HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ... 137 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 04:25 PM
Number of posts: 6,138

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

Looking for Fascism? ..look here: Sanders supporters harassing convention delegates

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-democrats-accuse-sanders-supporters-of-harassing-convention-delegates/2016/04/12/0dd97d60-fff4-11e5-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html


Sen. Bernie Sanders and his boosters are intensifying their courtship of convention delegates who could determine the winner of the Democratic presidential nomination, prompting some party leaders and supporters of front-runner Hillary Clinton to claim harassment.

The Sanders campaign says it has no connection to the efforts of outside supporters to lean on superdelegates, the party leaders and elected officials who can cast nomination votes for any candidate and who are seen as increasingly pivotal in the Democrats’ unexpectedly drawn-out nominating contest.

Among those efforts is a website created last week under the name Superdelegate Hit List, providing phone numbers and addresses for superdelegates and encouraging users to submit further contact information, presumably to help advocates pressure them. Site creator Spencer Thayer, a Chicago activist, described the goal this way in a Twitter message: “So who wants to help start . . . a new website aimed at harassing Democratic Superdelegates?”

Longtime Democratic National Committee member and superdelegate Bob Mulholland wrote a letter to Sanders last week excoriating the candidate for not calling out his supporters for their “bullying” of superdelegates.
(more)




California Superdelegate Writes Open Letter to Bernie Sanders: 'Stop the Harassing Phone Calls'


Dear Senator Bernie Sanders,

I have heard many complaints from other unbound Delegates to our National Convention in Philadelphia (my hometown), about getting harassing emails, Facebook postings and phone calls, even to one woman at 10:30 at night, from some of your supporters demanding that we support you. We would expect this type of bullying tactics from Trump supporters. Roger Stone threatened on April 5th- he will send angry Trump supporters to the hotel rooms (Cleveland) of any delegates who betrays Donald. Do you have a similar Plan?

I have seen you on TV stating (demanding to many of your supporters) that Superdelegates should vote for the candidate that won their state. Really? Where is that in the National Delegate Plan that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean must vote for you? Congressman Raul Grijalva, a supporter of yours, who represents the 3rd district in Arizona, a state that voted 58% for Clinton and Grijalva's own district voted 61.7% for Clinton has not switched. Where is your letter to Congressman Grijalva, instructing him to shift his support to Clinton? Look in the mirror- you'll see a political hypocrite! From what I hear, Congressman Grijalva, when asked if he is shifting his support to Clinton, his response- drop dead. That is his right- he is a Congressman, thus a delegate.

Society has been trying to deal with High School bullies and the same Rule should apply to your campaign and your supporters. Us active Democrats enjoy healthy discussions and debates at meetings, Caucuses and Conventions but it is unacceptable for us to get harassing communications from bullies. As a Clinton supporter, I have not received harassing phone calls but it does appear women DNC Members are getting the brunt of the threats. Professionally, campaign staff and representatives should be the ones calling delegates. A 12 year old child answering the phone at home should not be hearing threats.

Most of us DNC Members have been in the Democratic Party vineyards for years, as have the Clintons. For me it has been over 40 years. I became disillusioned with the war in Vietnam (I had volunteered for the Paratroopers and Vietnam), after being wounded in March 1968 (101st Airborne), it was the beginning for me to turning to politics. So those of us with callouses on our Democratic Party hands (something lacking with you, not even going to our National Conventions to vote for our nominees), we notice things, such as not one US Senator is supporting you. Not even Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. We noticed what you said to Rachel Maddow (March 30, 2016) when she said that Secretary Clinton has raised millions for the Democratic Party (DNC, DCCC, DSCC and State Parties) and asked you- will you do the same? You said, "We'll see." I fell off my chair. The Koch brothers announced a $900 million dollar plan against Democrats, and we have a big ticket from Governors to Congress to races in all states and your answer- we'll see. Our nominee for President has to help raise tens of millions of dollars all over our country. We cannot afford a selfish nominee.

