HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 98 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PM
Number of posts: 4,777

About Me

Quotes I like: "Prediction is very difficult, especially concerning the future." "There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.” __ Niels Bohr Given his contribution to the establishment of quantum mechanics, I guess it's not surprising he had such a quirky of sense of humor. ......................."Deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of another's position is a basic technique of (dis)information processing" __ I said that

Journal Archives

6 Political Scientists: would Sanders have a shot in the GE? Or: how bad could it get? - VOX.com


How much, exactly, would Democrats be hurt by nominating Sanders?

{Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Denver said he thought Sanders would 'cost' the Democrats 2 to 3 percentage points in a General Election versus a more conventional candidate_B_USA}

"I'd say it'd have to be considerably higher than 2 to 3 points. I'm thinking the loss would be in the vicinity of 6 to 10 points," Miroff said.

Republicans would find it easy to tie Sanders to the "socialist" label, Miroff said, adding that only 25 percent of the public trusts the government to carry out policies effectively.

"(Sanders) really has made radical, socialistic statements in the past about the redistribution of wealth and the expropriation of the oil industry," Miroff said. "The full force of a Republican attack would find Sanders to be a convenient target."


Why those head-to-head general election polls are "absolutely worthless"


Sanders himself has recently embraced this argument, telling ABC News that he was the most electable candidate in part because of a poll showing him beating Donald Trump in a general election.

But it's regarded as blindingly obvious among political scientists that these findings are essentially illusory, and that general election polls this far out are about as predictive now as a weather forecast for Election Day.

"The impressions people have of the eventual nominees months from now will be so different from today," said McKee, the Texas Tech professor. "That's a nice thing to point to, but what does a head-to-head poll mean in early February? ... It's worthless. It's absolutely worthless."

What a GOP campaign against Bernie Sanders might look like: "When did you stop being a Communist?"

Give a little thought to what a GOP campaign against Bernie Sanders might look like - David Roberts, VOX.com

Most attacks on Sanders so far are relatively mild


When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?


But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.


In a sense, this seems so obvious to me that it feels peculiar to argue for it. But Sanders supporters do not give the impression that they are cognizant of Sander's vulnerabilities.


Partly this is because the GOP has been very careful so far not to go after Sanders. They show every indication of preferring him as an opponent, so they have no reason to hurt his chances in the primary.

But if he wins, they will rain down fire.

And the organs of the right will feel absolutely no obligation to be fair. They're not going to be saying, like Sanders's Democratic critics, "Aw, Bernie, you dreamer."


They're going to ask when he stopped being a communist, and when he objects that he was never a communist they're going to ask why he's so defensive about his communist past, why he's so eager to avoid the questions that have been raised, the questions that people are talking about.


Sanders fans say "it's not 1954"... It's hard for me to imagine that anybody would be so out-of-touch with the political realities in the past couple of decades to not know that the current, post Gingrich, Republican party is much more doctrinaire and extreme than the Republican party of the '50s was. In the decades of the 1950s and 1960s there actually were people in the Republican party who were called 'Moderates'. These were people who, in order to get things done, were capable of reaching compromises with Democrats to get laws passed. In the '90s through to today, the Extreme Right-wingers in the GOP have purged just about anybody in the GOP who showed the slightest willingness to compromise with any Democrat.

Rise of the New McCarthyism - People for the American Way

McCarthy tactics then and now

From 1953 to 1955, McCarthy held 117 hearings and even more closed-door interrogations, witch hunts for subversives that thrived on guilt by association: someone had worked for a union, dates a communist, been in a book club that read a book by Marx. Author Johnson writes that reviewing the transcripts of those sessions made it clear that McCarthy, in addition to guilt by association and character assassination, was engaged in an “obsessive hunt for homosexuals,” hounded writers, artists, and composers, attacked the reputations of military leaders.

Today’s McCarthyism has many faces and voices, including the household names of right-wing cable television, a plethora of radio hosts, Religious Right leaders, right-wing organizations and the bogus “grassroots” campaigns they generate – and Members of Congress and other Republican Party officials. Together they engage in character assassination and challenge the loyalty and patriotism of their targets.


Communism, Socialism, “Obamunism”

McCarthy frightened many Americans with charges that the government was infested with communist sympathizers. His current-day acolytes have made charges long considered beyond the pale of political discourse – comparisons of President Obama and other administration officials with tyrannical figures like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Chairman Mao – so frequently that they are losing their shock value. Former and likely future presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is among many who have called Obama a socialist, and said of the Obama budget, “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.”

