All of the Top 10 Corporate Tax Dodgers Have Donated to Hillary Clinton

The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview

The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.
By Naomi KleinTwitter

here aren’t a lot of certainties left in the US presidential race, but here’s one thing about which we can be absolutely sure: The Clinton camp really doesn’t like talking about fossil-fuel money. Last week, when a young Greenpeace campaigner challenged Hillary Clinton about taking money from fossil-fuel companies, the candidate accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of “lying” and declared herself “so sick” of it. As the exchange went viral, a succession of high-powered Clinton supporters pronounced that there was nothing to see here and that everyone should move along.


The very suggestion that taking this money could impact Clinton’s actions is “baseless and should stop,” according to California Senator Barbara Boxer. It’s “flat-out false,” “inappropriate,” and doesn’t “hold water,” declared New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went so far as to issue “guidelines for good and bad behavior” for the Sanders camp. The first guideline? Cut out the “innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt.”

That’s a whole lot of firepower to slap down a non-issue. So is it an issue or not?

First, some facts. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, including her Super PAC, has received a lot of money from the employees and registered lobbyists of fossil-fuel companies. There’s the much-cited $4.5 million that Greenpeace calculated, which includes bundling by lobbyists.

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/

I will not vote for the TPP or the Corporate State. Under any circumstances. Bernie should

withhold his endorsement.

Clinton supporters...be prepared to make your best case at convention!

Sanders says Clinton’s platform could determine how much he would campaign for her

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders said in an interview broadcast Friday that he would wait to see what Hillary Clinton includes in her platform before deciding how actively to campaign for her in the fall if she is the party’s nominee.

The senator from Vermont, who has vowed to stay in the race until the Democratic convention, was asked by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC whether he would try to persuade his young supporters to back Clinton in the same fashion that she supported President Obama after losing the nomination to him in 2008.

“Well, first of all, I’ve got to find out what her platform is, what the views are that she is going to be bringing forth, to what degree she will adopt many of the ideas that I think are extremely popular and I think very sensible,” Sanders told Mitchell.

He described the process as “a two-way street.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-says-clintons-platform-could-determine-how-much-he-would-campaign-for-her/2016/04/22/6ac1f1ee-08a3-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html?

Wall Street’s Problem Isn’t Too Big to Fail. It’s Too Big to Nail.

The main problem with Wall Street isn’t that, as Bernie Sanders says, the banks are too big to fail. It is that the bankers who run them are too big to nail—to be held financially and personally liable for the bad or corrupt decisions they make. This is now, sadly, documented history. The heart of the subprime mortgage mania—the real reason it could go on for so many years, nearly sinking the world economy in the end—was that no one was really held responsible for any of his or her bad decisions. Ever.

Bank executives weren’t held responsible during the bubble as it was building, when banks stopped caring about their own mortgage lending standards because the bankers knew all those bad loans would be bundled into securities that could be sold around the world, thus relieving the bankers’ firms of liability (though many banks also fecklessly kept substantial amounts on their books). Executives weren’t held responsible during the crash, when they were bailed out by the federal government and barely had to promise any change of behavior in return. And they weren’t held responsible long afterwards, when the Justice Department and the SEC failed to convict (and barely put on trial) a single senior executive, or even to send any to the poorhouse by levying fines and penalties. No personal accountability whatsoever, from start to finish; on the contrary, bankers, traders and executives were rewarded for their reckless behavior with big bonuses. Is there any better recipe for encouraging more greed, mania and irresponsibility by Wall Street—no matter how big the bank you’re working at is?

Federal regulators are gradually trying to get at this problem; on Thursday, they proposed new rules under the 2010 Dodd-Frank law intended to prevent executives at businesses with more than $1 billion of assets from earning “excessive” pay that encourages too-risky or aggressive tactics. The idea is to require the nation's largest banks and financial firms to hold back executives' bonus pay for longer than before—and require a minimum period of seven years for the biggest firms to "claw back" bonuses if it emerges that an executive's actions have hurt the institution.

But regulators need to go much further than this modest proposal and once again require—as in the long-ago days of private partnerships—that senior Wall Street executive put their entire personal wealth and holdings under threat of confiscation. In plain language, in the event of a bankruptcy, a bank’s bigwigs would be legally required to turn over to creditors or shareholders, until they are made whole, title to scores of Fifth Avenue co-ops, homes in the Hamptons or Palm Beach, or wherever they may be, plus brokerage and bank accounts filled with their accumulated billions. At the moment, of course, no such legal provisions exist. In fact, the whole purpose of a corporate structure is designed to shield executives from liabilities and make them the responsibility of creditors and shareholders.