I would urge that you and your staff publicly state that you want all harassing communications to DNC members to stop. In 2008, I received a phone call from a US Senator, urging me to support Senator Obama - a very professional and courteous call.

Sincerely,

Bob Mulholland
DNC Member
Chico, CA

P.S. In case no one clued you in- that NY Times piece (April 4, 2016) with Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine providing "background material," is a standard practice by some consultants. They are getting very nervous. They are laying out the "DNA evidence," that the candidate (you) will lose and it is your fault, not theirs. A suggestion for you- you need to be better prepared yourself- you're coming across as shrill.

P.P.S. Secretary Clinton has received about 58% of the vote so far, thus ahead of you by 2,400,000 votes and 250 Pledged Delegates. We also notice that the Base of our Party is voting overwhelmingly for Secretary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton mocks Trump in a hypothetical general election debate

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/16/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-mock-debate/


Hillary Clinton impersonated Donald Trump at an event Monday, mocking the presumptive Republican nominee during a speech where the former secretary of state pretended to be in a general election debate.

Clinton, somewhat taking on Trump's New York affect, knocked the businessman-turned-politician for lack of specificity on his economic plans.



"Let's just imagine I am on a debate stage with Donald Trump," Clinton said to applause. "Now personally, I am really looking forward to that."

Then she got into the impression, "So let's suppose, here is the question, 'so what is your plan to create jobs,' His answer is, 'I am going to create them, they are going to be great, I am going to do it. But I am not telling you what it is that I am going to do.'"

She then added, using a quick cadence to show she has specifics, "I am going to say, 'Here is what we are going to do, here is what we are going to do, here is how we are going to change the tax code, here is how we are going to incentivize people to do it.'"

(more)



Nevada's convoluted primary/state convention rules seem designed to cause confusion

Here's good article that tries to explain what happened in Nevada last Saturday.... no wonder there was confusion!

Apparently they caucus in February getting a delegate split for the candidates. But then they have meetings in April to then select people to attend the state convention. Bernies people turned out for the April meetings in greater numbers than Hillary's people - (i.e. per the February caucus). Apparently, Bernie people wanted to forget the February results and just go with the April meetings results. The party leadership did not want to nullify the February results. I think that is an accurate description of what was going on.

Here’s what happened at Saturday’s dramatic Nevada Democratic convention

Nevada's process for sending delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia is among the most complex. When the state caucused in late February, the fourth state on the calendar for the Democratic Party, the results of that process favored Hillary Clinton. Twenty-three of the 35 total bound delegates were given out proportionally in the state's four congressional districts, giving Clinton a delegate lead of 13 to 10. The results of the caucus suggested that after the state convention — which bound the state's seven at-large delegates and five delegates who are elected officials or party leaders — Clinton would end up with a 20-to-15 lead over Bernie Sanders, with Clinton winning one more delegate from the at-large pool (4-to-3) and one more from the party-leader pool (3-to-2) than Sanders.

NOTE: if you adjust the 13:10 (total of 23) delegate apportionment to a 35 delegate count (as in the 20:15 delegate split mentiooned above - arrived at after the State convention) you end up with a delegate split of 20:15 (note 20 was arrived at by rounding 19.5 to 20). Note that 35/23 = 1.52. Multiply the delegate split of 13:10 by 1.52. ... thus: 13x 1.52= 19.78, 10 x 1.52 = 15.2. These numbers were rounded to get the 20:15 split. _Bill USA


The people who attend(ed) the Democratic convention this weekend were chosen during voting in early April. At that point, Sanders out-organized Clinton, getting 2,124 people elected to the state convention (according to the tabulation at the always-essential delegate-tracking site the Green Papers) to Clinton's 1,722. That suggested that voting at the state convention would flip: Sanders would win those 4-to-3 and 3-to-2 contests, giving him a 7-to-5 victory at the convention and making the state total 18-to-17 for Clinton instead of 20-to-15.

But that's not what happened, as best as we can piece together.

