HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Segami » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 291 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AM
Number of posts: 10,648

Journal Archives

Bernie Sanders Is The ONLY Candidate Who Will Take On Big Banks

Over the past few months - Hillary Clinton has slowly but surely moved closer to Bernie Sanders on a couple of key issues. For example, she now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and she supports a higher minimum wage.

But if there's one area where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are still far apart it's Glass-Steagall, the obscure banking rule whose repeal played a big role in 2008 financial crisis.

America’s Lawyer, Mike Papantonio, fills in for Thom Hartmann on RT’s The Big Picture to discuss this with Richard Eskow, Writer and Editor for the Bernie Sanders Campaign and Host of The Zero Hour.

African Americans FOR Bernie Sanders

African Americans for Bernie Sanders


African Americans FOR Bernie Sanders

African Americans for Bernie Sanders


The Revolution HASN'T Been Publicized

"...Since the Paris attacks, Hillary Clinton has been pluming her war hawk feathers, lying about progressive core-causes like single-payer health-care and alienating herself further from the Progressive wing. Atlanta rapper Killer Mike essentially called Secretary Clinton another Margaret Thatcher in the making. The Secretary was the only Democratic candidate not to attend the BET Social Justice Forum. Secretary Clinton and her team are playing a risky hand that shows they think she has this primary election in the bag, including the black vote and the super delegates. Just like she did in 2008, she’s ignoring the most powerful factor still left in party politics: the will of the people for change..."


I turned 18 in time to join the Democratic Party as Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe moved the party just right of center. As Republicans were moving even further to the right, abandoning our once shared values of strong labor, strong middle-class and strong infrastructure, it seemed acceptable. Democrats would still fight for reproductive rights, but they would allow the new influx of revenue McAuliffe arranged from Wall Street, arms manufacturers, and big media dictate support of deregulation, military amplification, prisons for profits and monopoly building. Protecting the social safety net, an issue Democrats and Republicans agreed on prior to Reagan, was now an area to be negotiated by both parties. We had just wrapped up the 1980s; we were all a little high on commercialism. There is a reason many progressives call Bill Clinton “the best Republican President we’ve ever had.” Clinton pushed through the very agenda Republicans had looked for just a decade prior. He did away with Glass-Steagall. He gave them the crime bill. He opened the doors for domestic spying and monopoly building. He gave in on welfare reform. And the money poured in. Long story short, quite a few establishment Democrats have become quite fond of that cash flow. They don’t want it to change. In fact, there’s a subset of Democrats called Third Wave who want the party to move even further to the right on these issues. As I type this, establishment Democrats in Congress are trying to gut campaign contribution laws even further as more Wall Street funds come their way. Meanwhile, a great deal of rank-and-file Democrats have grown weary of watching their party shirk on issues like the social safety net and privacy rights. Waking up to the realities of the Clinton administration, disenfranchised by how many Democrats rolled over for George W. Bush on the Patriot Act and his wars in the Middle East, heartbroken about how Obamacare is really Dole/Romney Care instead of single-payer, and genuinely pissed off by the economic meltdown made possible by a Clinton pro-Wall Street decision, many Progressives are not happy with their party. The wonkiest of policy Progressives were recently energized by seeing grassroots movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter take place. The people hadn’t truly given up yet. There’s still a chance to fix the power structure. Polling data on the issues favors a populist push for Warren and Sanders backed policies. The American people favor the Progressive agenda. This is their chance.

The Democratic National Committee has responded poorly to this call for revolution. At the head of the mess, former Hillary Clinton campaign co-chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is now the DNC Chairwoman. Millions of phone calls have poured into the DNC, demanding her removal and demanding more primary debates. The demands have gone ignored, without comment to their base. Even Republicans scratched their heads as the DNC limited the number of debates and scheduled them off prime time. It’s no wonder that there are circulating conspiracy theories that the DNC is rigging the election as best they can for Hillary Clinton. The DNC has done nothing but fan those flames and buckled down further in support of just one of their candidates. When the DNC boxed Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig out of the discussion, essentially pushing him out of the race, it became clear that campaign finance reform was a policy embraced by the Democratic base, but not at all by the Democratic Party itself. As Bernie Sanders called for a political revolution, one was formed for him. Former Occupy members were staging a support system for either a Warren or Sanders run. Though his campaign only has a few offices throughout the US, in early primary states, regular people started building a nationwide infrastructure for Bernie Sanders 2016. I’ve been involved in party politics and covering politics my entire adult life. I’ve never seen anything like this. Everything an official campaign staff usually delegates to volunteers, like canvasing and phone banks, has been organized solely by regular people. They teach each other how to campaign, how to primary or caucus, and how to lobby their neighbors. There are groups that identify other corporate Democrats with seats coming up in other offices, such as House and Senate races, as well as identify the Progressives who will run against them. This could be a complete overhaul of the party if Progressives get their way.


