HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sabrina 1 » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

sabrina 1

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Mar 30, 2008, 05:51 AM
Number of posts: 46,590

Journal Archives

How Not To Get The Best Possible Democratic Candidate For The White House!

Right now is when the people have the upper hand.

There are no actual candidates yet for 2016's Presidential race.

But 'feelers' for one candidate have been out there for a couple of years now.

A whole lot of Democrats are not happy with Hillary as their only choice.

One way to guarantee that the people will get someone they really do not want is to say 'however, if s/he is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her anyhow'.

Why on earth would they feel compelled to even care what the people want when they are being told 'go ahead and give me what I don't want because you know I'll take it anyhow'??

Telling them NOW that if this is the only choice we have, we will not vote for her/him is a far better strategy in order to persuade them that they need to present a candidate people WANT if they want to win.

We the people are supposed to be in charge of this democracy. Acting helpless and leaving up to politicians is an abdication of duty on the part of citizens.

Isn't it time for the PEOPLE to start strategizing in order to get what THEY want?

Do we really want a candidate who has shown themselves to represent Corporate America over the People as the only choice we are given?

No? Then let them know what we DO want and this time let them know we mean it!

We get what we deserve and what we are willing to work for.

Democratic voters have a right to expect a true Democratic Candidate who represents the best interests of the PEOPLE first.

That is a fact!

But keep on telling them you are helpless and will accept whoever they force on you and they will do exactly that.

It makes no sense to show your hand at this point.

They take votes for granted and those who are the most loyal get the least attention.

Watch how they try to win over those they know they cannot take for granted!

See how often we are told when they push things like 'SS on the Deficit Table: 'but we would not get the (fill in the blank) vote if we didn't compromise!

Politics is all about compromise!! we are told!

Good, we agree! Now let them start compromising for OUR votes for a change.

How about they try to get Bernie to run?

How about we pressure them to do that?

How about we tell them 'it's either HIM or NO ONE!

How about US telling THEM: This is your only choice for a change??



No more US doing all the COMPROMISING!

Just my opinion after watching this process repeat itself over and over again, then when we have the gall to point out broken campaign promises, we are told 'you should not have expected anything else, he made it clear he was not a progressive etc etc'. Iow, blame the voters! And to an extent they are right!

Shows one thing clearly, there is NO respect for Democrats who don't make their voices heard, they are merely taken for granted and told to 'go sit down and be quiet' and are then ignored.

Bernie or some other non-corporate Democratic Candidate who will put the people's needs first.







Petro Poroshenko, current President of Ukraine, IS known as Ukraine's 'Chocolate King'

It's old news by now. He won.

That is not why I am posting the link further down in this thread.

Ukraine us a very current topic in the news right now.

DU is a place where people come to get FACTS so I am posting this to correct an apparent stunning lack of facts regarding Ukraine and its current President, Poroshenko, who is known as Ukraine's Chocolate King because he made his fortune from the production of various kinds of chocolate sweets.

THIS Jury decision alerted me to the fact that there are people here who are unfamiliar with the facts about Poroshenko and to make those facts known:


On Mon Sep 1, 2014, 01:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Don't talk to me about the 'election' in Ukr. Talk to the Chocolate King who has declared
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5474161

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calls Obama "the Chocolate King". A rather racist comment, elevating his skin color over everything else.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Sep 1, 2014, 02:00 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Referring to Obama as "the chocolate king" is racist, vote to hide
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: WTF??!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not sure if poster is referring to Obama. Probably is referring to the Ukraine's current president.

I am voting to hide for a different reason. The poster is calling those who disagree with them McCarthyist. That is a violation of the TOS
.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oops - the "Chocolate King" refers to Ukraine president Petro Poroshenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Poroshenko . Try the Google before alerting next time.

Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given


Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I am wondering if anyone who may have posted anything referring to the man known as 'Ukraine's Chocolate King'has had a post hidden for referring to him as such.

