HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kristopher » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 194 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AM
Number of posts: 28,861

Journal Archives

What are you aiming for when you log on to DU GD:P?

Two questions:
What kind of discussion are you seeking?
How much of your posting is actually engaging in that type of conversation?

Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ, also known as the dialectical method, is:

a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments.

The term was popularized by Plato's Socratic dialogues but the act itself has been central to European and Indian philosophy since ancient history.

The term dialectic is not synonymous with the term debate. (emphasis added)

While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgment.

Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent, proving one's argument correct, or proving the opponent's argument incorrect.

Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however clear winners are frequently determined by either a judge, jury, or by group consensus.

The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience.

Concepts, like "logos" or rational appeal, "pathos" or emotional appeal, and "ethos" or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience.


Just as Bernie is an FDR Dem, HRC is a NE Blue Blood Rockefeller Republican

This excerpt from FDR's 1944 State of the Union helps define our situation by giving a benchmark for measuring which candidate is a true Democrat:

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.

Our fighting men abroad- and their families at home- expect such a program and have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that this Government should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying.

To compare and contrast John D. Rockefeller's view of how the world is supposed to be organized you could read this HistorydotCom review http://www.history.com/topics/john-d-rockefeller

Or you could just watch Hillary and Bill Clinton in action.

HRC: "We are supposed to learn, that's part of what experience should be teaching you."

Part of Town Hall with Chris Matthews (segment starts at about 47 minutes into tape).

You've see posts on this part, where Matthews sets it up for her to paint Bernie's consistency as a negative - a failure to learn from experience. The moral, of course, is that Hillary is possessed of better judgement in spite of the long history of disastrous positions she has taken on war, trade deals and social policy.

But it doesn't work. I'm sorry to tell you and Hillary that there is one glaring, bright as the sun problem with the entire string of reasoning and using it as a weapon against Bernie.

If he hasn't learned and you've made so much progress in developing your ideas, why have you adopted virtually every one of Bernie's calcified, old as the hills positions as your own?

Sorry Hillary, but you blew it again.

Arizona has a wrinkle for indie primary voters

My daughter was home over the weekend from Arizona. She's registered independent and has decided she wants to vote for Bernie so while she was just home for an all-too-brief visit we went to the Az website to see what hoops she needed to jump through. At first blush it seemed easy and accommodating. The info is below.

I moved recently, when is the deadline to update my voter registration?

The final day to update your voter registration or register to vote is midnight on the 29th day before the election. For the 2016 Primary Election that day is Midnight on August 1, 2016 and for the 2016 General Election you must register before Midnight on October 10, 2016. All voter registration forms that are mailed in must be postmarked on or before the deadline.

How does an independent voter receive a ballot for the Primary Election?
An independent voter on the early voter list will receive a post card in the mail asking for the voter to choose which party ballot the voter wishes to receive for the Primary Election. If the independent voter goes to the polls on Election Day the voter will be given the option to choose a party ballot at that time.


We didn't immediately note the date but before leaving the page it sank in that there was something odd. A primary on August 30th? How could that be, we wondered?

Not finding any ready explanation, we eventually opened the calendar. Bold font added.
Elections Calendar

Thu, September 24, 2015
First day to file Presidential Preference - New Party Petitions
Sat, October 24, 2015
Last day to file Presidential Preference - New Party Petitions
Fri, November 13, 2015
First day to file as a Presidential Preference Candidate
Fri, December 4, 2015
Last day to file arguments for or against ballot measures (Special Election)
Mon, December 14, 2015
Last day to file as a Presidential Preference Candidate
Mon, February 22, 2016
Voter registration deadline for Presidential Preference Election
Wed, February 24, 2016
Early Voting begins for Presidential Preference Election
Thu, March 3, 2016
Last day to file General Election - New Party Petitions
Tue, March 22, 2016
Presidential Preference Election

Mon, April 18, 2016
Last day to register for the Special Election
Wed, April 20, 2016
Early Voting begins for Special Election
Mon, May 2, 2016
First day to file candidate nomination petitions
Tue, May 17, 2016
Special Election
Wed, June 1, 2016
Last day to file candidate nomination petitions
Thu, July 7, 2016
Last day to file constitution & initiative petitions
Wed, July 13, 2016
Last day to file arguments for or against ballot measures (General Election)
Thu, July 21, 2016
Last day to file as a write-in candidate for the Primary Election
Mon, August 1, 2016
Voter registration deadline for Primary Election
Wed, August 3, 2016
Early Voting begins for Primary Election
Tue, August 30, 2016
Primary Election
Thu, September 29, 2016
Last day to file as a write-in candidate for the General Election
Mon, October 10, 2016
Voter registration deadline for General Election
Wed, October 12, 2016
Early Voting begins for General Election
Tue, November 8, 2016
General Election

Presidential preference election??

Bottom line, the "Primary" is for local elections and you can vote as an independent; the "Presidential Preference" election is to select the presidential candidate of the parties and you cannot vote unless you were registered for the party you want by Feb. 24th.

She was very disappointed. On the plus side, if Bernie is the nominee, she intends to permanently register as a Dem.