Clinton loyalists will argue that the most divisive figure in modern American politics will somehow push a Progressive agenda she’s never really pushed for before better than any liberal can. She won’t. They buy fully into the branding wars of Coke versus Pepsi or Democrats versus Republicans. They justify themselves falsely as Progressives themselves, because they buy so heartily into the mantra that Republicans are evil, and that Hillary Clinton is the greatest enemy Republicans have ever known. Even though the Clinton and Bush families are close friends now. As close as their policies. Still, unlike the opposite scenario, when polled, a great deal of Hillary supporters say they would support Bernie Sanders if he wins the nomination. Progressive values do beat out branding on some level. With Bernie doing better in polls, fundraising, and crowd turnout than Obama did at this stage against Hillary, the progressive revolution has a real chance.



Bernie Sanders And Martin O’Malley Should BREAK DNC Exclusion Rule, Do Unsanctioned Debates

As a proud Wellstone Democrat, I have been pushed to my limit this election cycle with how top-down the Democratic Party nomination process has been. The deck has been stacked in one of the most un-democratic tilting of the playing fields that I can remember and it is a potential disaster for our entire party. While there are many ways in which the establishment is fixing this contest, today I will only be discussing the rigged debate process. 8 years ago, debates started in April and there were over two dozen of them. This cycle, only 6 were scheduled, and they started so late into the season that it allowed the insider with the strongest name recognition and political machine to consolidate their early lead by depriving Democrats (and prospective Dems) the opportunity to get adequate exposure to each of the candidates. It’s the same reason a certain someone skipped Netroots Nation, the BET Presidential forum on Racial Justice, and the Moveon.Org online forum on Tuesday.

To add insult to injury, the few debates that were scheduled before the first contest (Iowa Caucus) were hid on the lowest visibility broadcast times possible, like on Saturday nights, the busiest xmas shopping day, and piggy backing the NFC Division NFL game. When other DNC members complained about this rigged process that cheats real democracy, they suffered retribution. Although I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter (disclosure), Martin O’Malley actually summarized it best when he blasted the crony DNC Chair for this crooked scheme. MUST WATCH, and scroll ahead to the 4:22 mark of the video to cut to the chase.

For those that are unaware, the entire debate process falls under the executive power of the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She used to co-Chair Hillary Clinton’s Campaign in 2007-2008. DWS imposed the shadiest, most crooked debate schedule possibly in the history of the Democratic Party that was clearly designed to protect the early lead of Clinton. To add insult to injury, there was an unprecedented “Exclusivity Clause” imposed on all the Democratic Candidates whereby if they engaged in any debate not sanctioned by the DNC (precisely DNC Chair DWS), they would be excluded from all future debates. This was mostly targeted at Bernie Sanders who had expressed a wish to bring ALL the candidates from many parties together on the same stage to have a real discussion about the future of our nation.

Since Bernie and Martin are the only 2 left outside of Clinton, they should BOTH buck the exclusivity clause and start scheduling debates now. Possibly even schedule some with a few Republicans and the Green Party’s Jill Stein. The worst that could happen is they would not be allowed to participate in the remaining few DNC debates. Would a “debate” still go forward if only one candidate was invited? Even if it did, would anyone bother to watch it? Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, unite on this. Call Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s bluff. Give America the debates it wants, not those that establishment cronies dictate we should have.


Bernie Sanders’ Immigration Plan Gets PRAISE By Latino, Immigrant-Rights Groups

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ extensive immigration proposals have been met with positive reaction from Latino and immigrant-rights groups. As Latin Post reported, Sanders reiterated his support for congressional comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, the end to private family detention centers, offer humane treatment and asylum to domestic violence victims and minors and ease militaristic border enforcement with technology.

Taking on a similar stance as fellow Democratic presidential challengers Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley, Sanders finally confirmed he will issue additional immigration execution office -- if elected president. Sanders, however, was specific about the possible executive action, which would grant deferred action to nine million eligible undocumented immigrants. Sanders said his executive action will take place only if the congressional gridlock on immigration continues.
"We welcome Sen. Sanders commitment to solving the immigration crisis in our country that continues to tear families apart and keeps millions of hard working immigrants in the shadows," said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota (MFV), a nonprofit civic engagement organization. "His immigration plan is detailed and substantive and, most importantly, it focuses in protecting family unity and on giving a path to citizenship to millions of immigrants."

Monterroso highlighted Sanders' plan to have the federal government handle immigration enforcement instead of local law enforcement agencies. But MFV's praise of Sanders' plan is not necessarily an endorsement of the presidential candidate. The executive director also praised fellow Democrats Clinton and O'Malley, saying they "understand the value and importance of the Latino vote and are willing to engage in substantive conversations with out community." MFV will continue reviewing all candidates' policy proposals that affects Latinos. Monterroso also criticized Republicans, stating, "The Republican candidates, meanwhile, want to deport us and slam the door to new immigrants and those seeking asylum in our nation. Judging by words alone, we know who is on our side and deserves our consideration and who does not at election time." The National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) welcomed Sanders' plan from both an administrative and legislative perspective. NDLON Executive Director Pablo Alvarado applauded that Sanders prefers to tackle immigration through congressional legislation.

