HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Scuba » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 250 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Apr 29, 2010, 03:31 PM
Number of posts: 53,346

Journal Archives

Bryan H. Nishimura

Some may be interested in researching this Navy veteran, and his legal troubles.

New Documents Catch DNC Accepting Money from Anti-Progressive Companies


The new documents (which can be viewed here) show that Debbie Wasserman Shultz and other key DNC members sought support from corporations with questionable, and definitely anti-progressive, values.

One of the most notable companies the DNC asked for money from was Walmart, a hugely anti-union corporation and the target of many progressive attacks. Then, in what could arguably be a huge conflict on interest, the DNC asked for (and received) a donation from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, one of the unions that is actually leading and sponsoring strikes at Walmart stores to protest the company’s opposition to higher minimum wage.

In another ironic situation the DNC asks for money from the National Restaurant Association PAC and from McDonald’s. Both of these are active participants in the fight against a $15 minimum wage, which the DNC has had as part of their official platform for almost a year and which was officially approved by the Platform Drafting Committees last weekend.

Another example is the DNC receiving funding from corporations like Verizon and Comcast, even though they also ask for donations from Communications Workers of America (CWA). The CWA is actively fighting against Verizon, Comcast, and many other companies for better wages and working conditions.

Well Debbie, which side are you on?

Judicial Watch Asks Justice Inspector Gen. To INVESTIGATE Lynch-Clinton Meeting


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today requested that the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General investigate the meeting yesterday between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President William J. Clinton on board a parked private plane on the west side of Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona on June 29, 2016, according to multiple press reports.

President Clinton is the spouse of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former Secretary of State, who is purportedly the subject of a national security crime investigation pertaining to the mishandling of national defense information processed by Mrs. Clinton’s personal server during her tenure as secretary.

Additionally, there are press reports that a federal public corruption investigation is on-going concerning conflicts of interest and abuse of official government office involving the financial “commitments” to the Clinton Foundation, speaking fees for President Clinton and former Secretary Clinton’s official acts. President Clinton may be a target of that investigation.


Judicial Watch cites in its complaint 18 USC §§ 202 – 209; Executive Order 12674 on Principles of Ethical Conduct as amended by EO 12731; Uniform Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR Part 2635; Department of Justice regulations, 5 CFR Part 3801; Department of Justice regulations, 28 CFR Part 45; Executive branch standards of conduct, 5 USC § 735; and, United States Department of Justice Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct, 14 Principles for Ethical Conduct:

Seems like, at best, this shows Lynch to possess very poor judgement. Unless she's trying to get herself disqualified.

Clinton Democrats Claim To Support Health Care As A Right, But Oppose Universal Healthcare


Clinton Democrats Claim To Support Health Care As A Right, But Oppose Universal Healthcare In Platform

A major nurses union condemned Democrats on the Democratic National Convention Platform Committee, who blocked an amendment in support of a single-payer health care system. During proceedings in St. Louis on June 24, James Zogby of the Arab-American Institute introduced an amendment, which declared, “It is the policy of the Democratic Party that we will put people before profits by fighting for a Medicare For All single-payer health care system to guarantee health care as a right, not as a privilege, to everyone in this country. Working together, we will end the greed of health insurance companies.”


The amendment was defeated by Democrats appointed to the committee by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—American Federation of State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul Booth; former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director and lobbyist for Albright Stonebridge Group, Carol Browner; Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece; former State Department official and lobbyist for Albright Stonebridge Group, Wendy Sherman; and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden.

The message of those who voted against the amendment was that the government should focus on building on the Affordable Care Act and pursuing a Medicare For All system might somehow forsake a political accomplishment achieved by Democrats and President Barack Obama’s administration.

National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, which has supported the Sanders campaign, told Shadowproof, “The Affordable Care Act, while an improvement, is not good enough, it is structurally deficient, leaves healthcare as a system based on profit and ability to pay rather than patient need.” It still means tens of millions of American have no “health coverage or ‘insurance'” because they cannot afford “high out of pocket costs.” Plus, the law has systemic problems which undermine quality of care, and it is easy for the health care industry to game the system.

Damned difficult for me to understand why my Party is no longer fighting for Medicare for All and instead is trying to protect the Heritage Foundation insurance model.

We need health care, not health coverage.

The Clinton Campaign Is Obstructing Change to the Democratic Platform


I’ve had a front-row seat to the first round of the process, as 1 of 5 delegates Sanders named to draft the platform. (The Clinton campaign named six, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, added four more.) We spent two weeks listening to powerful testimony from citizens around the country, and then on Friday in St. Louis we started taking votes.

And it was there that the essential dynamic quickly emerged. The Clinton campaign was ready to acknowledge serious problems: We need fair trade policy, inequality is a horrible problem, and unchecked climate change will wreck the planet. But when it came to specific policy changes, they often balked. Amendments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and backing Medicare for all failed, with all the Clinton delegates voting against.

