Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 36,688
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 36,688
- 2016 (43)
- 2015 (64)
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (143)
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Oct 16, 2015, 05:24 PM (23 replies)
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.
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Oct 9, 2015, 03:24 AM (9 replies)
so if the other site is antisemitic for posting it, then so is DU.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:56 PM (1 replies)
Biden won't run UNLESS Hillary's campaign tanks, then he will enter--even if it's after Iowa or New Hampshire.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:44 PM (0 replies)
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.
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Aug 30, 2015, 11:35 PM (6 replies)
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Aug 26, 2015, 10:41 PM (0 replies)
He twice voted against the Brady Bill, THE principal gun control legislation of the past several decades.
He voted against mandatory background checks at gun shows.
He voted FOR the Manufacturers Firearms Protection Act that granted gun corporations immunity from liability from victims families, a bill that enables gun makers to get away with knowingly selling to illegal arms dealers without facing any financial consequences. He recently defended his vote for that law and repeated the gun lobby spin on the bill that it merely keeps them from being sued from illegal use of their weapon. That is a false representation of the law, which has been widely used for full-scale immunity. The Sandyhook families now must pay a huge amount of money to gun corporations as a penalty for daring to attempt a suit. It is corporate privilege, a privilege that does not extend to other sectors of the economy--not Wall Street or makers of automobiles or knives--just Big Gun.
Here are his full list of votes on guns.
He voted to ALLOW loaded guns in national parks.
He voted for an amendment to ACA that prohibits medical providers and insurance companies from collecting data on gun ownership.
He voted to prohibit funds in the Indigenous Health Bill (S 1200) from being used to "carry out any anti-firearm program, gun buy-back program, or program to discourage or stigmatize the private ownership of firearms for collecting, hunting, or self-defense."
His ratings on the gun issue are inconstant. He has F ratings, but he also had a 25% rating from the NRA and 50% from the Gun Owners of America, whereas pro-gun control Democrats have a 0 percent. I read that he had a C- at one point, but that rating is not reflected in the chart below.
The Brady campaign recently gave him a 100% rating but in the past have given him 66% and 71%. He is not a gun nut, not in the pocket of the NRA, but he has voted against crucial gun control legislation. He is not the candidate for someone who makes increased gun control a high voting priority.
Compare him with, for example, Hillary Clinton whose ratings are consistently F- from the NRA, 100% from the Brady Campaign and 0% from the Gun Owners of America. http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/55463/hillary-clinton/37#.Vd5xwrTydUQ
As Cali pointed out, the NRA ran ads against Sanders opponent in a House race in VT. There is no shortage of evidence on that subject in the press, including summaries of the ads telling conservatives to vote for the socialist who protects gun rights. The NRA operates by running ads for or against opponents because they are regulated by the same campaign finance restrictions of direct contributions to candidates as every other lobbying group.
Those are the relevant facts, complete with links for anyone who cares to inform themselves on the issue.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Aug 26, 2015, 10:19 PM (2 replies)
Neither Sanders nor his supporters are victims. They are not being murdered by police. Those who vilified BLM should be condemned, not defended. It is interesting that you think words from Hillary Clinton would have altered the behavior of thousands of people, as though you see her leadership as more influential than Sanders.
No, great numbers of Clinton supporters would not have done the same thing because we are not the same people. Someone tried to insist we should be upset by BLM critiques of Clinton, saying "it's uncomfortable" when the shoe is one the other foot. No, it wasn't uncomfortable in the least, and many Clinton supporters said so. Then when someone else posted a poll asking if Clinton should do more to address racism, Clinton supporters voted yes. Naturally many of the Sanders supporters who insisted Bernie had no obligation to address the issue voted yes too because no issue or principle matters as much as promoting one man's career. I have theorized that is because they see him as a perfect political reflection of themselves, hence the frequent confusion between criticism of Sander's supporters and the candidate himself.
People don't behave as some of those Sanders supporters did unless that is who they are. I would sooner shoot myself in the head that carry on that way, particularly in order to defend a member of the political elite, which is among the least important reasons I can possibly imagine. Moreover, not all Sanders supporters behaved that way because that is not who they are. And some very good people decided they could no longer stand alongside such behavior and quit supporting Sanders as a result.
Your OP asked why there wasn't a fuss. There was a fuss about Bernie because many of his supporters chose to make everything about him and themselves because that is the sole focus of their political consciousness. When BLM protested Netroots, O'Malley was protested too. His supporters did not engage in conspiracy theories and harass black people on Twitter. Nor did they make it all about O'Malley. That is reflective of a certain mentality. It wouldn't have occurred to me in a million years to come up with anything like that, and I couldn't live with myself if I engaged in such behavior. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie, Clinton nor any other member of the political elite will never be as important as human rights and social justice, as black lives. It would seem that the people who attacked and continue to attack BLM see the issue differently.
If Clinton had stepped in to defend the white bourgeoisie from themselves, I would have been completely repulsed and could not continue supporting her. If she were to have done anything, it should have been to condemn it, but that of course would only have played into the conspiracy theories.
I learned a lot following Netroots and Seattle, principally who people are and why I share no common values with them. The reactions also confirmed my view that the anger many feel is about the decline of white, male middle and upper-middle class privilege, which is why it was so easy for them to attack leftist social activists working to save black lives.
I can tell you with absolutely certainty I would never in a million years behave that way; nor would I vote for a politician who would speak out in defense of that kind of behavior rather than black lives. It is not a two way street. It is a red-lined, $80k+ a year street, one I am very glad that I live no where near.
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Aug 25, 2015, 12:46 AM (3 replies)
Sorry folks. I made a major mistake in my first version of this poll so I have to do a new one.
Apologies to all concerned.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Aug 13, 2015, 12:49 AM (117 replies)
What's wrong with anti-racism, support for human rights, social justice and equality? Absolutely nothing. What is wrong is putting one politician's career about that, what is wrong is putting the comfort of the few over key issues of human rights and human lives. I will stand with Black Lives matter every day, any day, all day, always. I do so because I am a leftist who cares about equality and justice in American society, not just for the white middle and upper-middle class but the subaltern, especially for those hunted like animals, whose lives are threatened and whose true revolutionary movement to stop that killing is degraded.
No politician comes before human rights. No politician is more important than social justice and black lives. None.
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Aug 9, 2015, 08:53 PM (11 replies)