This is breaking my heart.
I have never seen a primary, D or R, where the differences between the two top candidates are so stark.
Bernie Sanders represents the little person, the person who has more month than money. Bernie has never accepted a speaking fee from a big bank, because he knows such fees have many strings attached. Big banks don't give away their money. They invest their money carefully, and expect a future return.
Bernie is consistent. A speech he gives before one group carries the same message as a speech given before any another group. He does not pander. He does not shift his positions to appease a particular audience. He is genuine.
But the media and the DNC had rather Bernie just go away. He does not fit their establishment mold. And so the media and the DNC shun him. And it has worked, as we have seen this past Tuesday. It is breaking my heart.
im sorry its breaking your heart =( im sad as well. although undecided here in california.. i was starting to lean bernie but it seems like california agian doesnt matter. so i feel your pain.
So please don't give up when we need you the most. Bernie is a wonderful person and an honest politician. He is exactly what this Country needs at this time. And up there in his top priorities is climate change. I am thinking all California residents would be thrilled to have someone take on this issue immediately and in a big way. We don't have time to waste.
Think about it.
she would still win. That airplane may still fall out of the sky on her head, so Bernie's our backup. Every party should have one. But that's all.
As for "breaking my heart," if it is, it's breaking for pure nonsense. Bernie and Hillary are NOT widely divergent in their ideology. Oh, yes, he's a radical and she's a liberal, but that means while she believes we can achieve 10 steps forward, he insists we should try for 20. They are, however, both moving essentially in the same direction.
In contrast, the dominant leaderships on the right want to move 400 years backward ideologically, to remove the heritage of the Enlightenment, liberalism, socialism, and political progressivism from our nation. Literally. We are talking repeal of Social Security here, guys, a goal they have pursued since its inception, along with all other social programs. They do not believe that all men were created equal or should be considered equal under the law. They believe stratified classes and privilege and lack of it are the natural social order.
Fortunately, conservative voters are finally rebelling, but it is their nature to fall in behind their leader. We cannot count on enough to stay independent to lose them the elections. We must come together to fight them.
Especially campaign fundraising, foreign policy, corruption, and Wall Street.
but from my viewpoint you'd benefit greatly from stepping back from your little view hole and looking around. America's enormous choice in 2016 is not and never was about which progressive.
Are Hillaryans incapable of allowing a discussion without insulting someone?
toward Hillary, Grasswire?
Here you go then: You guys are AWESOME! I just don't understand why so many consider bearing false witness a sin. Why can't they understand that dishonest and even spiteful attacks against an opponent are really just exercises of civic virtue? Without it, what would democracy be? Keep it up, guys!
Group have had your hay day. Stop putting Bernie Sanders the LIBERAL down. His supporters do not like it! They (he and she) have never moved in the same direction. She is now using his issues to sound so liberal. She will go back to centrist to the right when this is done.
Her universe she swirls is with the Neo Cons.
Every significant legislation she voted on as a Senator was with the Neo Cons.
As SoS she promoted and carried out Neo Con foreign policy actions.
Again, Completely different Universe.
It is the author of this thread whose heart is breaking.
want the liberals (that support Sanders) out of the Party.
The negative campaigning and apparent wins have dulled momentum and unfortunately subsequent reduced turnout for Sanders.
The conundrum for Democratic pols is that one loses or cannot gain Party support if one follows a liberal path or fails to follow or criticizes the neo-liberal path.
Sanders is honest and has frank message that is refreshing and has exceeded all expectations but the deck was stacked against his improbable effort.
I plan on voting Sanders in California and recommend others do so, especially millennials and older folks (like me).
Now is not the time to leave the Democratic Party, that is what the neo-liberals want.
When someone votes for Bernie they are declaring their support for a New, New Deal in America.
We need to send as many Bernie delegates to the convention as possible.
It's not about Bernie, it's about what he stands for. And it's about telling the Democratic Party that we want them to commit to making the Big Goals a reality. We know it can't happen overnight. We are not idiots. But it will NEVER happen if our party writes off real change as impossible, and tells us to just shut up about it.
A vote for Bernie is a way of saying, Hey, I'm not going to shut up about health care as a right; I'm not going to shut up about the need for workers to be paid a living wage; I'm not going to shut up about demanding that the wealthiest among us pay their fair share in taxes; I'm not going to shut up about cutting carbon emissions. These things are too important to our future. They are too important to our children's future.
Bernie delegates on the convention floor are there to stand for real change. They may not be a majority, but if we are committed to getting as many votes as possible in the remaining states, at least 45% of the pledged delegates on the convention floor could be Bernie delegates. And those kind of numbers are hard to ignore. (You don't "dis" that many people at a televised event.)
Also, depending what district you are in, there's a number of other progressive candidates that could use your support as well.. Even is Senator Sanders loses the primary, he'll be a more influential Senator than ever, and could use some of these to help him pass his legislative ideas:
California Preston Picus Federal House 12 Candidate 6/7/2016
California Steve Stokes Federal Senate CA Candidate 6/7/2016
California Bao Ngyuen Federal House 46 Candidate 6/7/2016
California Wendy Reed Federal House 23 Candidate 6/7/2016
California Bill Ostrander Federal House 24 Candidate 6/7/2016
California Mike Beitiks Federal Senate CA Candidate 6/7/2016
California Joe Williams Federal House 20 Candidate 6/7/2016
Additionally, come 2020 or 2024 any of these that get elected now, and maintain office will likely become superdelegates, or at the least endorsements for any progressive/liberal minded candidate that runs in those primaries.