At which point we got (about 11 p.m., in a half-deserted hotel ballroom) to the climate section of the platform, and that’s where things got particularly obvious. We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)


Which is why we need not platitudes but a platform. Not aspirations but commitments. Not happy talk, but the fully adult conversation that Sanders engaged the country in for the past year. Cornel West, with his usual succinct eloquence, said that in the end the platform debate came down to telling the truth. The truth is, we’re in a world of hurt. That hurt—economic, social, environmental—is driving the unsettling politics of our moment. That hurt needs to be addressed.

Disappointing, to me at least, that actual policies are being rejected in favor of platitudes. There are problems to be fixed and the Democratic Party should be on the vanguard of leading the fixes.

NYT Room for Debate: The Sanders Revolution Has Only Just Begun


Approval rate above 90 percent for suspected terrorists who try to buy guns

People on the terrorist watch list shouldn't have easy access to firearms. That said, the last paragraph makes a good point - there should be a transparent process for adding people to the watch list and they should have access to a speedy appeal mechanism.


The data, compiled by the Government Accountability Office, show that between 2004 and 2015, 2,477 individuals on the watch list applied to purchase weapons. Of those, 2,265 were approved – more than 91 percent. That rate was more than 95 percent last year, according to the data, which showed that between January 2015 and December “individuals on the terrorist watch list were involved in firearm-related background checks 244 times.” Only 21 of those were denied. The other 233 were cleared through FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System to make the purchases.


Separately, all 16 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee have signed a letter pressing Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, to consider legislation to reinstate a lapsed ban on automatic assault weapons, and to tighten legal loopholes that allowed the assailants in the mass shootings in Orlando and San Bernardino, Ca., to buy semi-automatic weapons.


The Democrats also called for action to eliminate a loophole allowing gun owners to privately sell firearms without federal background checks like those required of dealers. They also seek to bar dealers from transferring firearms before a background check has been completed and to prohibit the sale of guns to a variety of individuals, including people on the terror watch list, who’ve been convicted of hate crimes or stalking, and people with a history of domestic violence.


But limitations on gun purchases by people on the terrorist watch list are particularly controversial, with many guns rights advocates and civil liberties proponents arguing that there is little known about how someone can be added to the list. Winning removal from the list is a long and arduous process. The American Civil Liberties Union, a major critic of the watch list system, says on its website that “tens of thousands of names” have been placed on government watch lists “without an adequate factual basis.” The ACLU says that in addition to the FBI, at least five other government agencies maintain watch lists.

For 40 Years, Liberals Have Accepted Defeat and Called It "Incremental Progress"

Very good read that cries for more than four paragraphs. Please visit the link. The contrast between the LBJ quote and Hillary's denunciation of Medicare for All is striking.


The primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders has produced the most direct ideological battle the Democratic Party has seen in a generation. It’s not just the policy differences that separate Sanders’s blunt social-democratic platform from Clinton’s neoliberal grab bag. The two candidates embody clashing theories of politics — alternative visions of how to achieve progressive goals within the American political system.

The Bernie Sanders model of change has all the subtlety of an index finger raised high above a debate podium. Lay out a bold, unapologetic vision of reform that speaks directly to people’s basic needs. Connect that vision to existing popular struggles, while mobilizing a broad and passionate coalition to support it (#NotMeUs). Ride this wave of democratic energy to overwhelm right-wing opposition and enact major structural reforms. The Hillary Clinton model of change, on the other hand, begins not with policy or people but with a politician. Choose an experienced, practical leader who explicitly rejects unrealistic goals. Rally around that leader’s personal qualifications, while defending past achievements and stressing the value of party loyalty (#ImWithHer). Draw on the leader’s expertise to grind away at Congress and accumulate incremental victories that add up to significant reform.


Of course, liberal incrementalists rule out this kind of talk at once: don’t you know the Republicans control Congress? 1936 and 1964 are irrelevant precedents, because the central fact of our political lives is the dominance of the Republican Party. In this view right-wing opposition is not to be dislodged, let alone defeated. At best, it is to be resisted from within the walls of the Democratic Party fortress known as the White House. “The next Democratic presidential term will be mostly defensive,” writes Jonathan Chait — no more or less than a “bulwark” against Republican extremism in Congress.


Seldom do establishment Democrats stop to consider whether this negative mentality — both disturbingly complacent and profoundly uninspiring — has contributed to the steady evisceration of the party at the state level. According to pollsters, political scientists, and their own tribunes, Democrats are now the dominant national party in the United States. (They have, after all, won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.) Yet since 2009 Democrats have lost a record nine-hundred state legislative seats, thirty state chambers, and twelve governorships.

White House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership


Guns in America is a complicated issue for many reasons. However, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for Domestic Terrorists and others who wish to kill and harm people quickly and efficiently. It serves no other purpose other than to accomplish this. Banning this gun will show that we can act on this issue. It will have symbolic weight while also making one small step forward on dealing with this epidemic.

Based on the comments of Hillary supporters here, I gotta ask:

Will Hillary as President represent all of us, or only those who supported her in the primary?

There are so many comments along the lines of "she won, so she should ignore Bernie and his fans" that it makes me wonder if she'll represent all of us or not. Reminds me a lot of the George W. Bush fans.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 250 Next »