? Shame on Frank!

On Sanders, Frank and dog metaphors in place of thought.

A recent post used a metaphor to substitute for thinking on the matter of the Sanders-Frank "feud." (That word by the way is already typical coporate media spin. It takes matters of politics and principle that affect everyone and turns them into personalized, specatacular bullshit, as though the two are in some kind of hair-pulling catfight.)

Metaphors are often used to substitute for thinking, and in this case Sanders was said to "bite the hand that feeds him," evoking the image of a dog ungrateful to its master. This was because Frank, after all, helped design the Dodd-Frank reform bill, which includes the provision that a President Sanders would invoke in initiating a break-up of the Wall Street Godzillas who still roam, burning and pillaging the planet. (See what I did? Metaphors. Always notice them and ask yourself: do they apply?)

So, apparently, Sanders owes Frank, see? But what was Frank's role in the actual history of the U.S. government's shameful accommodation of the Wall Street Godzillas, during the Bush and early Obama tenures?

In the decisive moment of October 2008, Frank played a leading congressional mouthpiece on the Democratic side in gaining passage for the Hank Paulson plan to rescue the Wall Street godzillas.

The next year, he went to work on the "banking reform." Frank (and Dodd and Co., surrounded by lobbyists and sponsors) prevented a true reform by sinking the hope of it into 1500 pages of loopholes and trivialities that almost never address the central issues of the 2007-9 crash brought about by Wall Street fraud.

Now don't get me wrong! Dodd-Frank is a great employment program for hard-working but ultimately powerless compliance officers at the big banks (I've met a couple), well-meaning bureaucrats who still won't get to see the same books as the Dimons and Blankfeins.

Without rebuilding the firewall between deposit banking and speculative activity, the fundamental issues of too-big-to-fail and unlimited casino plays by institutions holding depositors' money are unaddressed, except through evadable provisions.

The individual incentive system that sanctions fraud is untouched. The hullabaloo around Dodd-Frank served to distract how the banksters who should have been rounded up and prosecuted instead were given carte-blanche to rescue their fortunes and continue plundering the nation and the world. Instead of criminal prosecution and seizure of the plunder, their institutions were "forced" into various largely tax-deductible "settlements" that assigned no individual responsibility, and thus amount to a business expense for the corporation and a reward for the actual human perpetrators of high crimes.

The next crash, inevitably, will come. It can start tomorrow.

As befits the loyal factotum, Frank later got to rotate out of the politician's chair he had warmed for decades (often doing wonderful things as long as these did not affect the interests of his financial sector sponsors) into plum "consultancy" work, at many times the salary, on behalf of the very same banksters he helped to rescue as a leader in the campaign for the Wall Street bailouts and preemptive exonerations.

And it is as a consultant to the Wall Street Godzillas that the man speaks today, against Bernie Sanders. Any statement he makes should come with a conflict-of-interest label.

So, since metaphors are such welcome substitutes for thought, how would I tl;dr the above (so sorry for using words!) into a handy metaphor? Afraid I'll have to reverse the dogs.

Today I see a Frank-poodle nipping at the heels of a man who stands upright and tall for his principles - a man pragmatic enough to say he will use one of those Dodd-Frank loopholes to do the right thing that Frank worked so hard to prevent.

Metaphors are everything, and yours is revealing.

You think the bank employee Frank is the "hand that feeds" the ungrateful Bernie-dog? Why?

Frank prevented a true financial reform by sinking the hope of it into 1500 pages of loopholes and trivialities that almost never address the central issues of the 2007-9 crash brought about by Wall Street fraud. It's a great employment program for ultimately powerless compliance officers who won't get to see the same books as the Dimons and Feinsteins. Then the next crash, inevitably, will come. It can start tomorrow.

During the time in which Dodd-Frank served to distract on the fundamental issues of too-big-to-fail and unlimited casino plays by institutions holding depositors' money, the banksters who should have been rounded up and prosecuted instead got to plunder the nation so as to rescue their fortunes.

As befits the loyal political factotum, Frank got to rotate out of his politician's chair into plum "consultancy" work for the very banksters he helped to rescue by leading the attack on behalf of the Wall Street bailouts and preemptive exonerations.

So what's my metaphor? Afraid I'll have to reverse the dogs on yours.

Today I see a Frank-poodle nipping at the heels of a man who stands upright and tall for his principles - a man pragmatic enough to say he will use one of those Dodd-Frank loopholes to do the right thing that Frank worked so hard to prevent.

Wow, just wow, the logic!

So in a system of highly concentrated power, a system where everyone's ass is legally for sale to the highest bidder, we should listen to what the oligarchs, potentates, power elite and career politicians have to say. They like a power elite establishment politician who is sort of an oligarch herself and known for unwavering support to neoliberalism and imperialism. And they dislike the one guy who's gotten the most exposure calling them on their bullshit.

They must know something! Amazing!

Madam, I never expected early leaking of the transcripts.

Why would anyone at Goldman Sachs or any of Clinton's other many corporate bosses care to help Sanders? Some of them will doubtless care to damage Clinton once the likely disaster is complete, and she is the "nominee." So you'll get to read them (ha ha) and/or pretend they are inconsequential some time this fall. (August is a news hole.)

And I've never expected an indictment. It's the sort of felony that no establishment figure gets hit on. Assuming she gets past Trump, the theater starts on Jan 21, when the Republicans initiate some four-year impeachment soap opera that we will all have to pretend is very serious and historic. She'll probably "win." In two senses: she'll probably survive it, and she won't have to pretend she's trying to institute progressive policies since there will be continued gridlock.

Anyway, I've been awfully juvenile in always swinging and hitting your idea of a fastball, so I'll see you some nevertime. Have fun!

PS - Love your transparency page, by the way. See how many more you can get.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=178734&sub=trans

You, in effect.

"neither of them are real"

Of course the transcripts exist. And they will be released.

On the e-mails, I agree with you about the triviality of a mere felony of the kind most of the politicians sooner or later commit, as compared to the worldspanning mass murder operations that Clinton has helped to conduct. But if it stops her, which I don't expect, so be it. (What I do expect is that it becomes the stuff of some four-year impeachment soap opera that suspends all other business, just like with her husband.)

Oligarchs is a special category of capitalist overlord, the billionaires basically. The big corporations are obviously a larger factor.

The past? Wealth concentration and direct corporate control of politics have never been greater than today, not even in 1929 or the Gilded Age. But of course that's no concern to an acute analyst of political economy like yourself. I will miss you for the easy fodder.

Hmm, 2 out of 3 of those are owned by Clinton.

She cited Kissinger as her "progressive" endorser in a debate, met him repeatedly, presented him with a prize, went to his tribute party, etc. etc. So Camboida.

As the senator from New York she cast an essential vote for going to war against the "wrong" country. As SoS she pushed hardest for the insane destruction of Libya without a plan for the day after, which Obama calls his biggest mistake.

Iran/Contra, we can leave her out of. She would have been a very minor player at most.

I agree, the e-mail story is small potatoes by comparison. What's a mere felony on exaggerated "national security" grounds compared to all that approval of mass murder you just pinned on her? But if it stops the Clintonista machine from taking over again, might as well go with it.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 96 Next »