The same is true of charges that the Obama administration and congressional democratic leaders are communists, socialists, and/or fascists bent on destroying capitalism and the market economy and imposing a socialist dictatorship in America. Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia has compared Obama to Hitler, called Obama and Democratic congressional leaders a “socialistic elite” and warned that they’re planning to create a pretext to declaring martial law. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) warned of 17 socialists in Congress. Rep. Michele Bachmann has called the health care reform bill “the crown jewel of socialism.” The Traditional Values Coalition has warned that “Obamunism must be stopped.”

Van Jones, founder of Color of Change and a leading advocate of using “green” technologies to bring jobs to de-industrialized American cities, resigned from his position as a White House advisor after a fierce campaign against him by right-wing pundits who denounced him as a communist.Jones’ resignation was like blood in the water to Glenn Beck and others who have launched a series of smear campaigns against Obama administration officials and nominees.

Republicans are trying to help Bernie Sanders win, and it's not because they like his message - KOS

Republicans are trying to help Bernie Sanders win, and it's not because they like his message

But Republicans are doing much more than just sending out debate-night emails that happen to be friendly to Sanders’ cause. American Crossroads, the GOP dark money group founded by Karl Rove, is running ads in Iowa depicting Clinton as a tool of Wall Street.

Narrator: “Ever wonder how Hillary Clinton can afford so many ads? Chances are, they were paid for with Wall Street cash. Hillary Clinton’s gotten 54 times more money from Wall Street interests than from all of Iowa. Hillary rewarded Wall Street with the $700 billion bailout—then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire.”

Clinton: “I represented Wall Street.”

Narrator: “Heh. You sure did, Hillary. Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”

Karl Rove didn’t suddenly become a rabid critic of Wall Street’s influence, just like the RNC didn’t just turn into overnight Bernie fans. The truth of the matter is a lot simpler: They’d prefer to see Sanders win the Democratic nomination because they think he’d be easier to beat in November.

If you don’t like the implications of that conclusion, there are a couple of ways you might respond. You could point to general election polls showing Sanders with bigger leads on potential GOP opponents than Clinton, but there are flaws with that approach. As Markos Moulitsas put it, “ou can’t compare a candidate who has been through the media wringer for decades and has universal name ID” like Clinton, to someone like Sanders who is only now reaching the national stage and about whom almost a fifth of voters still have no opinion. Put another way: If Sanders were to experience the same white-hot glare of hostile GOP attention that Clinton has for her entire public life, that polling gap would disappear, or perhaps even shift in Clinton’s favor.

The conclusion is obvious: if you want to see Trump (of Kruz) in the White House, vote for Bernie Sanders to be the DEmocratic Party's nominee for President.

Don’t be fooled by Sanders: he’s a diehard communist - preview of GOP propaganda if Bernie get's the

... nomination.

You weren't expecting the GOP to play fair, were you? They will pull out all the stops in their propaganda assault on Sir Good-at-Heart Bernie Sanders....

And this demonization works. Look no further than the Bernie fans total belief of the GOP's demonization of Hillary Clinton. They've got Bernie fans thinking Hillary Clinton is the consort of the devil (look at how many ridiculous things Bernie fans assert about Hillary! -- Hell, without repeating GOP Big Lies about Clinton, how much of a campaign would they have? - just take a look at GD - Primaries!).

ONce the GOP get started they'll have people believing Bernie's gonna build a Kremlin on the Potomac and confiscate everybody's pick-up trucks!

Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist

In the early ’70s, Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of all US banks and the public takeover of all private utility companies.

After failed runs for Congress, Sanders in 1981 managed to get elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., where he restricted property rights for landlords, set price controls and raised property taxes to pay for communal land trusts. Local small businesses distributed fliers complaining their new mayor “does not believe in free enterprise.”

His radical activities didn’t stop at the ­water’s edge.

Sanders took several “goodwill” trips not only to the USSR, but also to Cuba and Nicaragua, where the Soviets were trying to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

In 1985, he traveled to Managua to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. He called it a “heroic revolution.” Undermining anti-communist US policy, Sanders denounced the Reagan administration’s backing of the Contra rebels in a letter to the Sandinistas.

His betrayal did not end there. Sanders lobbied the White House to stop the proxy war and even tried to broker a peace deal. He adopted Managua as a sister city and invited Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega to visit the US. He exalted Ortega as “an impressive guy,” while attacking President Reagan.

Why do you think GOP pols are campaigning for Bernie now? Because the last person they want to face is Hillary Clinton. And because if Bernie is the nominee they'll burn him alive with disinformation. Don't believe it? Just look at how much disinformation Bernie's fans believe and repeat about Hillary Clinton over on GD - Primaries. IT's almost everything they say!