This article, eg, is from The Guardian:

Chocolat Tycoon Heads For Landside Victory in Ukraine Presidential Election



Presidential hopeful Petro Poroshenko meets supporters in Uma. Photograph: Reuters

The chocolate king

Created in 1996, Poroshenko's company Roshen produces more than 300 kinds of sweets, cakes and biscuits at factories in Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania and Hungary.

Perhaps top of the list is the slightly unimaginatively named Cherries in chocolate, a cherry liqueur smothered in dark chocolate.

They are certainly sweet, but then people in this part of the world are famous for their sweet tooth. "They are tasty and always of decent quality," said Lyudmila Miroshnychenko, from Kherson, southern Ukraine. Cherries in chocolate, for her, is a treat to take with coffee in the afternoon.

Then there is Evening Kiev, a sort of Ferrero Rocher for the east, though frankly most ambassadors in Kiev haven't had much time of late for spoiling guests.

There is an entire range of chocolate bars that retail for around 20p – cheaper than imported Mars bars or Snickers. But many Ukrainians prefer the smaller chocolate sweets in colourful wrappers purchased by weight, some of which have retained brand names that were popular in Soviet times, like Camomile or Red poppy.


Apparently Poroshenko chose to sell his company so that the 'politics will be taken out of chocolate for good'. See article above.

In case anyone else decides to refer to Poroshenko by his well known nickname, it might be a good idea to attach a link to explain the reference and do not assume, as I did, that everyone posting about this most important news story unfolding in Ukraine, knows a whole lot about the man who won the election
and is now president of that country.

Edited to add link to jury decision which was cut off in the copy and paste, but pointed out by DUer muriel_volestrangler









.

Leave Discussionist Alone.

If you don't like it, that is your right.

Solution to that is 'don't go there'.

For those of us who enjoy putting down Right Wing talking points, Discussion is a perfect place to do so.

I am confident enough in our positions on the issues that I have no problem engaging the Right on those issues at all.

Haven't been there for a while due to RL obligations. But definitely plan to return.

Thanks to the Admin for providing us with a place where we CAN challenge the nutty views of the Far Right if we choose to do so!

I am editing this to add information I have received since I responded to the calls to 'shut Discussionist down'.

Four juries on Discussionist hid, unanimously, the vile comments made by a member there. 7-0 for all four juries. Three other juries hid three more of his/her posts.

According to his/her profile, Posting Privileges have been revoked.

Kudos to the juries for acting so swiftly and to the admins for removing his/her posting privileges.

Just wanted to add this information as some people were under the impression that nothing had been done about those vile, nasty comments. And rather than post the information over and over again, I am posting it here.

"The People of Ferguson Have the Power to Fire the Entire Police Force"

According to this article, Ferguson can recall their elected officials. It describes how that right makes it possible to fire the police.

The People of Ferguson Have the Power To FIRE the ENTIRE POLICE FORCE

Although Missouri does not have statewide recall provisions under the law, there are provisions for doing so at the local level.

Missourians do not have the right of statewide recall. However, the right of local recall is available in:

Cities defined as Class 3 cities. A Class 3 City is defined as a city with a population between 3,000 and 29,999.

Cities that operate under their own city charter, if the specific city charter allows for recall.


The recall process that applies to Class 3 cities in Missouri is governed by MRS §77.650 and 78.260.

Generally:

Recall may not commence during first 6 months in office

Grounds for recall must be stated, and must include misconduct in office, incompetence, and failure to perform duties prescribed by law.

60 days is allowed for collecting signatures.

Signatures equal to 25% of the registered voters in the city must be collected.


That seems possible, to get enough signatures over the next three months to begin the process.

The issue of the nearly all white police force is not one without an ability to correct. This is not some issue where the people have no power. In fact, this is a completely political issue and as DailyKos has aptly demonstrated for more than a decade, any political problem has a political solution.

