HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cal33 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 5,385

Journal Archives

Just saw McConnell on MSNBC smiling and happily answering questions. He said there will be

no government shutdowns, and apparently is going to cooperate.

We'll have to wait and see, of course. But, if that is the policy the Republicans
will be following from now on, this change is too sudden to bring any comfort.

My first guess is that the Republican leadership is aware that if they are going
to be ugly as they have been in the past, they might very well have a lot of
people voting against them in 2016. It's more practical for them to play nice
for two years. This would give them a better chance of winning all three
branches of government in Nov. 2016.

Obama, for the coming two years, should be vetoing all those Republican bills that will be served up

for the benefit of the corporations only, and damaging to the 99% of Americans. Just
remember the 400+ filibusters that the Republican senate had served up during his
first term as president. This would be killing two birds with one stone:
1. Doing what is good for America, and
2. Giving the Republicans a taste of their own medicine.

Do you think Obama would do it?

And you can bet that the Repubs. will be coming up with all kinds of legislation to make
the rich still richer, and which will kill off more of the poor, and eventually also many of
the middle-class. That seems to be the the only agenda they have been serving up so far.

Boy, those rigged Diebold-made machines are doing their work right now, I'd bet!!!

There was a thread on Democratic voters seeing their vote turn Republican right in front of their eyes!
One voter tried it several times, always with the same result. He went to one of the workers there,
who also tried and got the same result. He lead the voter to another machine, which turned out

I personally think that was one Republican-made machines that had gone wrong. It was old. Those
rigged machines working well don't turn a Democratic vote into a Republican one until later - after the
voter has completed his/her voting, so that no Democratic watcher would be the wiser.

If the above situation were reversed, how do you think the Repubs. would have reacted? And these
machines have been in use at least a dozen years! They are just still being used, with no protest
from the Democrats.

Just imagine the degree of cheating that is going on across our nation - right now! Have the
Republicans ever won any election honestly? They know neither shame nor honor!

NBC poll: 29% of Americans view the GOP positively. Yet they can win elections! How come?

Saw on Al Sharpton's TV program just now that according to an NBC poll,
only 29% of the people have a positive view of the GOP. If that figure
is even half-way accurate, it would be impossible for them to win any
political elections without MASSIVE CHEATING nationwide.

I can't see how Democrats can prevent this massive cheating, especially
in the Republican-dominated states.

Judging from an off-hand remark Elizabeth Warren made while speaking with People Magazine, she seems

to be reconsidering her previously firm statements about not running for the presidency. This ought to
give rise to the hopes of some Warren fans. I sure feel good about it. There ought to be others.


I voted early this year, and noticed that Diebold Voting Machines are still being used - after

so many years!! Luckily I live in a Democratic state. It probably won't
create problems. But what about those states controlled by the

If Democrats choose to play the role of enablers, I am sure the Republicans
are glad of the help! It takes two to tango!

Elizabeth Warren Fights against Global Warming, Separates Herself from Hillary Clinton

More than a month ago Elizabeth Warren finally separated herself clearly from Hillary Clinton, regarding the issue of climate change and global warming. Here is the story: TransCanada Corporation wants to build the Keystone XL Pipeline to carry oil from Alberta Canada's tar sands to two refineries owned by Koch Industries near the Texas Gulf Coast, for export to Europe; and Hillary Clinton has helped to make that happen, but Elizabeth Warren has now taken the opposite side. Clinton had worked behind the scenes to ease the way for commercial exploitation of this, the world's highest-carbon-emitting oil, 53% of which oil is owned by America's Koch Brothers. Secretary Clinton's State Department allowed the environmental impact statement on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline to be performed by a petroleum industry contractor that was chosen by the company that was proposing to build and own the pipeline, TransCanada. That contractor had no climatologist, and their resulting report failed even at its basic job of estimating the number of degrees by which the Earth's climate would be additionally heated if this pipeline is built and operated. Their report ignored that question, and instead evaluated the impact that climate change would have on the pipeline, which was estimated to be none. President Obama himself is now trying to force the European Union to relax their anti-global-warming regulations so as to permit them to import the Kochs' dirty oil. His agent in this effort is his new U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, from Wall Street.