Republican Operatives Try to Help Bernie Sanders: "We'll win every state if Bernie's their nominee"

Republican operatives are having a strange crush on Bernie Sanders.

During Sunday night’s Democratic debate, the Republican National Committee made the unusual move of sending no fewer than four real-time e-mails to reporters defending the self-described democratic socialist from attacks by Hillary Clinton or echoing his message against her. Based on their content, one could be forgiven for thinking the RNC communiques came from the Sanders campaign.

One RNC e-mail, which was titled “Clinton’s Misleading Health Care Attack,” defended the Vermont senator from what it described as “the Clinton campaign’s inaccurate remarks on Sanders’ single-payer plan,” and quoted news articles that featured rebuttals of her arguments. A second message countered Clinton’s attacks on Sanders over gun control by pointing out her gun-friendly statements in the past. Two other e-mails sought to bolster Sanders’ case that Clinton is too close to Wall Street and the drug industry.


Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanders’s case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore can't be trusted to crack down on big banks. “Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire,” a narrator in the ad says. “Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”

Sanders’s dull policy thinking is once again obvious

Sanders’s dull policy thinking is once again obvious

Even when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is making a good point, his dull sense of the reality of governing — which involves policy details, practical constraints and trade-offs — is obvious.

The insurgent presidential candidate pressed Hillary Clinton on global warming at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate. He had some decent things to say about the issue. Lowering carbon dioxide emissions should be a national priority.

But Sanders does not appear to understand why that is. In addition to calling for a carbon tax, he railed against fracked natural gas and stood by his call to eliminate nuclear power. When a moderator pressed him to explain how he would eschew these energy sources and meet the nation’s energy demands without burning more dirty coal, he said that the transition would not happen overnight and that he would invest in things such as rooftop solar.

Sanders ignores or misunderstands the underlying logic of a carbon tax, his own policy. A key benefit of a carbon tax would be that it induces the economy to reshape itself. Fuels that emit carbon dioxide become more expensive. Cleaner energy sources get cheaper. Consumers and businesses respond to these price signals in the goods and services they buy, in the energy infrastructure they build, in the amount of electricity they use, in the number of miles they drive, in the types of appliances and cars they purchase, and their behavior shapes how the country decarbonizes. By enlisting the ruthless efficiency of markets in the battle against climate change, the costs of transitioning onto clean energy are minimized.

But this process might lead to results that Sanders would not like. Perhaps the most cost-effective way to transition onto clean energy is to use fracked natural gas for a while and keep nuclear plants running for decades longer. Perhaps not. A carbon tax allows politicians to set an emissions-reducing policy and get out of the way. But Sanders does not want to get out of the way. It is not enough simply to reduce greenhouse emissions. The country must transition the way he wants it to. No nuclear power. No fracked natural gas.

Hillary Clinton Praises Ruling Allowing Sandy Hook Families To Sue Gunmaker; Sanders remains mute

Hillary Clinton Praises Ruling Allowing Sandy Hook Families To Sue Gunmaker

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is praising a decision by a Connecticut judge to allow the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre to sue the gun manufacturer.

After Judge Barbara Bellis denied a motion from the gun manufacturers to dismiss a case brought by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre victims, Hillary Clinton said, “Today’s ruling in Connecticut is an important step forward for these families, who are bravely fighting to hold irresponsible gun makers accountable for their actions. They deserve their day in court. Period. Unfortunately, PLCAA – the sweeping immunity law that protects gun manufacturers and dealers – still remains a major obstacle for these families and others seeking to hold these gun companies accountable. That is why, as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law. Nothing can make these families whole again after losing their children and loved ones in Sandy Hook, but they deserve a president who will fight for them, and I am committed to doing just that.”

The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders has yet to release a statement on the decision, but in the past Sanders has said that he is not in favor of the gun manufacturers being sued for selling a legal product.

Gun policy has been a major point of difference between the two Democratic presidential campaigns. It is a near certainty that this topic will be brought up at the CNN Democratic debate.

The NRA Spent Thousands to Get Bernie Elected — Then He Voted With Them (it's called Quid pro Quo)

CALCULUS: The NRA Spent Thousands to Get Bernie Elected — Then He Voted With Them

Bernie’s response is disingenuous: “In 1988, before I was elected to Congress I was in a race, three-way race, the gun lobby was against me that race because I said in 1988 that we should not have assault weapons sold or distributed in this country… I lost that race because I said in 1988, let’s ban assault weapons in this country. So to keep attacking me, I think, is unfair.”

