Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,213
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,213
- 2016 (49)
- 2015 (64)
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (143)
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)
You fault Clinton for taking money from banks, but Bernie Sanders has been hosting fundraisers with Wall Street big wigs ever since he entered the senate. He has pretended not to take money from Wall Street or to have super pacs, but the fact he is does. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-record-filings-show-benefits-from-super-pacs-links-to-wall-street-donors-1455300881 http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/
Bernie has built a campaign around slogans that do not hold up to scrutiny. He has deliberately made the issue of campaign finance small, trivialized it by pretending the entire thing rests of Clinton earning money from speeches to Goldman Sachs, like this one:
If, however, one cares about more than demonizing Clinton in order to promote Bernie's career and/or GOP electoral prospects, then one has to examine policy. The fact is, Clinton takes that policies about both campaign finance reform and financial regulation FAR more seriously than Sanders, as is evidenced by her substantive policy positions: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/
She also seeks to promote small business, something Bernie has paid no attention to: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/small-business/
Clinton didn't announce before an editorial board that people losing businesses, jobs, or access to credit wasn't her problem. Bernie just did. He demonstrated he really doesn't care. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
If the actual issue is campaign finance reform, Bernie falls short for a number of reasons, principally because he has shown himself unwilling to follow the law as it currently exists and has been cited by the FEC with a staggering, record number of violations. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511645580
I happen to believe policy--actually making concrete changes to improve the country--matter more than campaign slogans, even those by Sanders, that tap so successfully into the understandable anger many Americans feel about the economic collapse of the 2008 and the uneven recovery since. However, that collapse was due to GOP policies under Bush, not Hillary Clinton's speeches or fundraising. Ultimately, if the goal is to change the situation, talk alone won't do it. Sanders demonstrates that he doesn't take his own campaign slogans seriously enough to develop specific policies that deal with the problems he identifies. His interview before the NY Daily News Editorial board shows that quite clearly. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanderss-rough-ride-with-the-daily-news/476919/
I think the future of the country too important to ignore policy in favor of campaign slogans.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Apr 6, 2016, 12:56 AM (3 replies)
This is the second response by the Sanders campaign that responds to the second of two letters from the FEC citing a long list of violations. http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/917/201603319012213917/201603319012213917.pdf
The letter from Susan Jackson is in response to this specific FEC letter, with 95 pages of violations. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/26/feds-flag-bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80985898/
I provided the context for this document in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511628659
Despite allegations that I was telling "lies," the response by the Sanders campaign treasurer Susan Jackson confirms that there were in fact improper donations from foreign nationals and that the campaign is refunding that money.
This is the second response by Jackson on behalf of the Sanders campaign, the first filed electronically, http://docquery.fec.gov/dcdev/fectxt/1056008.txt (which can be accessed on this link under "view micellaneous document" http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00577130/1056008/)
In response to a separate letter from the FEC citing violations of campaign finance law: http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
Two separate letters from the FEC citing campaign finance violations and two separate responses from the campaign treasurer.
Posted by BainsBane | Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:41 PM (55 replies)
that is why I provided it. Go to the FEC site yourself.
I didn't post anything from Project Veritas or James O'Keefe. That a blog reports the existence of a Veritas lawsuit doesn't nullify the fact they link to the FEC. Any number of reputable sources have written about the Project Veritas case. Some of them include: The Union Leader, Australian Newspapers
and a series of other publications regular posted by Sanders supporters on DU: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=veritas+lawsuit+australian+labor+party+sanders
Reporting it doesn't mean they are the same as Veritas. Of course you have to know that, but your point is to distract from the factual evidence that links to the FEC. Here are the documents, one of which I directly linked above and was likewise linked to in the NY Times piece: http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
If you had bothered to read the articles, you would have seen the links to the source material, but then you aren't interested in knowing the facts at issue, are you?
I'm sorry I didn't rely on Breitbart or the Daily Caller, as in the threads you prefer. People here every day post anti-Clinton stuff straight from the GOP and you never complain.
As for what I already know, I rarely read your posts because you deal entirely in ad hominems and personal attacks. You never engage in any substantive discussion of issues. Lots of links don't make up for the fact you show a willful contempt for evidence. Moreover, your entire argument relies on the claim that because a publication posted an article about Veritas makes them the same. If that claim were applied across the board, it would invalidate New Hampshire's major newspaper and by extension every publication that ever wrote about unsavory groups. Additionally, the evidence doesn't rely on the narrative authority of that blog. The blog simply serves to provide links to the FEC site. Your argument fails completely.
