Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,008
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,008
- 2016 (45)
- 2015 (64)
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (143)
"Progressives" are all aflutter over donating to Tim Canova, the challenger for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' House seat.
It's interesting to see how eager people are to contribute to someone who forcefully argues against the Iran Nuclear Deal and sides with Likud. He is so proud of his position that he posted an editorial celebrating it on his website:
Canova is a staunch opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, which Wasserman Schultz supports. "Iran never destroys its centrifuges, and it gets a $100 billion windfall at once," he laments. "Iran gets it all, and within weeks, if not days, Iran is testing ballistic missiles," he says, shaking his head. "Iran is a regime that can't be trusted." Wasserman Schultz, meanwhile, lost "a lot of credibility" among her constituents by voting for the agreement, Canova charges.
That peacenik Debbie. She just can't be trusted with all that peace-treaty approving she does.
Canova is very proud of his opposition to peace with Iran, as its prominence on his website reveals. That same editorial he posted distinguishes him from Sanders as someone who "knows what he's talking about."
For one, in contrast to Bernie Sanders, whose guiding ethos seems to be "Bash the Millionaires and Billionaires—Details TK," Canova actually knows what he's talking about. Although he's never held office, Canova is an expert on banking laws as a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale. He has been churning out scholarly works on interest rates, regulatory affairs, and loan practices for decades. (His fierce criticism of big banks is delivered with a scholarly mien quite unlike Sanders's street-corner shouting.) . . .
Canova also attributes Sanders's loss in the crucial New York primary to Israel. "He started off at saying 'I'm 100 percent pro-Israel.' But that was the last thing he said that was pro-Israeli."
It's quite astounding that many of the same people who cannot forgive Clinton for her vote on Iraq are now eager to donate to a candidate who opposes peace with Iran. Of course, without that peace treaty, the only alternative is war, which is exactly what Likud wants.
Keep sending those checks to ensure we get war with Iran. We just can't have peacenicks like Debbie in Washington.
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:37 PM (73 replies)
1) The primary got very negative, and they decided to believe too much of the rhetoric.
2) There have been hundreds of millions spent by the GOP to try to destroy Clinton. There is the obvious right-wing propaganda and the all too successful efforts by the right to spread anti-Clinton propaganda produced for leftist consumption, created and generated to appeal to Democrats/liberals/progressives.
3) The media furthers the negative narrative about her so-called "dishonesty" and lack of "authenticity." This despite the fact that an examination of actual issues by fact checkers showed she was the MOST honest candidate in this primary in either party.
4) She's a woman trying to break into a wholly male world. Social Science literature demonstrates that people view women as less honest than men, tend to believe them less. It isn't a conscious decision to engage in sexism but rather the result of socialization. They don't even think about it. It takes honest reflection to think about ways in which we, both men and women, tend to devalue or undermine women in society. In seeking to rise where no American woman has before, she faces more of that than most.
We saw plenty of what you refer to during the primary. Many truly believe what they say, but they seldom have evidence for it. They don't think they even need evidence. They simply assume it to be true. I saw a response of yours to a post removed (which I didn't see) about money. The entire responsibility for campaign finance has been placed on Clinton individually. Some don't believe she is interested in changing current finance law, despite her policy positions showing otherwise. They also don't realize that the Citizens United case was about an anti-Clinton video. The victory for Citizens United meant that organization could continue to spend unlimited amounts of money attacking her. Of course the implications go beyond that one example to private political expenditures more broadly, but the lack of understanding of it shows how successful right-wing propaganda against her has been among those on the left.