Disingenuous, because when Bernie ran again two years later, he’d learned his lesson. According to the Washington Post:

As a candidate in 1990, Sanders won over gun rights groups by promising to oppose one bill they hated — a measure that would establish a waiting period for handgun sales. In Congress, he kept that promise. The dynamic served as an early demonstration that, despite his pure-leftist persona, Sanders was at his core a pragmatic politician, calculating that he couldn’t win in rural Vermont without doing something for gun owners.

Bernie modulated his position, and the NRA decided to go after his Republican opponent Peter Smith, pouring money into ads opposing Smith, which they knew would benefit Bernie. NRA honcho Wayne LaPierre endorsed Bernie, writing to members: “Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter Smith.” It worked.

Bernie won. And he kept his word.

According to Correct the Record:

May 1991: Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. (H R 7, Vote # 83, 5/8/91)

November 1991: Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. (H R 3371, Vote #443, 11/26/91)

November 1993: Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. (H R 1025, Vote #564, 11/10/93)

November 1993: Bernie Sanders voted against the final version of the Brady Bill. (H R 1025, Vote #614, 11/22/93)

Bernie Sanders voted for the Gekas Amendment to the Brady Bill. (H R 1025, Vote #559, 11/10/93; CQ Floor Votes, 11/10/93)

This three-day default proceed, also known as the Charleston loophole, allowed Dylan Roof to obtain a gun.

Bernie Sanders opposed a seven-day waiting period for firearms purchases so gun owners wouldn’t “get caught up in a bureaucracy.” (Rutland Herald, 3/30/91)

Sanders voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms (PLCAA) in Arms Act which, “shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally.” (Slate, 5/6/15, House Roll Call 534, 10/20/05)

And just today, on ABC News:

Link to video: https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/719175432654839808


Sanders Over the Edge (when Hill said he apparently didn't do his homework) - Krugman

Sanders Over the Edge

It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make. But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings.

And then there was Wednesday’s rant about how Mrs. Clinton is not “qualified” to be president.

What probably set that off was a recent interview of Mr. Sanders by The Daily News, in which he repeatedly seemed unable to respond when pressed to go beyond his usual slogans. Mrs. Clinton, asked about that interview, was careful in her choice of words, suggesting that “he hadn’t done his homework.”

But Mr. Sanders wasn’t careful at all, declaring that what he considers Mrs. Clinton’s past sins, including her support for trade agreements and her vote to authorize the Iraq war — for which she has apologized — make her totally unfit for office.

This is really bad, on two levels. Holding people accountable for their past is O.K., but imposing a standard of purity, in which any compromise or misstep makes you the moral equivalent of the bad guys, isn’t. Abraham Lincoln didn’t meet that standard; neither did F.D.R. Nor, for that matter, has Bernie Sanders (think guns).

.... Needless to say, Krugman has established himself as a confederate of the devil, with this horrrrrible, sacreligious column. But I still think he's worth saving.

I wonder if any of the betting sites will start taking bets on when/if bernie releases all tax docs?

...... not before NY primary...

......Not before Pennsylvania primary..

......Not before California primary....

......Not before.....


Bernie Sanders’s false claim that he has released his full federal tax returns - 4 Pinnochios WaPo


Presidential candidates have consistently released their tax returns since the 1970s. The Tax History Project, a public service initiative from Tax Analysts, has compiled tax returns for presidents, vice presidents and candidates vying for their seats in recent decades. The public can even access President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s hand-written tax returns dating to 1913.

In the 2016 election, two candidates have been notably transparent compared to others: Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. This appears to be the one area where Clinton may be immune to transparency criticism.


Plainly put, Sanders has not released his full federal tax return. The little he has released was the Form 1040 in 2014, which is a summary of his tax filing that gives a snapshot of his finances — not what is considered a full tax return. The Sanders campaign confirmed to The Washington Post that it has not released other tax returns prior to 2014, which is a sharp contrast to Clinton’s voluminous release of her complete tax returns.

Tapper correctly questioned Sanders, asking why “nobody has seen them at all.” Yet Sanders interrupted Tapper to reject the notion, insisting: “That is not true. Of course, we have released them in the past.” But this answer is nothing remotely close to the little federal tax records he has released to the public.


Sanders is not required to release his tax filings, and he clearly decided to keep them confidential. That’s his choice. But it doesn’t excuse him from misleading the public to believe otherwise with this false claim.

Four Pinocchios

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 98 Next »