~~
~~


The first report from the credentials committee on Saturday morning indicated that Clinton had a slight edge in delegates. Sanders fans voted against that report, per Jon Ralston, and then demanded a recount — but this was simply a preliminary figure. As in the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, the final total delegates went through a process of realignment as the day progressed.

That was when the vote to approve the rules as written — Roberta's Rules versus Robert's Rules, as some Sanders backers dubbed them — was conducted by voice vote. The motion, seconded by a Sanders supporter, passed — which is when the room, in Ralston's phrasing, "erupts." Ensuing speakers, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (a Clinton supporter), were interrupted by a vocal group of Sanders supporters at the front of the room.

~~
~~



All of that tension set the stage for the final votes. The ultimate total reported by KOLO-TV was 1,695 Clinton delegates to 1,662 for Sanders, giving Clinton that one-delegate total in the at-large and party-leader pools. But the drama was far from over. Fifty-six Sanders delegates — enough to swing the majority — were denied delegate status, mostly because they weren't registered as Democrats by the May 1 deadline, according to the state party. (The Sun reports that eight potential Clinton delegates suffered a similar fate.)

Convention leaders declined to reconsider those 56 delegates, and, spurred by the casino — because the event was already well past its scheduled ending time — adjourned for the day. Sanders supporters refused to concede, remaining in the casino's ballroom after the event had ended. Eventually, casino security and law enforcement officials entered to force the Democrats out of the space, even turning off the lights to get them to depart.

~~
~~

Thanks to Clinton's victory in Nevada on Saturday, hard-fought on the carpeted floor of the Paris hotel and casino in Las Vegas, her lead over Sanders extends to 282, per delegate-counter Daniel Nichanian. Had Sanders's supporters been successful on Saturday, that margin would have been 278 — a number that still demands that the senator win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to take the lead.


Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297


TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." As reported by Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall, law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him "to a person" that the chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness":



As a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.

So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views. (TPM, 2/1/15)


ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her." In a February 1 article, ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. Abrams added that "there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time":

(more)



But the Republicans just love to keep repeating this threadbare RW Big Lie: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1960216


40% of BS fans will vote for Trump in Nov, the rest will vote for Justin Bieber -(just conjecture)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511937241

every bit a valid as this post: Millions will sit out the election no matter what Bernie says/does if Hillary is the candidate


Predictit - Presidential Election: Hillary 0.62, Trump: 0.40, Sanders: 0.07


https://www.predictit.org/market/1234/who-will-win-the-2016-us-presidential-election

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election: empirically validated, not an opinion

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/




Republican turnout is up and Democratic turnout is down in the 2016 primary contests so far. That has some Republicans giddy for the fall; here’s an example, from a March 1 Washington Times article:

Republicans continued to shatter turnout records in their presidential primaries and caucuses Tuesday, while Democrats lagged behind in what analysts said was a clear indication of an enthusiasm gap heading into the general election.


And some commentators are saying that Democrats should be nervous. From The Huffington Post, last month:

But Democratic Party elites shouldn’t be high-fiving each other. They should be very, very worried. In primary after primary this cycle, Democratic voters just aren’t showing up.


But Democrats shouldn’t worry. Republicans shouldn’t celebrate. As others have pointed out, voter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race.

Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries. There have been six of those years in the modern era: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008.
(more)

a very good presentation of how it is we know AGW is happening.... on Vox.com

.. I know this is not news to rational people, but this is a good presentation with links to all relevant data provided. MIght be useful for informing any who still believe it's all a hoax.


http://www.vox.com/cards/global-warming/what-is-global-warming


Benghazi - Emails addicts remind me more & more of the Birther Bugs! ROFL

when all else fails, just pick and choose the words you like in someone else's statement . no fraudulence in that! ROFL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1917594


Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages

http://www.newsweek.com/benghazi-biopsy-comprehensive-guide-one-americas-worst-political-outrages-385853

Moussa Koussa.

That is the name of the “classified source” in an old email from Hillary Clinton released last week by Republicans purportedly investigating the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Under the instructions of the Benghazi committee’s chairman, Republican Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, Koussa’s name was blacked-out on the publicly issued email, as Republicans proclaimed revealing his identity would compromise national security. The media ran with it, saying Clinton had sent classified information through her personal email account.