Given the demographics of Ferguson, the people have the power to fire the entire city council, the mayor, the city manager, the chief of police, and to replace them with officers more capable who will fire the entire police force and replace them with individuals interested in serving and protecting the citizenry of Ferguson.

This process can be accomplished entirely within a period of just over six months.

With a population of about 21,135, Ferguson is a Class 3 city. We must now turn to the Ferguson charter for more information.

First, let's examine the governing body of Ferguson:



It's worth reading the entire article to see the process whereby the people of Ferguson can replace those officials and their appointees, such as the Police Chief, legally.

It's a long process and would require a lot of legal expertise, but I imagine that would not be hard to find at this particular time.

Just starting the process should scare them enough to start acting like they represent the people they are supposed to represent.

If ever there was a time to begin turning the tables, now seems to be that time.

More details at the link.

'There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood leads on to greatness ~ William Shakespeare

This may be that tide for Ferguson ....

David Gregory V Glenn Greenwald - Who is the journalist? A trip down memory lane ...

Glenn Greenwald eviscerated David Gregory in that MTP interview.



And DUers as usual had no problem with the question 'who is the real journalist here':

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017127199

After the backlash Gregory received from all over the political spectrum, MTP decided not to match up the actual jouralist with the fake journalist a second time. Something which disappointed Greenwald, something he says, 'I was looking forward to'. I wonder was it Gregory himself who asked that he not be put through another session with a real journalist, or MTP's fear of another such embarrassing eviceration of their MTP Host:

Glenn Greenwald Was 'Looking Forward' To Another David Gregory Interview

The Guardian columnist is scheduled to be on "Meet the Press" Sunday to discuss his new book, the first time he will return to the program since his controversial interview last June, in which David Gregory wondered if he should be "charged with a crime" for working with NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

Greenwald responded to Gregory during the interview that it was "pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies."

But Greenwald recently found out that Sunday's interview will not be with David Gregory, but with Pete Williams instead.

"That was really disappointing," Greenwald said on HuffPost Live Friday. "I was really looking forward to part 2 of my interview by David Gregory and to see what his approach was."


Gregory may be gone, but his replacement won't be much better. I remember him from the Bush days and his mocking of Dems like Rep. Conyers.

Maybe he too will try to take on Greenwald? Or maybe not ..

Palestinians Have a Right to Defend Themselves!

I just wanted to point that out. Because I have listened to our elected officials and I may be wrong, I could have missed it, but I hear them say, correctly, that Israelis have a right to defend themselves.

Then I wait to hear them say that Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves but I never hear that.

So I wanted to say it because I believe everyone has a right to defend themselves.

If any of our elected officials have said it and I missed it, then someone can correct me and I will be happy to hear it.

The Western Corporate Media Cannot Be Trusted.

I remember Judith Miller and the New York Times.

I remember Curveball.

I remember MSNBC firing Donohue the day his show covered the evidence from the UN Inspectors that Iraq had no WMDS. The most highly rated show on MSNBC.

Judith Miller was convincing. She was respected as a Journalist AND she worked for the NYT.

I also remember the Rendon Group.

I remember too what they did to Ashley Banfield.

And I stopped watching them and turned to International News.

I discovered Al Jazeera and was impressed with their courageous coverage of the Iraq War.

I remember that two foreign reporters were killed in the Bethlehem Hotel at the very beginning of the Iraq War.

And I remember Al Jazeera's headquarters in Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed.

I also remember being called a Saddam Lover for watching 'that Terrorist Government owned foreign news media'.

The Government of Qatar owned Al Jazeera.

Of course they have been vindicated now while the Corporate Media, so much of it owned by Murdoch, was exposed as pushing the lies through people like Judith Miller, who was funneled information from the Rendon Group.

And I remember the Valerie Plame Affair, Libby, Miller, who went to jail to protect Libby and of course the arch criminal Cheney.

Thankfully now we have so many other sources from all over the world.

I also remember what happened at the BBC when a reporter published a story from an anonymous source regarding Iraq.