I didn't used to like Clinton. I never for a second considered supporting her in 2008. My stated reason was the Iraq War vote, yet I was ready to support Biden, who likewise voted for the war. I didn't even think about the double standard. Since 2008, I watched her as SoS and started to think more critically about the criticism of her. I looked into her voting record vs. that of other candidates. I informed myself more in this election than any other. I realized a lot of what is said about her is unfounded. You will note that most Democrats/progressives who continue to be very critical of Clinton know very little about her policy positions or even most of her voting record. They simply project ills onto her and will attribute policy positions that are completely opposite of where she stands. I saw over and over against that they weren't even interested in finding out what her positions actually were. The reasons for that, I believe, lie in numbers 1-4 above.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:17 PM (0 replies)
There is an extensive body of literature on the history and theory of revolutions, both social and political. Theda Skocpol is a leading theorist on the subject:
A "social revolution" is both a change in state institutions (a political revolution) and a change in social structures. The American revolution was only a political revolution, not a social one, since it did little to change social structures. The Chinese revolution, on the other hand, was a social revolution; not only did the state institutions change, but the entire social order changed with it.
A social revolution occurs in two stages (which correspond to parts I and II of the book), and in each stage two structural variables determine what happens next. For more details about the four structural variables, see pages 280-281.
A Revolutionary Situation
In Part I, two variables cause a revolutionary situation. These two variables are jointly sufficient for a "social revolution" to occur. The key word is "sufficient": This is a deterministic theory. If both structural variables are in place, a revolution should always occur.
First, there must be a "crisis of state," often provoked by international factors, such as increasing economic or security competition from abroad. It is a crisis, not merely a challenge, because this is a challenge that the state cannot meet given its current institutional constraints. As a result, elites (and the army) become divided over what to do and loyalty to the regime weakens. This crisis of state creates the revolutionary situation.
Second, patterns of class dominance determine which group will rise up to exploit the revolutionary situation.
The result is a social revolution; the patterns of class dominance merely determine who will lead it.
Storming of the Bastille, Paris, July 14, 1793
Celebration of the seizure of the presidential palace in Havana, Cuba, by the July 26 Movement
Political inspiration: Inspiring people to get involved in politics, running for office at the local level. Fantastic! Potential to lead toward long-term reform.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:21 PM (2 replies)
He shook his hand. The Pope explicitly said anyone who takes his shaking the hand of someone standing in front of his as a political endorsement ought to "look for a psychiatrist." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/16/bernie-sanders-met-pope-francis/83118290/
"When I came down, I greeted him, I shook his hand and nothing more. This is called good manners and it is not getting involved in politics," the pope said, according to Reuters. "If anyone thinks that greeting someone is getting involved in politics, I recommend that he look for a psychiatrist," he said, laughing.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Apr 16, 2016, 04:57 PM (0 replies)
which shows how little these issues actually matter to you. People who actually care about mass incarceration or education bother to inform themselves.
Here are policy statement. This one on criminal justice was the first policy she announced when entering the race: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/
College education: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
Unlike Bernie, she also has policies addressing the k-12 disparities that cement generation of poverty.
She also addressing the serious problem of sexual assault on college campuses: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campus-sexual-assault/
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Apr 16, 2016, 04:40 PM (2 replies)
Nope, it's not an old story posted again. This is a new letter from the FEC dated March 30.
This notice requests information essential to full public disclosure of your
federal election campaign finances. Failure to adequately respond by the response
date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action. (emphasis FEC's) Additional
information is needed for the following 1 item(s):
Line 17(a)(i) of the Detailed Summary Page of your report discloses a total of
$3,279,505.25 in contributions from individuals. The sum of the entries
itemized on Schedule A-P, however, indicates the total to be $13,745,417.64.
These amounts should be the same. Please amend your report to clarify the
discrepancy. (11 CFR § 104.3(a) and (b))
Note this is the third violation in two months for the Sanders campaign. His authorized Pac had one earlier in 2015.
But keep complaining about Hillary's legal fundraisers, Bernie. It's not like your millions in excessive and illegal donations really matter.
Predictably, the press is nowhere on this. For all the whining by his campaign about unfair treatment, they are giving him a pass for repeated and ongoing violations of campaign finance law.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Apr 14, 2016, 05:40 PM (30 replies)
If you're like me and had other stuff to do in the past 24 hours other than keep up with all the ins and outs of Bernie's travel plans to
Italy, you may find this summary helpful. It's told entirely through twitter posts, which all good DUers know is the incontrovertible source of truth.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Apr 9, 2016, 08:59 AM (65 replies)
Daily News: I was talking about something different, though. Expanding settlements is one thing; coming into office as a President who said as a baseline that you want Israel to pull back settlements, that changes the dynamic in the negotiations, and I'm wondering how far and what you want Israel to do in terms of pulling back.
