Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 40,530
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 40,530
- 2017 (7)
- 2016 (65)
- 2015 (64)
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (143)
O'Malley won't take Super Pac money. Not even Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, or Jeb Bush will take Super PAC money. You know why? It's illegal for Super PACs to give money to candidates. Yet Hillary isn't trying to fool the electorate into believing she is above it all by making a grand announcement that she won't take money that is already illegal to take.
Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, Super may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional , Super are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.
It's easy to promise something no candidate can do anyway. So why is Bernie making a promise when he knows he can't take money from Super PACs anyway? He's counting on the electorate being uninformed about campaign finance. He's counting on gullibility.
Bernie does take money from PACs and has throughout his career. One PAC that has supported him for over a decade, whose treasurer is Bernie's his Field Director, was recently fined for violating the already far too meager campaign finance law . http://www.timesargus.com/article/20150704/NEWS03/707049936
I have been told Bernie disavows any PAC activity on his behalf, but if that were true, why would he continue to keep in a high position within the campaign the Treasurer of a long-term PAC for Bernie? And why has he accepted money from that PAC?
Super PACs can't contribute directly to candidates, but they can run ads and campaign on behalf of candidates. That is precisely the purpose of the Super PACs set up around Sanders presidential campaign:
I know of two, but there may well be more.
1) Bet on Bernie 2016 http://www.pledgesanders2016.com/
2) Billionaires for Bernie. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors/
So perhaps, just perhaps, before people call the country's first viable female candidate for the presidency a "whore," and accuse her for taking "bribes" for doing exactly what every president you have voted for does, you ought to think twice. Perhaps you ought to think about the campaign finance system rather than pretending it's all about an awful woman who dares to exceed her place in life by doing exactly what male candidates you have voted for do. Perhaps you ought to think about why you are heralding Bernie Sanders as superior to not only every other politician but also voters who dare to ask questions, when he makes empty promises about not taking money from Super PACs?
Clinton isn't pandering to the public about Super PACs. She isn't pretending she is special for following the law. She knows the problem of money in politics is a systemic issue that hinges around SCOTUS, which is why she has pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Citizens United. She also supports a constitutional amendment to overturn it and legislation to get Dark Money out of politics.
Sanders is a politician. He is not the messiah. He advances some very important issues, but he is not prefect, as his empty claims on Super PACs reveal. You as a citizen have an obligation to inform yourself on issues of campaign finance, even if doing so counters the claims of a politician you support.
Now, I don't post this to convince people to vote for Clinton in the primary. I know full well that is a lost cause for most here. Moreover, I fully respect your right to make your own democratic choices in the primary. What I am FED UP with is the false accusations, name calling, and fabrications directed against her. She is in fact a leading Democratic candidate for the presidency and she has a strong chance of being the nominee, whether you like it or not. On the GOP side, the nominee is more likely to be a Tea Bagger than not, probably Scott Walker. So think twice about whether supporting Sanders requires promoting false claims that may work to suppress the vote in the general election and help usher in a Tea Bag presidency.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Jul 18, 2015, 05:06 PM (52 replies)
What union can I join where I become a billionaire? Really. I need to know what job that is. I'm happy to retrain.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:33 PM (1 replies)
where members are allowed to post positively about Hillary Clinton, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, without being subject to a continual barrage of attacks. Yet evidently the fact one small corner exists where people talk about exercising their democratic rights to support a Democratic candidate is unacceptable to some, who cannot resist entering this room and violating the SOP that makes this a safe space for Clinton supporters. Democratic choice--the idea that we as America citizens have a right to vote as we choose. Each American gets one vote and one vote only, and we all have the right to exercise that vote as we see fit. Our votes are not subject to approval by our employers or members of a website. They are our votes, our basic rights as citizens.
Some would seem to find the independent exercise of democratic choice threatening. It bothers them so much that someone might harbor positive views of one Democratic candidate, they insist on violating the SOP of a safe haven group. A few appear to be so angry that they do not control our votes that they have systematically alerted on and succeeded in hiding multiple posts in here.
There appears to be some sort of conflation of DU and the country at large. It would seem that a few seem to think if they can shout down the handful of Clinton supporters who dare to express their views on this forum, if they can get their posts hidden, that will help defeat Hillary Clinton. I have to wonder if one's notion of democracy depends on silencing others, on driving them from a website, or refusing to allow them to have a conversation without their surveillance and scrutiny, can they really consider themselves Democrats, democratic, or anything other than standing in opposition to the basic rights of their fellow citizens? If people are so threatened by the independent exercise of the franchise, I have to wonder what kind of reform of society they would usher in that would justify such contempt for democratic choice and political speech?
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Jul 12, 2015, 03:37 AM (40 replies)
First to some of your claims. Clinton's top donors are not banks. That is a blatantly false allegation, oft repeated. Corporations are not allowed to make contributions to candidates. Full stop. They do donate to PACS, but the open secrets site that claims banks as her top donors reveals internally contradictory data. Under the tab for top industries supporting her, they list lawyers first, educators and women's groups, with finance down the list. Why then are those industries not indicated under top donors? Clearly data has been selected in ways that communicate a certain distorted view.
I care about the issue of money in politics. That issue is not about one individual vs. another. It is systemic and pervades throughout all of politics. Clinton wants to overturn Citizens United, just as Sanders does. Sanders says he won't take money from super pacs, yet Bet on Bernie 2016 is a super pac formed to promote him. A Pac run by one of his key campaign managers failed to submit the legal paperwork for the deadline two weeks ago. He is not pure on the issue, but of course no one is because the system is rotten to the core. To pretend that is all about Clinton deliberately eschews the issue. And the fact is campaign finance law is in the hands of SCOTUS, not an individual president.
Where was Clinton's state department rated the least transparent? By whom? You make allegation after allegation with no evidence. Just because you repeat stuff posted on the internet by the GOP doesn't make it true.
In regard to transparency, she has argued we need to do away with the role of dark money in politics.
Here are some reasons I support Clinton: Competence and ability. You want a president who agrees with you on issues and seem to pay absolutely not attention to how those views would be translated into policy or law. I don't go to the voting booth looking for a mirror to reflect myself. I vote based on who I think is best qualified for the position. Clinton's experience as a senator where she worked across the isle--something that disqualifies her in the minds of people who prefer government not function--and her experience as SOS make her well qualified. She has tangled with Republicans more than most and knows how to deal with them.
For all his views, Sanders has no legislative accomplishments to show for decades in congress. He got two post offices named. I don't care about post offices being named. That doesn't do anything for me. Nor am I looking for a president to validate my anger rather than enact policy that has real impact on people's lives.
Marriage equality is already the law of the land. What does it matter who came out first for it? It isn't even a future policy issue. This again speaks to the idea that you are looking for someone who reflects your views more than the capacity to implement policies. I don't expect politicians to reflect my views, and I have never seen one that does. Moreover, views mean nothing without the capacity to turn them into actual policy, law. Nothing in Sanders background indicates he has that ability. Clinton also enjoys considerable support from the LGBT community. If most of them are cool with her, why should I object?
On the issues I care about most, Clinton is strongest: gun control, women's rights, and racial equality.
Sanders is bad on gun control. He voted for legal immunity for gun corporations, and he continues to defend that vote as right, even though it put the profits of gun companies over the lives of Americans killed from gun violence. I find that unacceptable.
Clinton has promoted women's rights, reproductive rights and campaigns against violence against women, throughout her entire career in public life. As SOS, she directed attention to human trafficking, modern day-slavery. She also listens to voters, to key Democratic constituencies.
Sanders has a economic message that has merit, but it is not comprehensive, though he and his supporters believe it to be universal. It is most relevant to the white upper-middle and middle class. He speaks to the frustration they feel from seeing a recent decline in their economic standing. Many of us never enjoyed the economic security in America of old. We have always been marginalized. I don't like the fact that he tells firefighters we can "agree to disagree" on reproductive rights--my basic civil rights--but what really matters is their children's education. I don't dispute the importance of their children's education, but I will not support someone who treats my rights as an after thought. If Clinton has the courage to stand up for women's reproductive freedom before GOP Senators, Sanders should be able to stand up for women's civil rights before a group of firefighters.
Sanders also thinks his economic message should be enough to address the concerns of African Americans, as he said in a recent statement published in conjunction with a comment about a potential apology for slavery. Racism is not simply about poverty. It has a dynamic all it's own that cannot be solved through economic means, though that is not to say that economic opportunity is not crucially important. It absolutely is. It isn't, however, everything. All Americans lives are not the same, and to treat them as they are shows a fundamental misunderstanding of American society. I think his worldview is shaped by his age and having lived so long in VT, which is far more homogeneous than most of the country. He hasn't had to speak to diverse constituencies and doesn't seem to want to. This again gets to the issue of listening. Clinton has been meeting with small groups of voters to LISTEN to their concerns, to learn what people care about and want from government. Sanders tells us what we should want and need. That has resonance for many on this site, but not for me.
Also the fact Sanders hasn't been and isn't a Democrat is a concern for me because it shows an unwillingness to engage in the kind of compromise necessary to govern. I understand many here see compromise as a bad thing, but a president's responsibility is to represent the US as a whole, not just a small subset of voters. That requires being able to work with their elected representatives of different parties. Not only has Sanders not worked with the GOP in passing major legislation, he hasn't even wanted to join the Democratic Party.
Then there is the fact I don't like the elitist politics of exclusion that has emerged among Sanders supporters. I've addressed this already in an OP and won't do it again. That, however, dovetails with another point. You don't need to understand why liberals/leftist/progressives/Democrats/or anyone else votes differently from you. You get one vote as a citizen, the same as mine. What you think about how I or anyone else votes is inconsequential. My vote isn't subject to your approval, no more than yours is subject to mine.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:14 PM (6 replies)
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Jul 3, 2015, 01:11 PM (0 replies)
I don't denigrate gay rights. I NEVER have. Show the thread I rec'd that says that. Go on. Provide links.
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Jun 30, 2015, 07:13 PM (0 replies)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has reveled the means through which his followers, divided between the Marinara and Alfredo sauces, can come together in holy communion.
Pasta with Tomato Cream Sauce
2 tablespoons butter
2 tablespoons olive oil
4 cloves garlic, minced
1 medium onion, finely diced
Two 15-ounce cans tomato sauce or marinara sauce
Dash of sugar (or more to taste)
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
1 1/2 pounds fettuccine
1 cup heavy cream
Grated Parmesan or Romano, as needed
Chopped fresh basil, for serving
Watch how to make this recipe
Heat the butter and oil in a large skillet over medium heat. Add the garlic and onions and saute for a minute or so. Pour in the tomato sauce, add sugar, salt and pepper to taste and stir. Cook over low heat for 25 to 30 minutes, stirring occasionally.
Cook the pasta according to the package directions. Drain, reserving 1 cup of pasta water.
Remove the sauce from the heat and stir in the cream. Add cheese to taste, then check the seasoning. Stir in the pasta and thin with a little pasta water if needed. Add the chopped basil and serve immediately
Read more at: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ree-drummond/pasta-with-tomato-cream-sauce.html?oc=linkback
FSM has revealed the divine meal through his intercessor, Ree Drummond. Watch this video, and surely you will agree that she can only be a High Priestess of the One True Faith. http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ree-drummond/pasta-with-tomato-cream-sauce.html
Patafarians truly are everywhere. Note, in particular, the glistening, rosy hue of the sauce, made possible only through the divine intervention of Our Blessed Lady, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Jun 26, 2015, 04:52 AM (6 replies)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the lifelong crusader for economic justice now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has serious civil rights movement cred: he attended the historic 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a quarter million people changed the country’s course when it came to race. It would be wrong and unfair to accuse him of indifference to issues of racial equality.
But in the wake of his picture-postcard campaign launch, from the shores of Vermont’s lovely Lake Champlain, Sanders has faced questions about whether his approach to race has kept up with the times. Writing in Vox, Dara Lind suggested that Sanders’ passion for economic justice issues has left him less attentive to the rising movement for racial justice, which holds that racial disadvantage won’t be eradicated only by efforts at economic equality. Covering the Sanders launch appreciatively on MSNBC, Chris Hayes likewise noted the lack of attention to issues of police violence and mass incarceration in the Vermont senator’s stirring kick-off speech.
These are the same questions I raised last month after watching Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio hail the new progressive movement to combat income inequality at two Washington D.C. events. Both pointed to rising popular movements to demand economic justice, most notably the “Fight for $15” campaign. Neither mentioned the most vital and arguably most important movement of all, the “Black Lives Matter” crusade. (Which is odd, since “Fight for $15″ leaders have explicitly endorsed their sister movement.) And the agendas they endorsed that day made only minimal mention, if they mentioned it at all, of the role that mass incarceration and police abuse plays in worsening the plight of the African American poor.
. . .
Dara Lind points to Sanders’ socialist analysis as a reason he’s reluctant to focus on issues of race: he thinks they’re mainly issues of class. She samples colleague Andrew Prokop’s Sanders profile, which found:
Even as a student at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, influenced by the hours he spent in the library stacks reading famous philosophers, (Sanders) became frustrated with his fellow student activists, who were more interested in race or imperialism than the class struggle. They couldn’t see that everything they protested, he later said, was rooted in “an economic system in which the rich controls, to a large degree, the political and economic life of the country.”
Increasingly, though, black and other scholars are showing us that racial disadvantage won’t be undone without paying attention to, and talking about, race. The experience of black poverty is different in some ways than that of white poverty; it’s more likely to be intergenerational, for one thing, as well as being the result of discriminatory public and private policies.
At the Progressive Agenda event last month, I heard activists complain that they’d been told the same thing: the agenda will disproportionately benefit black people, because they’re disproportionately disadvantaged, even if it didn’t specifically address the core issue of criminal justice reform. (De Blasio later promised the agenda would include that issue.) But six years of hearing that from a black president has exhausted people’s patience, and white progressives aren’t going to be able to get away with it anymore.
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Jun 23, 2015, 01:59 AM (55 replies)
Caring about death is merely a ruse to use against the precious rights of the Almighty Guns.
Say you care about the loss of life? You're lying. You only want to make poor, persecuted gun owners feel bad.
You might say, hey, I know gun owners who think the current situation is every bit as crazy as the "gun grabbers" do, who support increased gun control through background checks and bans on certain high capacity weapons. No, they aren't real gun owners. The only true gun owners insist that deaths like these are mere pretext, because what really matters is the Sacred and Inviolate right to accumulate weapons of death, and to ensure the corporate merchants of death reap unfettered profits. (Yes, gun companies are corporations too, even though they merely profit from murder as opposed to usury.)
God Bless the United States of Guns, where the right to kill trumps all others. In Guns we Trust.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Jun 18, 2015, 06:48 PM (190 replies)