HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 34 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,040

Journal Archives

I find your opinion offensive

but besides that, the comments have been directed toward two separate African American posters, just as Black Lives Matter was dismissed in those same terms, and as a Koch conspiracy.

Lee Atwater worked for white supremacist rule. Black Lives Matter works for the opposite, to stop an epidemic of police killings of black people. They are not Bernie Sanders oppressors or the oppressors of the older, white population. The AA posters on this site accused of Lee Atwater tactics asked how the candidates were going to speak to the concerns of their communities. One is even a Sanders supporter, or she was until last weekend when white "progressives" took to social media to try to discredit BLM. Their concerns are not less than anyone else's. Their vote is not less. In fact, as a block it is far more powerful than yours or mine, and they intend to use it that way. #earnthisdamnvoteforlose.

America has changed. Black folks are no longer willing to fall in line behind what white "progressives" or Democrats demand. They are asserting their own interests, and I say more power to them. This country will be far better for it, though I suspect some will not see it that way.

Better find a new tactic, cause this one ain't gonna work.

Additionally, the outrage to the criticism of Sanders is rich in comparison to the tens of thousands of posts smearing Clinton. I find it astounding that people don't even attempt any kind of even standard. And don't tell me it's because Sanders deserves better because he is so progressive. That isn't his electoral support base:

Hillary 57% overall support
64% identifying at very liberal
58% identifying as liberal
59% identifying as moderate
37% identifying as somewhat conservative
27% identifying as very conservative

Sanders 22% overall support
26% identifying at very liberal
19% identifying as liberal
16% identifying as moderate
31% identifying as somewhat conservative
42% identifying as very conservative


Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Outstrips Sanders and O’Malley in Staff Diversity

In the aftermath of what turned out to be disastrous appearances by presidential hopefuls over the weekend, two campaigns are beginning to rethink how they connect with non-white audiences.

Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley made a litany of mistakes at a Netroots Nation town hall in Phoenix. Confronted by #BlackLivesMatter activists, neither had a good and immediate answer to questions presented by the protesters. While O’Malley made an almost immediate course correction, it took the Sanders camp a full 48 hours and a viral hashtag to realize the depth of the mess it was (and still is) in.

In the coming days, both teams will have to reckon with how to make meaningful connections with diverse constituencies — including African Americans, who make up to one-fourth to a full half of Democratic primary voters in major state contests. For instance, non-white voters account for 56 percent of Democratic primary voters in South Carolina, the third state in the process.

Ironically (and tellingly), as they fine-tune their messaging and platforms, there will be few (if any) black people in the room.

According to a new report out from Inclusv, a DC-based non-profit that helps identify campaign talent from diverse backgrounds, Sanders and O’Malley have retained few non-white staffers. A full 90 percent of the Sanders staff is white. The senator from Vermont, who touts 50 years in the civil rights movement and even marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, employs a team that is a mere 3 percent African American. O’Malley’s team in 91 percent white, with only 7 percent black staff. As of the June 30 reporting deadline, the Clinton camp was 68 percent white and 13 percent black.


Found this through #earnthisdamnvoteorlose

Black Lives Matter: A new movement takes shape

Khury Petersen-Smith

Black lives matter,” the rallying cry of the new movement against racist police violence, is brilliant in its simplicity. But more striking than the slogan’s ability to express so much in so few words is how painful it is that its message needs to be asserted. What began as a small but fierce rebellion in a St. Louis suburb exploded into a wildfire that has engulfed the whole country.

The movement has done something all too rare in our time: it’s escaped the control of the ruling establishment. Neither police repression nor Democrats have been able to stop the movement. which has confounded the politicians and the news media, accustomed as they are to using the same old scripts to discuss race and protest without challenge. City governments across the country had to accept the disruption of business as usual, as, for example, when activists from the Black Youth Project 100 (BYP 100) occupied Chicago’s City Hall on November 26, and marchers in New York City repeatedly shut down most major bridges and tunnels leading into and out of Manhattan in November, while police appeared powerless.

Strong at its beginning
In a matter of weeks, the movement shattered what remained of the notion of a “post-racial” America and reoriented the entire national conversation on anti-Black racism. The movement follows in a tradition of Black struggles in the United States whose impacts far exceed the numbers of people involved and go well beyond their point of origin. The civil rights revolt, for example, cracked open the Cold War conservatism of the McCarthy era and inspired more than a decade of mass social struggle on many other fronts.

The strength of today’s Ferguson-inspired movement can be gauged in a number of ways. For one, the movement has been militant from its inception. One of the movement’s most popular refrains in street protests and social media is “shut it down!” Beyond a rhetorical slogan, this has found expression in the real world as activists in dozens of cities have marched onto highways to disrupt traffic; linked arms across railroad tracks to stop trains; sat down in urban intersections; delayed sporting events; and temporarily occupied shopping malls, major retail stores, police departments, and city halls. Activists have concluded en masse that anti-Black racism is a systemic problem that should be confronted through the disruption of work, commuter travel, commerce, and other circuits of the daily functioning of US society.


Here we have a respected socialist publication discussing Black Lives Matter without claiming it to be a corporate plot or right-wing meme. Rather the author describes it as a militant movement that defies control by the ruling establishment.

Right-wing memes

This is what Black Lives Matters is protesting about.


Michael Laray Dozer
Bakersfield, CA: Dozer was allegedly acting erratically at a gas station when he walked towards an officer. Finding him to appear "aggressive," the officer shot and killed him.

He was 26 years old.


Baytown, TX: A woman called 911 to report that Gregoire had kicked in her back door, which may have been his own residence, and attacked her with a pole. He reportedly left and returned again. Deputy Bradley Hasley spotted Gregoire exiting the house and tasered him. Gregoire fell, reportedly removed the probes and then allegedly "charged" Bradley, who then tasered him again. When EMS arrived to treat the woman, Hasley says he noticed Gregoire appeared "unresponsive." He was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

He was 26 years old.

George V. King
Baltimore, MD: King spent the night in the hospital for a reaction to dental work medication. After an unknown procedure, and possibly taking Keppra the next day, King allegedly became "agitated and combative" about not being immediately released. Two officers arrived and tasered King once while 5-10 hospital workers tried to secure him to a gurney. He resisted, was drive-stunned four times, and was given a sedative. He suffered a cardiac arrest, went into a coma and died 7-8 days later.

He was 19 years old.

Dominique Franklin Jr.
Chicago, IL: Police pursued Franklin after suspecting him of robbing a store. They tasered him twice, causing him to fall headfirst into a streetlight. Franklin died several weeks later.

He was 23 years old.

Emerson Clayton Jr.
Alexander City, AL: An officer responding to calls of a fight at a local restaurant found Clayton in his car and revving the engine. The officer fatally shot Clayton, and was later cleared of wrongdoing by a grand jury despite significant protests.

He was 21 years old.
Rondre Lamar Hornbeak
Ardmore, OK: Police were called for a domestic assault. Hornbeak was arrested and was transported to jail. Upon arrival Hornbeak was unresponsive. Rondre’s passion for life was his family. He was an aide to them in every way possible.

He was 38 years old.

Tommy Yancy
Imperial, CA: Five California Highway Patrolmen pulled Tommy over for a missing front license plate. They attacked him with a K9 unit, tasered him, and then beat him to death.

He was 32 years old.


Barnesville, GA: An on-duty officer struck Justin Sullivan and Quentin Byrd as the two were crossing a highway around 1 a.m. The officer was treated for injuries at a nearby hospital.

Quentin was 21 years old.


Yvette Smith
Bastrop, TX: Bastrop deputies responded to a 911 call regarding gunshots. Yvette was shot when coming out the door at the direction of the police. They may have believed she had a gun, though she did not. The Sheriff's department initially claimed that she was disregarding officer commands, but later retracted that statement. The officer has been indicted.

She was 47 years old.


John H. Crawford III
Beavercreek, OH: Crawford was killed after police were called into a Wal-Mart for reports of a man walking through the store with a rifle. It wasn't a real gun but a BB gun from the store.

He was 22 years old.


Tamir E. Rice
Cleveland, OH: Tamir was in a park playing with a BB gun. A caller reported that a male was point a pistol at random people, stating twice that the gun was "probably fake". Police pulled up within 10 feet from Tamir and shot him two seconds later in the abdomen. Neither officer administered first aid, instead arresting Tamir's sister who rushed to his aid. Tamir didn't receive first aid until four minutes later from a deputy who was nearby. He died soon after.

He was 12 years old.


Tanisha Anderson
Cleveland, OH: Anderson suffered from schizophrenia, and officers agreed with the family that she should be taken to a medical center for evaluation. When officers cuffed Anderson and tried to place her inside their vehicle she allegedly resisted. Officers then tasered her and tackled her to the ground, forcing her head onto the ground. Anderson became unresponsive and was pronounced dead at the hospital.

She was 37 years old.

Zikarious Flint
Columbus, GA: Campus police received reports that Flint was seen loading a gun. Officers responded and Flint fled on foot. Officers fatally shot him in the back and the back of the neck. Flint turned out to be unarmed.

He was 20 years old.

Charles Goodridge
Cypress, TX: Off-duty deputy constable Francisco Ruiz was working security for his apartment complex and encountered Goodridge, unarmed and walking on the property where he had lived for nine years until recently evicted. Ruiz says he attempted to arrest Goodridge for allegedly trespassing. Witness David Hall says that Goodridge pushed Ruiz away. The deputy says he chased him and there was a scuffle. He then shot Goodridge twice in the stomach.


He was 53 years old.


Christopher McCray
Fayetteville, NC: McCray ran into the road on the highway around 8pm and a trooper hit him with his car.

He was 17 years old.


Juan May
Duncanville, TX: May was shot by an off-duty police sergeant after the two got in an argument and then a fight in the parking lot of a restaurant. The shooting is still under investigation, but the sergeant has returned to work.

He was 45 years old.


Jacqueline Nichols
Flint, MI: An officer was in pursuit of a suspect when he ran a stop sign and collided with Nichols' vehicle, killing Nichols.

She was 64 years old.

Methuen, MA: A 19-year-veteran of the local police was not only drunk during his head-on collision, unlicensed, with an open container and drunk-driving priors, but witnesses saw him trying to flee the scene, then he provided a false name to an investigator in another department. Paula died in the crash and his sister was seriously injured. The officer was charged with felony motor-vehicle homicide and lesser charges.

He was 26 years old.


Vernicia Woodard
Hapeville, GA: Woodard was fatally shot multiple times by her former boyfriend, an Atlanta police officer named Tahreem Zeus Rana. After being caught trying to fly to Mexico, Rana faced charges of murder, kidnapping, and a charge of arson for setting Woodard's dead body on fire in an attempt to obscure evidence.

She was 26 years old.


Cameron Tillman
Houma, LA: Police received call that armed individuals had entered an abandoned house. When they knocked on the door, Cameron Tillman, a high school freshman and talented athlete with a 3.7 grade point average opened the door and was shot four or five times. The local sheriff said Cameron came to the door with a gun in his hand, but that was later changed to say a BB gun was found "in close proximity" to his body. The teens say the BB gun was on the table.

Cameron was alive for at least 45 minutes, according to the family's lawyer. But the police offered no medical assistance. The investigation is ongoing, but two months on, the four other boys in the house say they still haven't been interviewed.

He was 14 years old.


Jordan Baker
Houston, TX: An officer saw Baker riding his bike through Northwest Houston strip mall parking lot and looking into local businesses. Mistaking him for a robber, the officer approached Jordan and asked to see his identification. Jordan allegedly 'scuffled' with the officer and ran away. The officer chased Jordan, cornered him in an alley and then shot and killed him claiming Jordan had charged at him. "Jordan does everything for his son. His son is his life," his mother said after his death. The officer was later cleared of all wrongdoing by a grand jury.

He was 26 years old.

David Andre Scott
Jacksonville, FL: David was shot 21 times after he came out of an apartment building holding what SWAT team members thought was a gun. Officers say the object David Scott was holding was actually a box stuffed in a black sock.

He was 28 years old.


Latandra Ellington
Ocala, FL: Latandra Ellington, an inmate at the time, turned up dead 10 days after writing a letter to her aunt that detailed how a Lowell corrections officer — she knew him only as “Sgt. Q” — had repeatedly threatened to beat and kill her.

She was 36 years old.


Rumain Brisbon
Phoenix, AZ: Police looking for a burglary suspect approached Brisbon, who fled on foot. When caught, Brisbon reached into his pocket. Believing Brisbon to possess a gun in his pocket, the officer fired two shots. The item in Brisbon's pocket turned out to be a bottle of pills.

He was 34 years old.

And many, many more.

Hillary won't take Super PAC money either: Bernie, PACs, and Super PACs

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.

Billionaires for Bernie


What union can I join where I become a billionaire? Really. I need to know what job that is. I'm happy to retrain.

There is one space on all of DU

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?

Many reasons

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.

Are these Marshalls PNAC signatories too?

WTF are you talking about?

I don't denigrate gay rights. I NEVER have. Show the thread I rec'd that says that. Go on. Provide links.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 34 Next »