Sanders: Well, again, you're asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer. But I think if the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate.
Daily News: And who makes the call about illegality, in your mind?
Sanders: Well, I think that's based on previous treaties and ideas. I happen to think that those expansions were illegal.
Daily News: Okay, so if we were to find Israeli settlements, so-called settlements, in places that has been designated to be illegal, you would expect Israel to be pulling them back?
Sanders: Israel will make their own decisions. They are a government, an independent nation. But to the degree that they want us to have a positive relationship, I think they're going to have to improve their relationship with the Palestinians.
Daily News: Okay, but I'm just talking about, you’d be getting involved in the negotiations, and this would be setting a benchmark for the negotiations that you would enter the talks, if you do, having conveyed to both parties, including the Palestinians, that there's a condition here that you want Israel to remove what you described as "illegal settlements." That's going to be the baseline. Now, if you're really...
Sanders: Well, there’s going to be a lot of things on the baselines. There are going to be demands being made of the Palestinian folks as well. When you sit down and negotiate, obviously...
Daily News: And what are those demands?
Sanders: Well, for a start, the absolute condemnation of all terrorist attacks. The idea that in Gaza there were buildings being used to construct missiles and bombs and tunnels, that is not where foreign aid should go. Foreign aid should go to housing and schools, not the development of bombs and missiles.
Daily News: Okay. Now, you have obviously condemned Hamas for indiscriminate rocket attacks and the construction of the military tunnels. But you've also criticized Israel for what you described as a disproportionate response.
Daily News: And I'm going to look at 2014, which was the latest conflict. What should Israel have done instead?
Sanders: You're asking me now to make not only decisions for the Israeli government but for the Israeli military, and I don't quite think I'm qualified to make decisions. But I think it is fair to say that the level of attacks against civilian areas...and I do know that the Palestinians, some of them, were using civilian areas to launch missiles. Makes it very difficult. But I think most international observers would say that the attacks against Gaza were indiscriminate and that a lot of innocent people were killed who should not have been killed. Look, we are living, for better or worse, in a world of high technology, whether it's drones out there that could, you know, take your nose off, and Israel has that technology. And I think there is a general belief that, with that technology, they could have been more discriminate in terms of taking out weapons that were threatening them.
Daily News: Do you support the Palestinian leadership's attempt to use the International Criminal Court to litigate some of these issues to establish that, in their view, Israel had committed essentially war crimes?
Daily News: Why not?
Sanders: Why not?
Daily News: Why not, why it....
Sanders: Look, why don't I support a million things in the world? I'm just telling you that I happen to believe...anybody help me out here, because I don't remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:26 AM (9 replies)
Daily News: Okay. Staying with Wall Street, you've pointed out, that "not one major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for causing the near collapse of our entire economy." Why was that? Why did that happen? Why was there no prosecution?
Sanders: I would suspect that the answer that some would give you is that while what they did was horrific, and greedy and had a huge impact on our economy, that some suggest that...that those activities were not illegal. I disagree. And I think an aggressive attorney general would have found illegal activity.
Daily News: So do you think that President Obama's Justice Department essentially was either in the tank or not as...
Sanders: No, I wouldn’t say they were in the tank. I'm saying, a Sanders administration would have a much more aggressive attorney general looking at all of the legal implications. All I can tell you is that if you have Goldman Sachs paying a settlement fee of $5 billion, other banks paying a larger fee, I think most Americans think, "Well, why do they pay $5 billion?" Not because they're heck of a nice guys who want to pay $5 billion. Something was wrong there. And if something was wrong, I think they were illegal activities.
Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?
Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.
Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?
Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes. When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that's illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives.
Daily News: I'm only pressing because you've made it such a central part of your campaign. And I wanted to know what the mechanism would be to accomplish it.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:13 AM (4 replies)
Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.
Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?
Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.
. . .
So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.
Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...
Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.
Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...
Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.
Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?
Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:09 AM (8 replies)