But the CIA never said the name was secret. Nor did the Defense Intelligence Agency or the FBI. No, Koussa’s role as an intelligence source is about as classified as this column. He is the former intelligence chief and foreign minister of Libya. In 2011, he fled that country for Great Britain, where he provided boodles of information to MI6 and the CIA. Documents released long ago show Koussa’s cooperation. Government officials have openly discussed it. His name appears in newspapers with casual discussions about his assistance. Sanctions by the British and the Americans against Koussa were lifted because of his help, and he moved to Qatar. All of that is publicly known.

But, as they have time and again, the Republicans on the Benghazi committee released deceitful information for what was undoubtedly part of a campaign—as Kevin McCarthy of the House Republican leadership has admitted—to drive down Clinton’s poll numbers. Republicans have implied—and some journalists have flatly stated—that Clinton was reckless and may have broken the law by sending an email that included thirdhand hearsay mentioning Koussa’s name. The reality is that the Republicans continue to be reckless with the truth.

~~
~~

In fact, no previous assault on a diplomatic outpost has received this kind of relentless expression of congressional outrage. There weren’t investigations that were anything on this scale about the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 (63 killed), on the U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut in 1984 (24 killed) or on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, in 2008 (18 killed). Republicans didn’t believe these exact same scenarios that took place under Republican presidents merited similar zeal to dig down to some unexposed, imaginary “truth.”

In fact, Benghazi was just one of 21 major assaults on an American diplomatic facility in the last 20 years; the personnel murdered there were among about 90 other Americans hired by the government to work in diplomatic outposts who were killed in terrorist attacks from 1998 through 2012, according to a State Department report. Apparently, their killings—like the deaths of thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor and in the World Trade Center—were seen as less important than murder of four people in a North African country in the midst of a government overthrow.

~~
~~

But to fully understand how political this latest Benghazi investigation has become, look at the records. Since March, the committee has issued almost 30 press releases related to Clinton; only five have been put out on every other topic combined. Then there is the committee’s interim report from this past May. The word Obama—who cannot run for commander-in-chief again—is not mentioned. Neither is the word president. Or Ansar al-Sharia, the group suspected of engineering the attack. White House makes only 13 appearances. Imagine an investigation on 9/11 that did not mention Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or President Bush; that is what has been done with the Benghazi committee’s first public report.

~~
~~

Nothing like this happened after 9/11. Yes, there were scores of buttons and bumper stickers with words on them like “We Will Never Forget” and “America Salutes Its Fallen Heroes.” These were intended to unify the country and honor those who had died; in a widespread search, I could find none showing the blood of the murdered splattered on anyone in the Bush administration.

(more)


GOP-Commissioned Benghazi Report Debunks GOP Conspiracy Theories About Benghazi

But the latest report, released Friday, does little to back up Republicans’ suspicion of negligence, and it finds no intelligence failure on the part of the CIA.

The investigative report is authored on the right by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and the left by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD). Rogers previewed the report during a Fox News this September when he smacked down one of the leading right-wing theories, that the State Department issued a stand-down order before the attack. “It was the commander on the ground making the decision,” Rogers explained at the time. “I think it took 23 minutes before they all, including that commander, by the way, got in a car and went over and rescued those individuals.”

The report also disproves other conspiracy theories about that tragic night, including the idea that officials rejected a proposal to rescue the Americans trapped in the under-attack consulate, and that those in the consulate were covertly dealing arms to Syrians from Libya.

This investigation is one of eight total into the attack. Collectively, the investigations have been panned on the left as “partisan” and “an embarrassment,” particularly because of the amount of money spent on them — more than what’s allotted for standing Congressional issues like the budget or ethics — and because Republicans have raised money off of the tragedy and subsequent investigation. Even family of one of those killed in the attacks came forward to denounce the repeated Benghazi investigations.
(more)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ... 137 Next »