HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » 99th_Monkey » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ... 103 Next »

99th_Monkey

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: Potlandia
Member since: Fri Sep 28, 2007, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 19,192

Journal Archives

HuffPo/BREAKING: McCarthy Drops out of race for Speaker of House

Source: Huffington Post

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) pulled out of the running for House speaker on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

House Republicans had been scheduled to pick their candidate for speaker on Thursday. McCarthy reportedly told his caucus at the meeting that he was pulling out. The election for the Republican candidate for the next speaker has also been postponed.

McCarthy was considered the top contender to replace House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who will retire from Congress at the end of this month.

McCarthy has been haunted by recent comments in which he praised the House Select Committee on Benghazi for hurting Hillary Clinton politically.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kevin-mccarthy-speaker_56169926e4b0dbb8000d6a1f?ne2q33di

Breaking: McCARTHY DROPS OUT OF HOUSE SPEAKER RACE


Kevin McCarthy Pulls Out Of House Speaker's Race
McCarthy was considered the top candidate to be the next speaker.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kevin-mccarthy-speaker_56169926e4b0dbb8000d6a1f?ne2q33di

Sacrifice to the Gun God

Amid the Crowing of the GOP and Clinton, Sanders Is on the Rise

Amid the Crowing of the GOP and Clinton, Sanders Is on the Rise
By Robert Scheer * Oct 2, 2015 * Truthdig

How easy it is to mock the Republican candidates. They’re the gang in the clown car climbing all over each other to offer a reactionary message of disarray that has all but destroyed the chances of the Bush family dynasty continuing. But isn’t that a grand achievement for the democratic process?

Why continue a political legacy that has failed in so many dramatic ways to serve the needs of the American public, instead giving us irrational but high-tech wars dealing death from the skies, heartless banking deregulation boosting the fortunes of the rich at the expense of the vast majority, and a vast state apparatus of surveillance enforced by the imprisonment of any whistleblowers who dare reveal its existence?

Good riddance to bad rubbish, except that the alternatives of Trump, Fiorina or Carson only make Jeb Bush look stunningly reasonable in comparison. The other problem is that Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate, is not fundamentally different from the scion of the Bush dynasty. She is instead a perfect stand-in for Jeb Bush if, as appears likely, the Republican Party should reject him for the sin, as with House Speaker John Boehner, of appearing too moderate. For Democrats, appearing moderate is quite easy, as Clinton proved as a senator and secretary of state: Just carry water for the military-industrial complex and Wall Street while pretending to be concerned about the ordinary folks who suffer from those costly policies.

Clinton, in rhetoric and action, will never allow a Republican opponent to appear more hawkish than herself. In the general election, she will burnish her record of support for every bit of military folly from George W.’s invasion of Iraq to her own engineering of the campaign to overthrow all secular dictators in the Middle East who have proved to be an inconvenience to the Saudi theocracy. During her tenure in the Obama administration, Clinton, by her own frequent boastful admission, was the hawk in the Cabinet pressuring the president to be even more aggressive in his drone assassinations and murderous air wars, which have destabilized the region and created what the pope recently termed the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War.

But it is the still troubled economy that will dominate the election, and it is the failure of the Democratic Party establishment—now represented singularly by Clinton—to deal with the lingering recession that explains the startling rise of Bernie Sanders as a viable candidate.

The Vermont senator’s success is not a result of charisma or image manipulation, both of which he quite properly treats as dangerous distractions from what ails us, but rather his deeply informed critique of the bipartisan policies of Presidents Clinton and Bush that have brought so much misery in their wakes.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/amid_the_crowing_of_the_gop_and_clinton_sanders_is_on_the_rise_20151002

How Mass Shooters in The USA Get Their Guns

Here are the origins of every gun used in the high-profile massacres of Obama’s presidency.
By Christina Cauterucci and Greta Weber * Oct. 2, 2015 * Slate

On Thursday, after Chris Harper Mercer shot and killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, President Obama gave the latest in a tragic series of addresses in response to mass shootings in the U.S. "It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm to get his or her hands on a gun," he said.

But it is remarkably easy to get your hands on a gun in this country. Of the 11 shootings that prompted Obama to give a public address, eight were committed by gunmen who’d bought at least some of their firearms legally, some just days before their massacres. Several had histories of criminal behavior and mental illness that fell just shy of prohibiting their gun purchases—and in one case, a bureaucratic slip-up in the routine FBI background check was at fault. Here’s how the guns in each attack came into the hands of the killers.