The UK Govt, Tony Blair, forced the BBC into revealing the identity of the Whistle Blower, That Whistle Blower ended up dead, suicide they claimed, but few believed it. The BBC, state sponsored btw, has never been the same.

If you don't recall any of this, then this OP isn't for you as I don't have time to document it all again. But for those who do, perhaps you remember how we could not even watch the Corporate Media anymore, as we could not tolerate the lockstep propaganda they were pushing.




Thank You President Obama For Listening!

For appointing the panel to look into the Snowden leaks in the first place, and for listening to their findings.

I and many others have been very critical of the Obama Administration on the NSA leaks, mainly of the meta data collection and storage of the people's personal communications.

So it's only fair to thank the President now for his proposal to end this egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, apparently agreeing with Civil Rights Advocates and other citizens who have expressed serious concerns about this invasion of the privacy of all Americans.

While not perfect it is a big step in the right direction

First it is an acknowledgement that this was never necessary in the first place and a positive response to the Snowden leaks which was absolutely necessary if the rights of the people are to be protected. It signifies that the administration has taken those leaks seriously, as they should.

This proposal doesn't address the CIA's role in data collecting however, but if this proposal passes it should make the next steps a little easier:

Obama to Call for End to N.S.A.’s Bulk Data Collection


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is preparing to unveil a legislative proposal for a far-reaching overhaul of the National Security Agency’s once-secret bulk phone records program in a way that — if approved by Congress — would end the aspect that has most alarmed privacy advocates since its existence was leaked last year, according to senior administration officials.


Turning this gigantic, Bush/Cheney disaster around probably won't be easy, which is why I believe people need to show their support for every step taken to begin the process.

Commenting on the proposal privacy advocates are generally pleased to see the beginning of real reforms long overdue:

Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the administration’s proposal a “sensible outcome, given that the 215 program likely exceeded current legal authority and has not proved to be effective.” While he said that he would like to see more overhauls to other surveillance authorities, he said the proposal was “significant” and addressed the major concerns with the N.S.A.’s bulk records program.

Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union said, “We have many questions about the details, but we agree with the administration that the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of call records should end.” He added, “As we’ve argued since the program was disclosed, the government can track suspected terrorists without placing millions of people under permanent surveillance.”


No doubt the findings of the President's Panel that these Constitutional Violations have never stopped one terrorist, had a lot to do with this proposal.

To those who called the Snowden revelations 'old news' and 'irrelevant' it appears the administration doesn't agree.

So a BIG THANK YOU to Edward Snowden also.

As the article points out:

The existence of the N.S.A. program was disclosed and then declassified last year following leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor. The disclosure set off a controversy that scrambled the usual partisan lines in Congress.


The Constitutional Rights of the American people should never be a Partisan issue.



Pete Seeger at Occupy Wall Street in NYC:

I remember that day when Pete Seeger came to support the Occupiers in NY. It was wonderful to see him there, still protesting at age 92! He was an inspiration to everyone.

Remembering Pete Seeger, From Woody Guthrie to Occupy Wall Street




Seeger, Guthrie join Occupy Wall Street rally

NEW YORK -- Folk music legend Pete Seeger and '60s folk singer Arlo Guthrie joined Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in their campaign against corporate greed while residents near the protest park encampment pushed to regain some peace and quiet in their neighborhood.

Seeger joined in the Occupy Wall Street protest Friday night, replacing his banjo with two canes as he marched with throngs of people in New York City's tony Upper West Side past banks and shiny department stores.

The 92-year-old Seeger, accompanied by musician-grandson Tao Rodriguez Seeger, composer David Amram and bluesman Guy Davis, shouted out the verses of protest anthems as the crowd of about 1,000 people sang and chanted.

They marched peacefully over more than 30 blocks from Symphony Space, where the Seegers and other musicians performed, to Columbus Circle. Police watched from the sidelines.


A few more photos











All the best people showed up at Occupy Wall Street!

