Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 36,721
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 36,721
- 2016 (43)
- 2015 (64)
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (143)
Like the $800 billion to Lockheed-Martin or immunity for gun corporations? That sort of influence?
No, accepting donations for a charity, a charity that works on climate change and global health, as well as empowering girls and women around the world. A charity that is chartered in the US, subject to IRS law and US government oversight. Not even chartered in the Caribbean where it's financial dealings can't be taxed or overseen by the IRS.
"Minor actions of volunteers." Impersonating union workers. Illegally using logos in mailings. Who cares? Now reportedly, supposedly (yet we still haven't seen a quote) making a statement about bused in caucusers, now that is far more egregious. She should really be poking around in his computer files instead, harvesting data, so that suddenly people in Iowa never before contacted by the campaign start getting phone calls. Instead, someone said the campaign said something. That is truly an outrage.
Please tell me when Single Payer was one known as a Democratic principle. I know a bit about US history and I know of no such Democratic Party. Please, enlighten me.
And really, how dare anyone talk about how a Tea Party House will go from a veto-proof majority to overturn Obamacare to passing single payer all cause of Bernie. Worry about the constitutional limitations of the presidency? That truly is unethical. Far better to promise a health plan to voters that the candidate himself declared a non-starter in 2009, with a Democratic majority in both houses.
Promising what he himself knows won't happen, that takes real integrity. And then floating a plan where even the summary page has inconsistent figures for cost. But Clinton talks about math. That is so un-Democratic. How dare anyone expect Bernie to account for what his proposals might actually cost? Questioning a man so clearly superior to all other human beings is the height of corruption. The public must be encouraged to refrain from critical thinking, to accept unquestioningly.
A real Democrat would count on the public being uninformed about the legislative process and campaign finance law, boast he doesn't "have super pacs" while benefiting from millions of dollars in dark money spending. Pretend it's all about his "integrity" rather than a system that he himself benefits hugely from. Promise to overturn Citizens United once elected, or that his SCOTUS appointments will promise to overturn it as one of their first decisions, counting on voters having little understanding of how the court works. Or proudly proclaiming he will sponsor "new gun legislation" when the regulations in his proposal are already in effect. Those might just be mistakes, results of poor knowledge of legislation or how SCOTUS works if we were dealing with someone like Rick Perry, but this is a man who has been in DC 25 years and does not appear to be stupid at all.
Hey, you want to do away with fracking, I appoint you to go to ND and Oklahoma and tell those workers they are now unemployed. Then you can gear up for more war in the oil nations to compensate for the oil that isn't coming out the ground in the US. Then you can secure the funding for additional military spending. But hey, Lockheed might get another $800 billion out of it. It's easy to say fracking is bad. When you have to consider the repercussions of what that means for real people's jobs (only blue color workers, not anyone who actually counts) and our involvement in the oil regions, it gets tougher. But keep the issues one-dimensional so they fit on bumper stickers. Why think about broader implications when you sell something simple to voters?
Clinton's lacks integrity because--according to you--she challenges her opponent's proposals, critiques their viability; that she fails to indulge the suspension of thought crucial to the Sanders campaign makes her corrupt. And the press actually is staring to report on Sanders inconsistencies and campaign maneuvers, which is all indicative of Clinton's lack of integrity. If she were truly honest, she would insist the press not publish anything but adoration of Bernie.
Red baiting. You want a man who claims to be a socialist in America, and who will run against the GOP, and you're complaining about red baiting? Get a fucking grip. Clearly you and your candidate are not ready for prime time. Better go curl up under the covers because you don't want to see what would happen if Bernie faced a general election, when you face a GOP that doesn't give a shit what self-entitled "progressives" think. A GOP that takes no prisoners and is currently spending millions to try to get Bernie as their opponent in the general election. We need a candidate who can take them on, and all y'alls complaints only serve to emphasize the fact that it is not Bernie. If he is anywhere as weak as his supporters treat him, he isn't up to the task.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Jan 30, 2016, 05:29 AM (9 replies)
And we have got a lot of work to do to get ready. I'm a bit concerned because truth be told I'm not as flexible as I used to be. I've got to start working out to get ready to be able to fill out all those bubbles on the ballot using my vagina. I've been doing my kegels, but I'm worried that won't be enough. Voting with one's vagina takes great flexibility. Here are some exercises we need to be doing to get ready for the primaries.
Right now you may be thinking, "gee, if I just keep voting for men like I have my whole life, I can use my hands to vote." I urge you not to give in to such defeatist thinking. While the obstacles are great, they are not insurmountable. We are women, after all, the keepers of all things vaginal. We shall raise ourselves up to the challenge!
As for me, I've only got until Super Tuesday to get in shape, so I've got to get cracking!
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:58 PM (68 replies)
For 100 years, Planned Parenthood has provided reproductive healthcare for American women. I myself received my first gynecological exam at a Planned Parenthood clinic. In many places in the nation, they are the only clinics that provide such services--not just abortion but regular gynecological exams, pap smears, cervicals, and birth control.
We are experiencing renewed calls by the GOP to defund Planned Parenthood and to deprive women of those basic medical services that allow us autonomy over our lives. Now, a movement of some "progressives" has arisen to deny them funding--essentially to encourage private citizens to stop donations--because Planned Parenthood endorsed for the presidency a candidate who has forcefully and proactively defended their work with American women.
The primary contest of 2016 is a historical blip, a brief moment that will pass. The work Planned Parenthood does is far more enduring. Denying Planned Parenthood funding now can result in unwanted pregnancies that might otherwise have been prevented by family planning services birth control. That affects the entirety of women's lives and even subsequent generations.
Yet some insist what really matters is not the work PP does but Bernie's career. They should be punished for failing to endorse him. For that vocal minority of Sanders supporters, his political prospects trump the reproductive rights of the women of America, particularly those in rural and poor areas with no other options.
I don't care much who anyone supports for the nomination, but when Planned Parenthood is targeted because they failed to prioritize the electoral prospects of a particular member of the political elite, an indelible line in the sand is drawn. If Bernie's candidacy is really more important to you than the work Planned Parenthood does, something is seriously wrong. If people advocate that Planned Parenthood be deprived of funding and girls and women saddled with unwanted pregnancy as a result, they forsake any pretense of standing for any just or justifiable cause.
When "progressives" target an organization that has worked for the reproductive rights of women for many decades, their priorities are made clear. It's not enough to openly court the votes of anti-choice advocates, but now they they share the right's enemies list: First Black Lives Matter, then one union after another, Emily's List, and now Planned Parenthood. Why people claim to justify that opposition matters far less than the fact they are actively working to undermine them.
No politician is worth more than the lives and rights of half of the American population. Joining the GOP War on Women is not progressive or leftist. Its simply wrong.
Planned Parenthood has stood with us for 100 years. It's time we stand with them. If you're a Sanders supporter, stand up for equal rights. Make clear that you do not elevate one man above the women and families of America, that supporting Bernie (or Hillary or Martin) demands standing up for rather than forsaking equal rights.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:38 PM (155 replies)
And is emblematic of the fault lines running across gender, race, and class that are at the heart of this primary contest.
As offensive as I find your post, at least you've put it all on the table. It's not enough for you to say I support another candidate because of x, y, and z. You have to attack her very womanliness, make clear that you see her and other women who don't behave as you think acceptable as trangressing the gender norms that uphold your fragile sense of masculinity. You've demonstrated just how much your opposition to Clinton is based in no small degree on her gender. The irony is in that announcing what you think is acceptable womanliness, you've showed precisely what kind of a man you are.
Vote for whomever you want, Sanders, Trump, whoever meets your standards of acceptable gender norms. It doesn't really matter. No one expects you, or those who think like you, to support Clinton, least of all the candidate herself. She had doubtless encountered men like you her entire life, and she has risen in spite of their efforts to demean her for transgressing gender norms they think their right to impose on women. Make no mistake about it. That is a form social control, but it is an increasingly tenuous one. Your day has passed. The US is starting to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of women in political office, and you are not going to be able to stop it.
The Democratic party is majority women and people of color. White men are not only a minority within the party but in the nation as well. Their privilege, their uncontested grip on power, is slipping away, and it's about goddamn time.
I secretly hope (I guess it's not a secret anymore) that Fiorina wins the GOP nomination because then guys like you will be faced with two women who don't behave like you feel women are supposed to.
I'm so looking forward to election day 2016. It will be a thing of beauty.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Nov 14, 2015, 08:36 PM (0 replies)
Like when he voted for them in this bill:
Somehow I'm guessing you'll omit the disparity between rhetoric and voting record. When another candidate does it, you all call it flip flopping, or something to do with weather vanes.
Visas, whether H-IB or any other kind, are not outsourcing. They involve bringing workers to the US, not shipping jobs out of the US.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Out -------->
. . . . . . . . . . . . In <---------------
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Oct 28, 2015, 03:40 PM (2 replies)
And YOU are in no position to question her strength.
Whether or not you agree with Clinton's take on the shouting business, her raising it does not make her a victim and it DOES NOT set women back. You are speaking about a woman who has done more in her life than most of us do in ten lifetimes, a woman who will quite likely be President of the United States. She is remarkably strong, much stronger than I am and certainly much stronger than you are. She does NOT play the victim. She has been Senator, Secretary of State. She stood up to 11 hours of interrogation by the GOP house, chewed them up and spit them out. Bernie Sanders balked with interrupted on stage by two women, and his supporters rushed to his defense. That you would pretend there is anything weak about Clinton is ludicrous.
You do not speak for all women or even most women, the majority of whom will be voting for Hillary Clinton and do not share your view that women are expected to remain silent when they feel they have been disrespected or their rights violated. You belong to another era, an ethos that thinks its acceptable to invoke right-wing tropes of gender card and race card. Such tropes are part of the apparatus of white patriarchal power, a kind of power far more enduring and intractable than any temporal political power.
The people most focused on Clinton's gender are those who despise her, and there is a very good reason for that. While I rarely discuss it, I have not failed to observe the fact that gender underlies the extraordinary animosity toward Clinton, disproportionate to anything in her record. I observe it but I rarely discuss it because I know there is no point; those who do it simply do not care. Feminist academics and writers can take on that analysis, and this election has already given them plenty to work with.
Your post shows desperation. You have no policy or issue to discuss because you have point blank refused to read Clinton's policy positions. That level of contempt toward Clinton depends on disinformation, and her actual policies and voting record get in the way of the contrived narrative. Your post shows the desperation of someone searching for whatever they can to try to take down a very strong woman who is on the rise. Go right ahead. Preach away to your echo chamber. Your protestations amount to nothing. Hillary Clinton will carry on being successful and strong, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
I am so looking forward to election day 2016.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Oct 28, 2015, 05:44 AM (15 replies)
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Oct 25, 2015, 09:45 PM (3 replies)
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. .
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Oct 25, 2015, 09:17 PM (1 replies)
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Oct 23, 2015, 03:08 AM (2 replies)
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.
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.
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:36 PM (2 replies)