Everything I posted is true, as PRIMARY documents from the FEC reveal. What is also true is you don't care so you engage in your transparent game of distraction. No amount of misdirection changes the fact that the FEC documentation exists, that his campaign acknowledges the violation in their letter of response. (There was another response due on 3/31, which if the Sanders campaign complies should be posted on the FEC site next week). There are also links above from respected sources like the NYTimes, Time and the Wall Street Journal, which again obviously can't compare to the rigor of Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Breitbart, the Daily Caller, the Free Beacon, and the other right-wing sources so popular among Sanders supporters looking to spread specious dirt on the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The time it's taken me to provide links that you will never read is why I seldom read your posts. For you, political discourse is a game of misdirection intended to obfuscate rather than illuminate.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:47 AM (1 replies)
Sanders' campaign has accepted over $23 million in ILLEGAL campaign contributions. The FEC cited the campaign for those violations in February, in two separate letters sent to his campaign treasurer, Shelia Jackson. At least one of Jackson's responses has been made public and can be read via links in the final article listed below.
The law prohibits candidates from accepting donations that total over $2700 in a single campaign cycle. The letters from the FEC show infractions such as single checks of $5,000 or $12,000, substantially over the legal limit. It also shows multiple donations of $27 on a single day, which isn't illegal if they don't exceed $2700 but in a number of cases they do.
Claims that Clinton is corrupt or more dishonest than Sanders are not supported by evidence. Bernie's announcing something over and over again doesn't make it true. Informed voters--human beings who think critically--do not accept a politician's slogans as fact without examining them. The evidence does not support Bernie's claims that is is better than Clinton on campaign finance because he does not even follow the existing law, meager as it is.
At the very least, the FEC violations, more than any candidate in history, show a stunning level of incompetence. How is it possible to appoint a campaign treasurer who is so lax on following federal law that she would submit listings for single checks that exceed federal limits? How is it possible not to have software that tracks donation limits by individual contributors, particularly when the candidate has a war chest well over a $100 million dollars in size? How can someone who can't run a campaign according to the law be trusted with the federal budget?
The infractions above can be explained as the result of incompetence rather than dishonesty. Yet that doesn't hold for all of his claims. For months now he has been announcing he doesn't have super pacs and doesn't take money from Wall Street. Only that too turns out to be false. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-record-filings-show-benefits-from-super-pacs-links-to-wall-street-donors-1455300881
Bernie does not have more integrity than Hillary Clinton, not even close. He has a lower scale of truth telling on Politifact http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
While key claims about his relationship to super pacs and funders has been proven false, as the links in the paragraphs above demonstrate.
Rather than asking their own candidate about his the revelations concerning his super pac or FEC violations, they post about "Hillary's scream," demonstrating they think she has no right to challenge false character assassination directed against her. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/?postshare=8651459544364948&tid=ss_fb
They denounce the majority of Democratic voters as "uninformed" for failing to take Bernie's campaign slogans as fact, while they pointedly refuse to as much as examine any independent or documentary evidence because ultimately is it they who willfully seek to remain misinformed.
Now, I know for a fact very few Sanders supporters will examine the FEC evidence or articles about Bernie's super pac because the sad fact is too many simply don't care. I think that says a great deal about the support for Bernie's candidacy and how little of it has to do with evidence, policy, or actual differences on issues.
A jury can hide this post, fully supported with evidence and sources--including links to primary documents--but that won't make the truth go away. Facts are what they are, and Bernie does not live up to billing.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Apr 2, 2016, 12:18 AM (172 replies)
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:25 AM (1 replies)
Those aren't questionable. They are violations of the law. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
Some of the sources above provide links to the FEC sites where you can see the letters set by the FEC and the response by the Sanders Campaign Treasurer, Susan Jackson. The response to the second round of violations is due to the FEC today. They are, in all likelihood, going to have to refund even more of the illegal donations they accepted.
You can post videos about "questionable" donations to Clinton all day long, and they don't come close to actual documented violations of federal election law by the Sanders campaign.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:15 AM (2 replies)