Latest charts Dem race favorability ratings

Last updated 3/12

Last updated 3/14

Bill Clinton on deregulation: ‘The Republicans made me do it!’

Bill Clinton on deregulation: ‘The Republicans made me do it!’
The ex-president seriously mischaracterizes his record

By Ryan Chittum
OCTOBER 1, 2013

Bill Clinton sat down with Fareed Zakaria last week on CNN for a typically wide-ranging interview that touched on chemical weapons, big data and privacy, whether Chelsea Clinton should run for office, etc.

You know, the usual Bill Clinton interview. But Clinton’s comment about his record on regulation is an actual newsmaker, because it’s a giant whopper:
What happened? The American people gave the Congress to a group of very conservative Republicans. When they passed bills with the veto proof majority with a lot of Democrats voting for it, that I couldn’t stop, all of a sudden we turn out to be maniacal deregulators. I mean, come on. I know Senator Warren said the other day, admitted when she introduced a bill to reinstate the division between commercial and investment banks, she admitted that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause one single solitary financial institution to fail.
This is, to be kind, bullshit. Memory is a hazy thing, but I have a hard time believing Clinton doesn’t know full well he’s not telling the truth here (and with his record, he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt).

Let’s go to the tape. Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury, which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to mention a disastrous strong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble). He also reappointed Ayn Rand-acolyte Alan Greenspan, who has as much responsibility as anyone for creating the crisis, as Fed chairman—twice.

Now it’s true that Clinton faced an extremely hostile Republican Congress for the last six years of his presidency. But his administration actively encouraged the big deregulatory legislation, and squashed its own dissenters, like Brooksley Born, who saw disaster ahead.

Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills ...

Ryan Chittum is a former Wall Street Journal reporter, and deputy editor of The Audit, Columbia Journalism Review's business section. If you see notable business journalism, give him a heads-up at rc2538@columbia.edu. Follow him on Twitter at @ryanchittum.


Nafta has cut a path of destruction through Mexico. Since the agreement went into force in 1994, the country’s annual per capita growth flat-lined to an average of just 1.2 percent -- one of the lowest in the hemisphere. Its real wage has declined and unemployment is up.

As heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other staples poured into Mexico, producer prices dropped and small farmers found themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms since Nafta. At the same time, consumer food prices rose, notably the cost of the omnipresent tortilla.

As a result, 20 million Mexicans live in “food poverty”. Twenty-five percent of the population does not have access to basic food and one-fifth of Mexican children suffer from malnutrition. Transnational industrial corridors in rural areas have contaminated rivers and sickened the population and typically, women bear the heaviest impact.

Not all of Mexico’s problems can be laid at Nafta’s doorstep. But many have a direct causal link. The agreement drastically restructured Mexico’s economy and closed off other development paths by prohibiting protective tariffs, support for strategic sectors and financial controls.

NYT: Under Nafta, Mexico Suffered, and the United States Felt Its Pain
Laura Carlsen is the director of the Americas program at the Center for International Policy.
NOVEMBER 24, 2013

AP fact check: Eye-popping claims about Sanders

AP fact check: Eye-popping claims about Sanders
March 10, 2016

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders writes some notes as his rival Hillary Clinton walks behind him to her podium during a commercial break at the Univision News and Washington Post Democratic debate in Kendall, Florida, on March 9. Photo by Carlo Allegri/Reuters

WASHINGTON — How can it be that Bernie Sanders could stand on the side of vigilantes on the border, against the auto industry bailout, against an immigration overhaul that would have eased the plight of people in the country illegally? Can this be the liberal senator his supporters know and love?

It can be because of the politically perilous way legislation works in Congress, as bill after bill becomes a grab bag of the good and bad — as lawmakers see it. Hillary Clinton took full advantage of that in the latest Democratic debate, pointing out votes by her opponent that are eye-raising on the surface while brushing off complexities that help explain them.

A look at some claims in Wednesday’s debate and how they compare with the facts:

CLINTON: While in the Senate, she voted for a bill that later provided the money to bail out the auto industry. “The money that rescued the auto industry was in that bill,” which she chided Sanders for voting against.

SANDERS: That bill “was the bailout of the recklessness, irresponsible and illegal behavior of Wall Street.”

THE FACTS: Sanders is correct in the main. The bill passed in October 2008 provided $700 billion to bail out big banks. But some of that money was later used for a bailout of Chrysler and General Motors. When Clinton voted for the Wall Street package and Sanders voted against it, neither knew money would be shifted to the auto industry.

When legislation came up separately that proposed explicit support for the auto industry, both voted for it. Then in January 2009, shortly before Barack Obama became president, lawmakers tried to block the release of a second phase of the package approved earlier for the Wall Street rescue. Sanders backed this effort, which failed. At this point, it was known that some of the money would go to the auto industry as well, although it was not known how much.

Much more at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ap-fact-check-eye-popping-claims-about-sanders/

Jon Stewart V. Team Hillary

Pssst. Hey look! The Empress has no clothes...

That sudden moment when the thing you've worked so hard to believe just crumbles and disappears forever.

Why Bernie Sanders Is Unelectable

Democrats: Sanders unelectable

Bernie Sanders is simply unelectable

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 194 Next »