"His promise to maximize use of executive branch authority immediately will help advance political equality for immigrants," Alvarado said in a statement. "Administrative reform should not be conditioned on Congressional inaction or a wait-and-see approach with the courts. Legislative reform has been held hostage for over a decade by xenophobes in Congress. Providing status for all who would have qualified for the 2013 bill is the least that we expect from the next president."

Alvarado also commended the reform plan from an economic view, taking on the interest of immigrant and U.S.-born workers. The NDLON executive director also recognized Sanders' plan to grant visas to immigrant whistleblowers who report labor violations.



Clinton’s TIES To Military-Industrial Complex Are As Serious A Concern As Her Ties To Wall Street

There’s been considerable concern, for good reason, about Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street ties, but I don’t think this is the biggest problem to be concerned about should she be elected. I am even more worried about her neoconservative foreign policy views, and being a lackey for the military-industrial complex. Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, described the problem, starting with discussion of John F. Kennedy. Perhaps Ted Kennedy even thought of the vast differences between Clinton and his brother when endorsing Obama over Clinton in 2008. Sachs wrote that, in her speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton “doubled down on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State.”


Clinton’s speech shows that she and her advisors are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. Her speech included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing and who should be the foot soldiers. Yet all of this tactical precision is nothing more than business as usual. Would Clinton ever have the courage and vision to push back against the U.S. security establishment, as did JFK, and thereby restore global diplomacy and reverse the upward spiral of war and terror?

Just as the CIA contributed to the downward slide to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and just as many of JFK’s security chiefs urged war rather than negotiation during that crisis, so too today’s Middle East terrorism, wars, and refugee crises have been stoked by misguided CIA-led interventions. Starting in 1979, the CIA began to build the modern Sunni jihadist movement, then known as the Mujahedeen, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The CIA recruited young Sunni Muslim men to fight the Soviet infidel, and the CIA provided training, arms, and financing. Yet soon enough, this US-created jihadist army turned on the US, a classic and typical case of blowback.



An election between Clinton and any of the likely Republican candidates would offer no real choice. Clinton’s plan to handle ISIS is unlikely to work. We can only hope that Clinton can be defeated for the Democratic nomination. Sachs ended by contrasting Clinton’s views with those of Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders:

"...O’Malley and Sanders wisely and correctly support an America that works with other countries and with the UN Security Council to build peace in the Middle East rather than an America that continues to indulge in endless and failed CIA adventures of regime change and war. While Clinton arrogantly demands that other countries such as Russia and Iran fall squarely behind the U.S., O’Malley and Sanders recognize that it is through compromise in the UN Security Council that we can defeat ISIS and find lasting solutions in the Middle East.

Whether Clinton could ever break free of the military-industrial complex remains to be seen. If she does become president, our very survival will depend on her capacity to learn..."

O’Malley and Sanders did criticize Clinton’s foreign policy views in the second Democratic debate, but it is clear that Bernie’s heart is in attaching her Wall Street ties. I wish he would pay as much attention to her ties to the military-industrial complex and her overly hawkish foreign policy views. It could be hard running against those who pander to fear, but it is important to do if we are to avoid perpetual warfare under either Clinton or a Republican president. As the most popular Senator in America, Sanders might be able to pull this off. Iowa has long been a strong state for anti-war movements, and the Democratic primary voters should respond to this issue.



Bernie Sanders STATEMENT On Laquan McDonald

BURLINGTON, Vt. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday released the following statement in reaction to the release of police footage of Laquan McDonald’s shooting:

“All Americans should be sickened by the video of Laquan McDonald’s murder. As a nation we must do more than just echo the phrase Black Lives Matter. We must put actions behind those words. Actions that will bring about the fundamental reform that is needed in the face of this crisis. Criminal justice reform must be the civil rights issue of the 21st century and the first piece must be putting an end to the killing of African Americans by police officers.”



Killer Mike INTERVIEWED About His Support For Bernie Sanders

This is a must share video with all......

Killer Mike shares his views as to why he supports Bernie Sanders


Is Hillary Clinton A POPULIST? Wall Street Weighs In

Is Hillary Clinton an economic populist?

According to Wall Street Bankers the answer is clear: They ain’t buying her newfound populism.

"...William D. Cohan, author of Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World, interviewed dozens of Wall Street’s leaders on their reaction to Clinton’s newfound populism:

Down on Wall Street they don’t believe it for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. ... What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.

More recently, Camden Fine, head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, similarly discounted Clinton’s populist rhetoric: “She gonna all of a sudden become Mrs. Wall Street if she’s elected. So it’s all Bernie theatrics right now. She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake. What do you expect?..”


Wall Street ain’t buying Clinton’s new found populism. I hope we don’t buy it either.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 291 Next »