But on December 20th, Senator Warren signed onto a letter criticizing the Obama Administration's apparent effort to force the European Union to agree to purchase this oil. Six senators and 16 House members, all Democrats, wrote a letter to Froman on Friday asking him to elaborate on his position on the matter. "If these reports are accurate, the U.S. Trade Representative's
actions could undercut the EU's commendable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sectors," these
22 Democratic lawmakers wrote. This is, essentially, a rebellion by 22 progressive congressional Democrats against the Clinton-Obama effort to provide a market for the Kochs' dirty oil. This letter was actually written by Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

What is at issue in the Keystone XL and Alberta tar sands matter is governmental policies that will determine whether the tar-sands oil will undercut the production-costs of normal oil. If the Kochs win, then the existing governmental policies will change in ways that will eliminate this cost-advantage of normal oil. The benefits to Koch Industries, from this competitive re-alignment in favor of tar-sands oil, have been estimated to be around $100 billion. David and Charles Koch would then become the two wealthiest individuals in the world.

On December 17th, the Republican House budget chief, Paul Ryan, threatened to drive the U.S. Government into default unless President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline. President Obama holds the sole authority to approve or disapprove this project, because it crosses the international border, but he has delayed this decision for years, because he doesn't want to enrage the environmental community. Senator Warren has now joined with the progressives on two big issues that arouse intense opposition to her from the aristocrats who finance most political campaigns: She opposes the taxpayer-handouts to Wall Street, and she now also opposes the entire planet's, basically, environmental handouts, to the owners of the most-harmfully polluting corporations, such as Koch Industries. (The other owners of tar-sands oil are Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, and Chevron-Texaco.) This could be a turning-point in Warren's political career. She's no longer at war against only the financial industry corruption that dominates the conservative (Clinton and Obama) establishment within the Democratic Party (and all of the Republican Party), but she is also at war against their environmental corruption. Clinton's extensive Wall Street network is already busy behind the scenes, to discredit if not smear Elizabeth Warren. If Big Oil will now be donating to Wall Street's pro-Hillary campaign against Warren, then Warren will be lucky even to keep her Senate seat.

My admiration for Elizabeth Warren has gone up another notch. She is willing to dare and risk so much for the sake of giving the
American people a better chance. Character assassination does lasting political harm, and it works best against candidates whose policy-prescriptions are the hardest to attack; and every major politician knows that this is so. Hillary Clinton has a huge following that wants to see her as president. How many would still number themselves among her supporters, if they had known of the above? I, myself, would still prefer her to an out-and-out Republican, like Romney. But it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. I would like it much better to have a decent, left-of-center Democratic candidate, who would be working for all the American people, not just for the corporations.

We are in desperate need for a change, and time is not on our side. Who knows? The coming 3 years may be our last
chance. Plutocracy is already more than half way replacing democracy.


Could "The Anti-Christ" possibly be all those sociopaths in high positions in corporations & gov't?

After all, aren't they (banks, insurance, pharmaceutical, and oil companies, plus the
politicians bribed by them) the ones who are bleeding our nation dry and have
caused most of the wars against small foreign countries rich in natural resources?
Aren't they the ones who are leading our nation to hell, but are trying to blame
the Democrats for it at the same time?

Here we go again, another fundamentalist pastor is claiming that Obama is
paving the way for the Anti-Christ:


Why Does Sociopathic Scum Rise To The Top?

This is one of the great articles that causes one to think and raise questions. It is rather long, and
many of the comments that follow it are equally thought-provoking.

I came upon this article while surfing the Internet. Topics covered are: Corporations, government,
society and morality. Even though the topic was written in May, 2013, it has as much relevance
today as it did then.

About Pres. Obama: If he has gone as far to the right as the author alleges, the question that
arises in my mind is, then why are the Right-Wing Congress and news media trying so hard to
destroy him? Could it all be an act? A ploy on the part of the Right-Wing leadership to make
Obama appear less Right-Wing, and, hence, more acceptable to the Left?


I'd prefer to see Elizabeth Warren as our next president. But if Hillary Clinton

should win in the primaries, I'd of course vote for her. I'd also be hoping that
with Hillary as president, it will not be simply a matter of "more of the same."
Our nation can't take this "more of the same" much longer. We need someone
who is clearly "left of center."

"Right of center" Democratic presidents only help to keep the Right-Wingers
in power longer, and thus prolong the degeneration of our country and the
suffering of the American people.

That's the way the present situation appears to me -- looking at the whole
broad picture. How do other Democrats see it?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »