HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30 Next »

BainsBane

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:49 PM
Number of posts: 34,957

Journal Archives

Not your OP

your responses to posts like the OP about someone on his campaign ejecting pro-Palestinian protestors, or bringing up his policies toward Israel. That is what I am talking about.

Given your great concern for anti-semitism, I would have thought I would have seen you denouncing the spate of posts we had about a year ago when Gaza was being bombed. I don't recall seeing you raise concern about one thread after another comparing Israelis to Nazis, or a poster who invoked the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In fact, I remember being one of a very small handful of posters speaking out about that, as I do against Islamophobia, racism, sexism, anti-Catholicism, etc...

Yet suddenly it's a major concern for you because of Sanders? I have trouble when general principles are not in fact principles but apply to a few great men rather than all people. That is what I find disingenuous.

The other thing I observed about your responses is that you don't do what many do when they are concerned about bigotry: explain how and why something is bigoted (except for your OP, which you didn't write but merely reposted). You used it as a club. Like here, for example. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650448#post5
Whereas when a Sanders supporter posted it a day earlier, you did not wield the club similarly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650448#post5(People will have to look at the first, unedited version to see what you responded to) Exact same story, exact same event, yet your responses were entirely different.

In order to criticize a policy, one has to know what it is

and the fact is most are not even slightly interested in her policy positions and refuse, even when provided links, to look at them. Thus, how can their criticism be of policy when they don't care what she has proposed?

Hillary Clinton is NOT a victim by any means, and her supporters don't treat her as one. She is a remarkably strong person, and her supporters know that. It is not we who have devised one conspiracy theory after another to smear black activists and to pretend the GOP held 8 Benghazi hearings in order to promote Clinton and harm Sanders. We do not take to social media to attack black activists for having the nerve to interrupt our candidate, or try to cover up for her voting record by waging personal insults in stead of discussing issues.

Every time I post about a policy position, like a tax position or guns, I am told I am "smearing a good man." I had someone compare me to a Nazi and post a series of threads demanding I take down a story from the Washington Post, a story that he nor anyone else was able to refute any of, and you yourself referred to my posting the story as "disgusting." You'll have to excuse me if I see a massive double standard at work here.

I haven't referred to you or anyone else as "disgusting" for posting anything, let alone a reputable news source. What I do--once in a while--is provide Clinton's policy positions and voting record in response. They do not read them. They announce they will not read them, and they are not interested in them. And then you want to pretend this is disagreement about policy?

It is clear what you object to is that 10 percent of the site holds an opinion that you do not approve of, and now you insist we not express it in public. Rather than working so hard to keep us from expressing our views, use ignore. You need not subject yourself of the horror of dissenting thought.


This site has for years been inundated with one thread after another, invoking every RW source and meme under the sun to attack Clinton. We all know that is the way it is. But you are clearly put out that some 10-15 percent of this site dares to disagree. Rather than telling us we have no right to express our opinions, don't read them. No one forces you to.

It's incredible to me someone can post something like this with a straight face given the content of 90 percent of the posts about the primary on this site. I am tired of people who insist on stifling all dissent, who insist that anyone who dares to think in ways they don't approve of have no right to speak. I am tried of the absolute deference for Sanders and the refusal to discuss any policies, whether Sanders or Clinton. I am tired of reading posts after posts that say nothing of substance about any policy position but instead target other voters. If you care about policy, discuss it. This doesn't come close to that. .


Some days the news just doesn't go according to plan

MIC includes Lockheed-Martin

and Sanders continues to support the $800 million boondoggle that is the F-35. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

"Anyone taking corporate money." It is in fact illegal for candidates to take money from corporations. Citizens United ruled that corporations are allowed to spend their own money on candidates. It didn't authorize candidates to take "corporate money."
Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/
If you claim to care about issues, I would think you would bother to inform yourself about them.

It is factually false that Clinton is the candidate of Wall Street. As Paul Krugman noted, that money is going almost exclusively to the GOP.
For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t. . . .

Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican.

To understand the politics of financial reform and regulation, we have to start by acknowledging that there was a time when Wall Street and Democrats got on just fine. Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs became Bill Clinton’s most influential economic official; big banks had plenty of political access; and the industry by and large got what it wanted, including repeal of Glass-Steagall.

This cozy relationship was reflected in campaign contributions, with the securities industry splitting its donations more or less evenly between the parties, and hedge funds actually leaning Democratic.

But then came the financial crisis of 2008, and everything changed. . .

While this is good news for taxpayers and the economy, financiers bitterly resent any constraints on their ability to gamble with other people’s money, and they are voting with their checkbooks. Financial tycoons loom large among the tiny group of wealthy families that is dominating campaign finance this election cycle — a group that overwhelmingly supports Republicans. Hedge funds used to give the majority of their contributions to Democrats, but since 2010 they have flipped almost totally to the G.O.P.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=1


Clinton has a far more detailed and thorough plan for reforming Wall Street than Sanders does. In fact, he has yet to develop a policy statement on it other than reinstating a law from 1933, which Elizabeth Warren has said is more a goal and rhetorical device for talking to the public than an essential part of Wall Street reform, which is in fact complicated because the fuckers manage to wiggle their way around any and every regulation. This is Clinton's plan, very much opposed by Wall Street, as Krugman notes above. It also deals with the shadow banks that caused the 2008 collapse, entities that would not be effected by Glass-Steagal.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform

Now I understand you prefer to keep things in the realm of slogans rather than a discussion of actual policy, but the information is here for those who do care.

Paul Krugman on Wall Street reform: Hillary vs. Bernie



For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t. . . .

Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican.

To understand the politics of financial reform and regulation, we have to start by acknowledging that there was a time when Wall Street and Democrats got on just fine. Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs became Bill Clinton’s most influential economic official; big banks had plenty of political access; and the industry by and large got what it wanted, including repeal of Glass-Steagall.

This cozy relationship was reflected in campaign contributions, with the securities industry splitting its donations more or less evenly between the parties, and hedge funds actually leaning Democratic.

But then came the financial crisis of 2008, and everything changed. . .

While this is good news for taxpayers and the economy, financiers bitterly resent any constraints on their ability to gamble with other people’s money, and they are voting with their checkbooks. Financial tycoons loom large among the tiny group of wealthy families that is dominating campaign finance this election cycle — a group that overwhelmingly supports Republicans. Hedge funds used to give the majority of their contributions to Democrats, but since 2010 they have flipped almost totally to the G.O.P.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=1

There are factual errors in your OP

This is the actual title of the article: "Hillary Clinton Interrupted By Immigration Protester Over Private Prison Donations."

Additionally, it makes the following point:
While her broader poll numbers have slipped, Clinton is the presidential candidate regularly viewed most positively by Latino voters.


I understand facts are annoying, but the actual contributions in question come from five people who work at the lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a firm that among its clients includes a single private prison corporation.
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-raising-cash-hillary-clinton/
Now, one may find that problematic, but it is not at all the same as claiming she takes money from private prison corporations. In addition to being factually false, that statement shows a woeful misunderstanding of campaign finance law, which in fact prohibits politicians from accepting money from corporations of any kind. That point has already been posted on this site a number of times, but of course I realize facts complicate the narrative and truth is the least of concerns.

Now, I presume the glee with which you post the story indicates you think Bernie will be the beneficiary of the anger expressed by Ramos at the event. I don't know why that should be the case, and polls show no evidence of it. Bernie in fact voted for two of the crime bills that began the era of incarceration many here have decided was entirely the responsibility of a woman who was First Lady at the time, whereas a congressman who twice voted for those crime bills is somehow the only person that can save us from a situation he voted to implement. Voting records matter, as much as some may insist any effort to examine them amounts to character assassination. https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/20/crime

Additionally, a couple of months ago Sanders publicly stated that he sees immigration as responsible for unemployment in the US. That was in keeping with his previous statements on the subject:
"I'm very dubious about the need to bring foreign unskilled labor into this country," he said in 2013. "What I do not support is, under the guise of immigrant reform, a process pushed by large corporations which results in more unemployment and lower wages for American workers."
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation
That kind of statement is certain to attract the Republican voters some "progressives" are so excited to be allied with, but it alienates immigrants, Hispanic immigrants in particular. It is also at odds with the Democratic Party's position on immigration.

Now, notice that rather than simply shouting "It's been debunked. Take it down!" over and over again, I showed which aspects of the story were false and provided evidence to support my point. Imagine that.

That story was first posted on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134113241

so if the other site is antisemitic for posting it, then so is DU.

That's my take

Biden won't run UNLESS Hillary's campaign tanks, then he will enter--even if it's after Iowa or New Hampshire.


#fuckthebern

No, he isn't

Not even close. What the author mentions in terms of Roe and PP is standard for any Democrat, even on the furthest right of the party. It is not "better;" it is a base line minimum. Casting a vote when it is put in front of you does not constitute "fighting for women's rights." On his website, his reference to women's reproductive rights points to a bill that stalled in committee over a year ago. That would seem to be enough for some. He hasn't even bothered to make one of his showboat legislative proposals as he has done for a number of other issues.

Sanders hasn't been proactive in defending Planned Parenthood from the RW sting operation as Clinton has. She has clearly been far stronger on this issue, has a much more active history before she became First Lady, while in the White House and certainly as Secretary of State. It was Clinton who in Beijing in 1993 made the memorable statement that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all." As Secretary of State, she elevated key issues like human trafficking--slavery--to international importance. She doesn't sit back and wait to be asked about PP or reproductive rights. She doesn't tell men who oppose reproductive freedom that "we'll agree to disagree." She stood up for reproductive rights before a Republican Senate Committee with the power to deny her confirmation, and she told them in no uncertain terms that she would actively promote reproductive healthcare, including abortion. Women's rights are central to Hillary Clinton is, just as Sanders' economic platform is central to who he is.

That the author then points to issues not at all specific to women--single payer (which I would love to see but if wishes amounted to anything we'd already have that and much of the other reforms Sanders promises, knowing full well he has no possibility of implementing them, which I don't appreciate at all) and of course the defining issue of the white liberal bourgeoisie, TPP. Yet the author of the article doesn't even bother to look up Clinton's voting record on trade agreements--that she twice voted against CAFTA--and falsely insists she is somehow bound by her husband's policies from the 1990s.

If women's issues is defined as throwing out the Kochs as red meat to his base and feeding into
the anger of the $80k+ a year demographic https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
against the $450k a plus demographic, then I suppose that's better. Few Americans, however, live in that rarefied world. That is an ideology that expresses the conflict of the white, majority male upper-middle class against the super rich. If you are a privileged Associate Professor at Fordham university married to another upper-middle class wage earner which gives you a combined household income in the upper 5-10 percent $150-195k yr), then you're right in Bernie's demographic.

The author quite erroneously assumes that economic reforms intended to create better paying jobs will magically help women. How? Why would justice for women trickle down anymore than racial equality or economic wealth? Let's pretend the fairy dust works and all Sanders promises about infrastructure jobs are magically approved by the GOP congress. How does that help women when those industries are 82% male because of sexual harassment and hostile work conditions, the sort of thing I have seen described here as "freedom of speech"? Saying one is for equal pay amounts to nothing. That is already the law of the land. What proposals does he offer to address disparities that continue despite those laws? I saw nothing on his website or in the article above. Clinton has a proposal to require that companies make wages known to their employees, which would give women the ability to file a claim of unequal pay.

What if you're one of those women threatened by an abusive partner, who the gun lobby is ensuring has access to guns to do away with you? How does Sanders refusal to speak out for gun control help those women?

And while Dr. Gautney can access the best gynecologists in America from her home in New York City, regardless of which party occupies the White House, the women throughout Texas and the rest of the South still have to travel hundreds of miles to access reproductive care. And if Sanders should become the Democratic nominee and the GOP wins the White House, the women throughout the red states will see their reproductive rights stripped away, and they will be enabled by a Tea Party DOJ.

The only areas that the author cites that would be better for women and men are reforms that have no possibility of passing given the fact we have a GOP congress, and given gerrymandering there is no way the House will go to the Democrats in 2016. Gautney condemns Clinton for talking about what is politically possible. Apparently for Dr. Gautney thinking about what could actually become law suggests a "lack of enthusiasm." I see the issue quite differently: I resent empty promises. I like the fact that Hillary Clinton treats voters seriously, that she carefully considers what she can actually implement. She knows that when she makes a promise, she faces a good chance of actually having to follow through on it. Sanders seems unencumbered by such considerations. My life is not improved by fairytales and empty promises, and I do not trust politicians who make them.

If Sanders were really better for women, why then would his supporters here become so angry when asked about his positions on women's issues? Why would they accuse those who have the audacity to even ask of being "divisive" and "calling him sexist"? That communicates quite clearly they see the question as illegitimate and the issues as inconsequential, just as they responded to similar questions by African Americans. All of that paints quite a clear picture of what to expect from a potential Sanders presidency. One member insisted that Sanders would not forget his supporters, that he would appoint some of them to key positions in his administration. That was meant to convince everyone he would not be like the POSUCS Barack Obama. Given the hostility with which mere questions about Sanders' policies and plans toward the subaltern have been met, the message communicated by the actions of his supporters throughout social media is far from comforting in terms of the potential for our concerns to be addressed by a Sanders administration.

Ultimately, if Sanders were really better for women, he would be attracting more women as supporters.


https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251542288

Each woman, like every other voter, will make her own decision about which candidate best represents the entirety of their concerns. I myself will be voting in my own gender and class interests rather than in those of Professor Gautney.

There are Super Pacs for Sanders

Including Billionaires for Bernie and Bet on Bernie 2016. He has also refused to rule out taking advantage of that money.http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783
I get tired of posting this. The information is public and you could find it out, and you could also find out that no candidate takes money from Super PACs because it is in fact illegal. You repeat promises the candidate makes that plays on the ignorance of the public about campaign finance law. He also has an authorized PAC he has for years taken money from, run by his current Field Director. It was fined last quarter for failing to file the basic paperwork, a simple requirement of the all too meager campaign finance law. The man continues to work for Sanders. Violating campaign finance law evidently wasn't enough of a concern for Sanders to fire him. http://www.timesargus.com/article/20150704/NEWS03/707049936

I find it interesting that Clinton's wealth is unacceptable whereas the Kennedy's and Roosevelts are treated with great admiration around here. It seems like Clinton's problem is having earned money from book and speeches and thereby exceeding what some clearly see as her place in life, having what for some reason is perfectly acceptable for men, like Bill Mahrer, Ben and Jerry and the multi-billionaire Elon Musk. Sure, we might live in a capitalist nation where gun corporations require protection from awful victims families who might sue them for knowingly allowing guns to wind up in the hands of felons, and Lockheed Martin might just deserve the $400-700 billion it's receiving for the flying death inferno called the F-35, but a woman just shouldn't be taking vacation in the Hamptons, and she certainly shouldn't have the nerve to think she should be president.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.htmlhttp://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30 Next »