RIP to a great American hero!

Raise Social Security Benefits. Stimulate the Economy!

Social Security is still one of the most popular and successful fiscal programs among Americans across political lines.

A recent poll shows that:

Americans Will Pay to Shore Up Social Security: Poll

Most Americans think it's important to preserve adequate Social Security benefits for younger generations — and they may even be willing to pay more taxes to get that assurance, a new survey finds.

The survey, released Thursday by the nonprofit National Academy of Social Insurance, found that about eight in 10 Americans think it is critical to support Social Security even if it means that working Americans have to pay more in taxes. A slightly higher percentage of the 2,000 people surveyed said they think it's critical to save Social Security even if wealthy people have to pay more.


Social Security had nothing to do with the Deficit, it didn't create or contribute to it. Yet we still hear the words 'SS and the Deficit' linked together each time politicians talk about the DEFICIT. The effort to create the impression that SS had something to do with the Deficit is obvious. And false.

The CPI is a cut in benefits to SS and is being used to sell the lie that SS had something to do with the Deficit.

None of this makes sense because SS has its OWN fund paid for by the people for their retirement.

The SS Fund has a two trillion dollar surplus.

People who are dependent on the benefits THEY PAID FOR are spending those benefits, putting their money into the Economy.

Increasing benefits means more money goes into the economy and doesn't have to come from the General Fund.

It also means that Republicans cannot claim that we 'cannot afford a Stimulus Package'. Maybe the Federal Budget can't, but the SS Fund can.

Elizabeth Warren: Don't Cut Social Security Benefits Expand Them



“Over the past generation, working families have been hacked at, chipped, and hammered. If we want a real middle class — a middle class that continues to serve as the backbone of our country — then we must take the retirement crisis seriously. Seniors have worked their entire lives and have paid into the system, but right now, more people than ever are on the edge of financial disaster once they retire — and the numbers continue to get worse.

“That is why we should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits — not cutting them. Senator Harkin from Iowa, Senator Begich from Alaska, Senator Sanders from Vermont, and others have been pushing hard in that direction. Social Security is incredibly effective, it is incredibly popular, and the calls for strengthening it are growing louder every day.”

As Noam Scheiber detailed in his big cover story on why Warren is a threat to Hillary Clinton in 2016, many of the issues that Warren has been championing for years now — Wall Street accountability and oversight of the big banks; stagnating middle class wages; the need for financial reforms designed to address the ways the economy is rigged in favor of the financial sector and against working Americans — are emerging as central to a larger argument over what the Democratic Party should stand for and who it really represents.

By planting a flag on the need to expand Social Security, Warren may have just added this issue to the pantheon of preoccupations that are driving those who want to see the party embrace a more economically populist posture going forward. Liberal bloggers such as Atrios and liberal groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, have been pushing for a Social Security expansion, arguing that Democratic priorities should be centered on the idea that declining pensions and wages (and savings) are undermining retirement security, and that the party should above all stand against undermining the social insurance system.



So why is this not happening?

We KNOW that when there is a surplus in the SS Fund, the Govt can't keep their hands off it. They spend it on Wars and Tax Cuts for the Wealthy who hoard it in offshore accounts depriving the US economy of money it badly needs.

Congress should EXPAND Social Security benefits, not cut them

In 2013, we made "expand Social Security -- don't cut it" a mainstream opinion in American politics.

Polls show that expanding Social Security is even popular by 2 to 1 in Kentucky and 3 to 1 in Texas! In 2014, we'll make this a campaign issue.

Join over 650,000 Americans who are going on offense on Social Security. Sign on the right.

SIGN THE PETITION TO CONGRESS: With corporations cutting worker pensions, Americans rely on Social Security more than ever. Congress should expand Social Security -- not cut it.


There is a good video of Rachel and Warren at the link also.

There is NO reason not to raise SS benefits. There is every reason why they should.

AND once again: Social Security had Zero to do with the Deficit!
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »