Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,374
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,374
- 2016 (51)
- 2015 (64)
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (143)
Forget the polls, statisticians, and odds makers. There is one incontrovertible fact in modern American politics. The candidate with the best hair always win the presidency. Here is the proof:
Here you may be thinking, Gore has more hair than Bush. Alas, the bad dye job did him in. Strategery. Keep it natural.
And who could forget the originator and master of the modern political do, Ronald Reagan.
So you ask, what does that mean for our current crop of Democratic candidates. Who will come out on top?
Hillary Clinton, blond and expertly coiffed.
Martin O'Malley, trim and all-American
Or Bernie Sanders, the fringe* candidate?
*Brilliant graphic by the late and much beloved Jackpine Radical.
But wait. You think you've got a handle on the current crop of contenders? You do not. The election season is still young, and the Beltway is a buzz with news of impending entrance into the race by a candidate whose hair puts all pretenders to shame. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our next president of the United States:
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Aug 4, 2015, 01:29 PM (17 replies)
What do people here say all the time? That thread about if not now, we have to wait until 2024 to save America from corporatism and oligarchy. Voting for Clinton, they insist, is a vote for oligarchy, like society rises and falls based on a president? What complete bullshit. The notion that anyone who doesn't support Bernie is a "corporatist" a "neoliberal" or "neo-con." That only Bernie can save black people, even as those same supporters are denouncing Black Lives Matter as a Koch conspiracy. I see a lot of hyperbole and empty claims from Bernie and bizarrely exalted expectations and insults from far too many of his supporters.
I also listened to that conference call last night to see precisely what he said. He said it's not about me, but then what it was about was getting volunteers to get him elected. To fight the "Koch brothers." To my mind, it's demagoguery, and I don't trust it for a second.
I found this the other day, and it captures much of what I see as behind the Sanders candidacy.
Ordinary workers won’t rise up against ultras because they take it as given that “the rich get richer.”
But the hopes and dreams of today’s educated class are based on the idea that market capitalism is a meritocracy. The unreachable success of the superrich shreds those dreams.
“I’ve seen it in my research,” says pollster Doug Schoen, who counsels Michael Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton, among others. “If you look at the lower part of the upper class or the upper part of the upper middle class, there’s a great deal of frustration. These are people who assumed that their hard work and conventional ‘success’ would leave them with no worries. It’s the type of rumbling that could lead to political volatility.”
Lower uppers are doctors, accountants, engineers, lawyers. At companies they’re mostly executives above the rank of VP but below the CEO. Their comrades include well-fed members of the media (and even Fortune columnists who earn their living as consultants).
Lower uppers are professionals who by dint of schooling, hard work and luck are living better than 99 percent of the humans who have ever walked the planet. They’re also people who can’t help but notice how many folks with credentials like theirs are living in Gatsby-esque splendor they’ll never enjoy.
I have always known the notion of meritocracy is a lie. The American dream has never been more than an illusion for the majority. This is a nation founded on deep inequality, which is essential to its fabric as a capitalist state. Liberty for some was made possible by slavery for others. The only difference now is that it effects the white upper-middle and middle-class, who in the past benefited from that inequality. Bernie nor his supporters address the profound structural inequality that has characterized this nation from its inception. Instead, they situate it in time recently, just as their privilege has begun to decline. They openly and repeatedly long for the days when the rest of us were denied basic rights and lived in crippling poverty. And we are all supposed to stop everything because they feel a bit of what it's like to live in America.
Sanders base of support is overwhelmingly white, male and middle to upper-middle class for a reason. If I hear one more person prattle on about how $5k a month is so exploitative for interns or an "entry salary" or how hard it is to get by on $150-$250, I'm going to lose it. I do not care how hard it is to get by on amounts of money 90 percent of Americans will never, ever earn. My goal is not to restore them to what they see as their rightful place atop the capitalist world order. They go around insulting everyone who doesn't see the world through their narrow class-and race-bound lens. It's an incredible display of entitlement. The insults toward other DUers, toward the voting public, toward black activists, have made very clear they see far too many as inferior to them. They sure as hell are not getting my help restoring their privilege. Bernie isn't talking about me. He's longing for a time when my family could barely put food on the table, when I was working from age 10 to be able to pay to do laundry and buy school clothes and pencils. Those were the great days of "real Democrats." No. They were not.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:28 PM (8 replies)
As well as the Church Committee Hearings on Covert Action in Chile and Assassination Plots. I do not recall anything about Ed Koch. How is it that you have decided he was some sort of target? Because he denounced the national security states, with no power to do anything to influence them? Perhaps he was a target. I don't know. I do know that we have clear evidence that many other tens of thousands of people were killed, tortured, and disappeared during that period.
It's clear the Chilean intelligence services were behind the bomb that killed Letelier and Moffitt, and the NSArchives have obtained US documents through FOIA requests demonstrating that the US government failed to act to prevent it, despite knowing of Chile's ongoing assassination plots through Condor. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB199/ But why Ed Koch? Letelier had been a loyal supporter of Allende, had been targeted and tortured by the Pinochet government, and was a spokesman for the Chilean resistance. They wanted him dead. Why does an American mayor need to be injected in the story, as though the deaths of a former Ambassador and his US assistant aren't enough?
The established historical reveals a legacy far more brutal and deadly than your creative speculation. Yet for some reason, you want to focus only on high-profile American figures, as though the deaths of tens of thousands of Chileans, Argentinians, Brazilians and Uruguayans aren't enough. The US of course financially supported those governments and installed some of them, as in the case of Pinochet. They also trained torturers at the School of the Americas. This began before Pappy Bush and extended well beyond him. Then CIA Director Richard Helms ran the coup operation in Chile, and of course we know Kissinger was heavily involved (the one incident he refused to discuss in a recent film biography). The history is far worse and more extensive than one evil family. Is is in fact the history of US imperialism and the Cold War. Yet somehow you seem far more concerned with a few famous Americans. If you want to read something truly horrific, see this: http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/books/cattop
The original documents in Portuguese can be accessed on Microfilm at a number of US libraries, including at UT Austin, or online http://bnmdigital.mpf.mp.br/#!/ Or the work of the Truth and Reconciliation commission released last year: http://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2014/12/consulte-integra-do-relatorio-final-da-comissao-nacional-da-verdade.html
What is astounding about the Brazilian case is that torture has conducted in open court and carefully documented, a function of the bizarrely juridical nature of Brazilian culture. You won't find the names of Ed Koch, George H. W. Bush, or any of your other favorites. you will find thousands of others: ANGELINA GONÇALVES, ANTÔNIO JOSÉ DOS REIS, SEBASTIÃO TOMÉ DA SILVA, LABIBE ELIAS ABDUCH, OTÁVIO SOARES FERREIRA DA CUNHA, and thousands more. You can even see some of their faces. http://estaticog1.globo.com/2014/12/10/MortoseDesaparecidos_1950-1969.pdf For the remarkable story of how these documents came to first be published, the chapter on Brazil in this book is as compelling as any mystery story. http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Universe-Settling-Accounts-Torturers/dp/0226893944
And of course the US had knowledge of the ongoing torture yet continued to support the government anyway. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB478/
My problem with "creative speculation" is not that it blames "corporatists and oligarchs," as one poster commented. Rather that it makes the issues small, neat and tidy. If the history of US support of terror and assassination were limited to one family, that would make it so much easier, wouldn't it? But it's not. It runs throughout US history during the Cold War, even before and since. It is the history of US empire and brutal defense of capitalism. It has brought us cheap oil, copper, fruit--the bananas you buy today at the store, all come with a legacy of brutal repression and murder. It is not simply about Jimmy Hoffa or Ed Koch, or the fault of the BFEE. It is America; it is part of all of us. Conspiracy theories eschew that in order to tie it all up into easy packages, to engage in simplistic pointing at bad guys, as though life were a tightly scripted movie. If only it were so simple. If only fault lay with the BFEE to the exclusion of Democratic presidents like Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Carter. If only one or two maleficent CIA directors were responsible rather than the entire intelligence apparatus of the US government. If only it weren't central to the American project and our position in the world. If it is a Bush family evil empire, it is an American Evil Empire, an empire of which we all are part. If you ever had the occasion to travel to Latin America, you would know you are viewed through that lens, even called an imperialist. That is not because of one American family. It is the legacy of the nation.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Jul 30, 2015, 01:48 PM (6 replies)
CLEVELAND — Hillary Clinton has begun to court leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement — starting at the movement’s biggest gathering ever.
Over the weekend, Clinton’s black outreach director, LaDavia Drane, attended the Movement for Black Lives convention in Cleveland. That visit marked the campaign’s first outreach to the movement, which has seen even wider press coverage in the past week after activists disrupted a presidential forum at Netroots Nation.
That protest has been fresh in the minds of presidential campaigns and many of the at least 1,300 attendees — according to organizers — at the weekend’s convention.
A Clinton campaign official on Saturday confirmed to BuzzFeed News that Drane “had one-on-one meetings and group listening sessions to engage stakeholders including ministers, community organizers, elected officials, and other individuals in Cleveland for the Movement for Black Lives.” An Ohio native, Drane engaged people inside the movement and listened to a range of suggestions related to Clinton’s outreach, as well as policy recommendations, the official said.
“We will continue to engage a wide array of stakeholders, including members of the black lives matter movement, when crafting policy on important issues like reforming our criminal justice system,” the official said.
Hillary Clinton knows she has to #earnthisdamnvoteorlose. Black voters owe her nothing, and she knows it. She is going to work to win their support.
Posted by BainsBane | Mon Jul 27, 2015, 03:10 AM (129 replies)
You all support Sanders because of his rhetoric about banks and Wall Street. Yet somehow when it comes to the civil rights of the majority of the population you decide it's mere framing. Too many Sanders supporters have a knack of denigrating everyone in this country but yourselves. Our rights are mere framing, where your concerns are "substance." It's like you all can't help but show how little respect you have for most voters, how you consider their concerns so much less important than your own.
I don't know what kind of substance you think the little people aren't seeing. Very little Sanders promises has any possibility of passing, and he knows it. He has no record of legislative accomplishment, aside from getting two post offices named. He hasn't gotten any of his proposed reforms made law despite decades in congress. He tells people like you what you want to hear, but when others suggest that they care about the epidemic of police killings of black people, that's just "framing." Rage against banks is supposedly substance. Promising a "revolution" is substance. Promising not to take Super Pac money, when NO politicians are allowed to do so, is "substance." Give me a break.
All the rage in the world doesn't change the fact that we live in a capitalist state, where the constitution codifies individualism, the basis for profit and property, above the collective good. The US is built around inequality. It's not recent. It is endemic. The difference is the once economically privileged, or relatively so, have started to feel that pinch recently, whereas the rest of America has been aware that inequality has in fact been the very nature of American society since its inception. And now they want us all to stop everything in order to to elevate them back to what they see as their rightful place atop the capitalist world order. Their anger over the loss of privilege is "substance," whereas the oppression and violence that plagues the lives of the subaltern are mere "framing."
Posted by BainsBane | Sun Jul 26, 2015, 04:13 AM (7 replies)
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
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:09 PM (2 replies)
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
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Jul 23, 2015, 11:14 AM (43 replies)
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Jul 23, 2015, 02:11 AM (1 replies)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:05 PM (72 replies)
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.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Jul 18, 2015, 05:06 PM (52 replies)