Shooting: Military base at Fort Hood, Texas
Date: Nov. 5, 2009
Perpetrator: Nidal Hasan
Guns: FN Five-seven semiautomatic pistol and Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. He killed 13 people and injured more than 30.
How he got them: Guns Galore, a gun shop in Killeen, Texas, sold Hasan the gun legally three months before the shooting. He was not required to register the firearm on the base, because he didn’t reside there.

For more examples here of how mass shooters got their guns:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/how_roseburg_newtown_and_other_mass_shooters_got_their_guns.html

Australian Jim Jefferies: Guns Are Not Protection

This guy calls bullshit on frequent claims trying to justify a need for gun ownership. It's brilliant.

Washington State Considers Ending 'Virtual License to Kill' Given to the Police

Washington State Considers Ending 'Virtual License to Kill' Given to the Police
The law from 1986 assumes that officers who kill, act in good faith unless “evil intent” can be proven.
By William N. Grigg * The Free Thought Project/Alternet * Sept. 30, 2015

Enacted in 1986 with strong support from police unions, RCW 9A.16.040, which addresses “Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force” by a police officer, assumes that officers who kill, act in good faith unless “evil intent” can be proven.

Jamitha Burley of Amnesty International describes the Washington statute as “the most egregious” law of its kind in the United States. Attorney Jeff Robinson, who directs the Washington ACLU’s Center for Justice, believes that the statute is “virtually a license to kill.” King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg observes that officers who use lethal force in Washington are protected by an “almost perfect defense” – not merely the “qualified immunity” routinely invoked by police everywhere, but something closer to absolute impunity.

Enacted in 1986 with strong support from police unions, RCW 9A.16.040, which addresses “Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force” by a police officer, assumes that officers who kill, act in good faith unless “evil intent” can be proven.

Jamitha Burley of Amnesty International describes the Washington statute as “the most egregious” law of its kind in the United States. Attorney Jeff Robinson, who directs the Washington ACLU’s Center for Justice, believes that the statute is “virtually a license to kill.” King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg observes that officers who use lethal force in Washington are protected by an “almost perfect defense” – not merely the “qualified immunity” routinely invoked by police everywhere, but something closer to absolute impunity.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/washington-state-considers-ending-virtual-license-kill-given-police

The Hill: CNN Reports Biden to skip first Dem debate

Report: Biden to skip first Dem debate
By Jordan Fabian * October 01, 2015 * The Hill

Vice President Joe Biden is not expected to participate in the first Democratic presidential debate on October 13, CNN reported Thursday, a sign he is delaying his decision whether to jump into the 2016 race.

Biden is not preparing for the debate, which will take place in Las Vegas, according to several Democrats who spoke to CNN. Instead, the vice president is likely to announce his 2016 plans in the second half of October.

Should Biden skip the debate, it would further fuel speculation about one of the biggest unknown factors in the Democratic presidential primary.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/255585-report-biden-to-skip-first-dem-debate

The Hill/Brent Budowsky: Dem debate showdown

This kinda makes perfect sense to me, as a Bernie supporter, who feels America deserves more Democratic
candidate debates, especially ones that are not micro-engineered by a DNC that is trying to force ONE
"preordained" Establishment candidate down all Democrats throats, whether they like it or not.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has issued an edict that sells short the soul of the party of the people.

There will only be six presidential debates for Democrats in the 2016 cycle, and any candidate who participates in any others will be banned from the DNC debates. As recently as Wednesday, Wasserman Schultz, sounding like Vladimir Putin dictating to the Russian Politburo, declared that she will not budge on this.

Here is a proposal for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and other Democratic candidates for the nation’s highest office: You should join together to publicly state that if any respected organization wishes to hold additional debates, you will participate in defiance of the Putin-like commands from Washington.

What will happen if this showdown offer is extended is that media organizations and others will come forward with new debate proposals. Other Democratic candidates will accept. Wasserman Schultz will ban those candidates from the DNC debates. Hillary Clinton will be forced to choose between being the only candidate on stage in the DNC-sanctioned debates, which would make her and the DNC look ridiculous, or participating in the rogue debates, which she would almost certainly do.


http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/255517-brent-budowsky-dem-debate-showdown

Screw Benghazi. Screw the emails. Let the Dem Candidates debate REAL issues!

So with the upcoming debate, I'm hoping that finally Clinton, Sanders & O'Malley (and others) can finally
start discussing REAL issues that voters actually care about, issues that have a profound effect on their
lives, such as income disparity, ending mass incarceration & private prisons, addressing institutional racism
and ending the epidemic of police murdering POC, Citizens United, TPP, Climate Change, moving away from
fossil fuels to sustainable energy, etc.

Is this too much to ask? Or will ^these^ issues continue to be somehow ignored & shunted
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ... 103 Next »