More: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/wall-street-too-big-to-fail-too-big-to-nail-213841

Bernie is going all the way

Chris Hayes and Nick Confessore, Political Reporter for The New York Times, discuss further evidence that the Sanders campaign will not concede before the convention.

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/bernie-is-going-all-the-way-672120387540

Actor Glover: 'Of course, I believe Bernie can win'

Bernie Sanders Is Seeing Gains In States That Have Yet To Vote

Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is on the verge of catching up to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, if national polls of the primary are any gauge.

HuffPost Pollster’s average, which includes all publicly available surveys, shows Sanders trailing by about 4.3 points, down from a deficit of more than 20 points at the beginning of the year.

National primary polls, however, aren’t an especially good gauge for a number of reasons. For one, there’s no such thing as a national primary — states vote individually, and attempts to survey them all at once omit the significant differences between, say, the Iowa caucuses in February and the New Jersey primaries in June. For another, at this point in the calendar, many of the people included in national polls live in states that have already voted rather than those that still have upcoming contests.

National pollsters often don’t try to differentiate between those groups, viewing their results as a barometer of political attitudes rather than a tool for predicting who’s likely to win. But the NBC/SurveyMonkey tracking poll, which has been following the race since the beginning of the year, was able to look at the divide between the states that have already voted and those that have yet to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-upcoming-primaries_us_571a7d4de4b0d0042da93713

Bernie: Calling the Hillary NY Cheating "Disgraceful" is Not Enough, It Was Illegal. Do Something.

As the major media, once again, parrots Hillary's "win" in a primary without even a hint of the anger boiling beneath the headlines, due to what can only be called blatant voter suppression tactics, Senator Sanders stumbles but can recover. No, Senator Sanders, what has been happening is not "a disgrace," as you have remarked previously about Arizona and now New York. It is illegal. That is a big difference.

No less a personage than the NYC Comptroller, whose job it is to crunch numbers when something looks fishy, has called into question, by implication, the New York primary results. Comptroller Scott Stringer has "confirmed" that "more than 125,000 voters in Brooklyn were removed from voter rolls." Brooklyn is one of five NY Boroughs. Multiply that by five and you get 625,000 voters. And that's just the city. 1.7 million voters officially turned out for the NY Democratic primary. It takes no genius to see that's a game changer, and a big one.

Comptroller Stringer said in a scathing press release: “There is nothing more sacred in our nation than the right to vote, yet election after election, reports come in of people who were inexplicably purged from the polls, told to vote at the wrong location or unable to get in to their polling site,” Comptroller Stringer said. “The people of New York City have lost confidence that the Board of Elections..."

Stringer is a Hillary superdelegate. And even he says it stinks. You can't get politically covered any better than that.

more: http://hubpages.com/politics/Bernie-Saying-the-Hillary-Cheating-is-Disgraceful-is-Not-Enough

True story about the primaries: Remember last Spring or Summer when Sec. Clinton

was playing coy with her announcement and all that? Then for awhile she was the only person presumed to be running. Well, I am one of those many thousands of people who, at a certain point, because so nauseated at it being her instead of Bernie, whom I had listened to with awe for literally years on CSPAN and on cable news. Leading up to this cycle it really seemed he was hitting a very real stride...A very astute and Presidential stride.

And I keep thinking to myself, man, I *wish this guy would run! He would win in a landslide. And the longer it went on with her and Trump dominating the news, I got more antsy. One day, I googled Bernie's office telephone number in Burlington and called them. I don't even know who I might have talked to, but when that poor guy answered the phone I gave him an earful of effusive praise, and I insisted he *HAD to run.

The young man thanked me, took a couple of moments to say they were getting many calls like mine from all over the country, and were taking it under advisement. I only had about 30 seconds I suppose with him, but managed to tell him why he needed to run.

I've been all in since. I was urging him on when he was driving that little red compact car around stopping at curbsides and diners. Just him and a driver in that little car (Jane? Not sure). Lovely, genuine, caring people. Kind people. Real people. Not in it for money, or fame, or power. People with a very real understanding of how people should treat other people, and what the proper role of government actually is by the Constitution, and what it is now and what it could and should be.I have been all-in ever since.

Their STRONG support for Unions is quite in evidence, and not just lip service.

PS: I desperately NEED that Social Security expansion.