But actual Hillary supporters here on DU, not trolls, shills, etc.... they aren't laughing at the heartbreak. Especially those who supported her in 2008, and then embraced the Democratic Nominee.
They are sad that even with stark differences between our two major candidates this time, that the primary got so awful that people aren't yet able to see even starker differences between Hillary and the GOP.
They are sympathetic to those who worked their heart out for a candidate they believed in, especially those who haven't yet gotten to vote, but the math just isn't saying there's much of a contest anymore.
They're hopeful that, like their candidate did when she lost the pledged delegates, that Bernie will at least try to convince the people supporting his revolution that Donald Trump stands against everything his revolution is about.
They're hopeful there will be few that took the distasteful route the PUMAs did in 2008 and continue to attack the Democratic Nominee once they have been declared.
I know x because I am a real Hillary supporter. Not a shill, not a supporter of oligarchy, not a warmonger.... just a person who felt she was a better leader, but always planned to support Bernie if he ended up winning, too.
I understand you mean well and I don't think you deliberately invoked a logical fallacy but that's basically what it is.
... assuming that everyone who supports Clinton is a troll, or that a significant enough of a majority of people who support Clinton are trolls, that was inherent in the post I responded to?
It's the "anecdotal fallacy", as was your referral to the other thread.
My "perspective", such as it is, is a myopic hodge-podge of legacy reactionary bumper-sticker clichés coeval with coprolites, drowned in the greasy gravy of corporate media-manufactured neocon wingnut talking points.
On Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:03 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
The Clinton Trolls laugh at your Heartbreak...
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
Another outrageous attack on Hillary supporters, calling them TROLLS! Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:06 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Brock has admitted to hiring people for online purposes. Anyway, I have seen worse comments about Bernie supporters.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Yes, it does. It seems obvious she is a person who has a mean core. Tonight she was smirking worse than any I have ever seen.
Does it break my heart the DNC is corrupt and did all it could to bring about this result we see today? Not really, they made it clear they don't need us. So, they won't have us. Then they can figure out if pushing Hillary was a good idea or not.
That the GOP messaging that she is evil incarnate has gotten so far.
When that's not the candidate I saw, here:
I saw a candidate being happy, not smirking, a candidate congratulating Senator Sanders, not demonizing him... a candidate saying all the reasons why a vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee and ticket is the right choice.
But I admit I don't see out of your eyes. I just can rely on my own.
A whole bunch of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, if I made it anyone can" type comments that if you didn't know better you'd think you were reading on Discussionist or Free Republic. The very first post started off as a personal attack disguised as a question.
What I do know is that, as much as I'm trying for civility, that not every Clinton supporter is a troll, and not every Clinton supporter is laughing at the heartbreak that Bernie supporters are feeling.
I did want to respond to that person, because I am not much older but am in a similar position, except that I was raised only not in public housing because I was lucky enough to have grandparents that helped us out. I did have a 401k when I worked my tail off for years and finally got hired on to a company that had one, but it's gone now -- loans from it to pay for my dad's funeral, and then I became disabled and had to spend what was left trying to live until SSDI approval. No college degree, either -- but I typed fast and had a knack with computers.
Now I have ruined my wrists doing transcription and have to use a touchscreen, have other issues, and the final straw was when I was assaulted in 2012 the addition of PTSD to my already extensive MH issues made work impossible.
But my struggles to find work were under Bush, as were my encounters with law enforcement when I was protesting the Iraq War in 2003. When OfficeSpace was filmed, I was doing transcription.
But I was afraid sharing my sympathy and story would be taken as a "I/we had it sucky too so you're silly to complain", instead of saying that it's not just "millenials" who are feeling the struggle that's been going on a long time. Especially since my background was so different than that poster's.
An old saying but a true one in my experience, I normally leave my own struggles out of my posts because of the sort of reaction you saw in that thread.
Eventually we really will all be as one.
(Even if, at 36, I still want to think of myself as a younger person... heh).
The economy sucks. Even if a person might have had many advantages growing up (and for myself, I count my blessings), a college degree was already starting to be not worth the money in 1997 if you wanted to do computers, and it's been awhile so I don't really know how much having a bachelor's even adds to a person's likely income today,
But it's hard, especially online, to distinguish between a person sharing their personal story (like the thought-about post I considered early on that thread) to say they agree your situation sucks and have felt hopeless too -- aka, empathy -- and starting a competition for who it sucks more for.
My motto, at least when dealing with personal suckitude in my life, is that it can always suck more. That may not be reassuring to many, but for some whacky reason, it is for me.
Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:06 AM - Edit history (2)
She said: "At our best, we are---as Robert Kennedy said---'...a great country, an unselfish country, and a compassionate country.' But," she added, "America's greatness is not a birthright; it must be earned by every generation. So...."
So....? So how did Hillary say every generation must earn America's greatness? Simple! "So," she said, "Join us. Join us. Go to HillaryClinton.com...volunteer, contribute, compete . . . and, in July, let's return as a unified Party."
No "But" about it: I disagree with Hillary!
America's greatness doesn't need to be earned. It is our birthright as guaranteed by "We the People of the United States...."---our birthright as the "Posterity" of those who ordained and established the Constitution of the United State of America. And it is every generation's obligation to protect that birthright from those who would sell it to the highest bidder.
Edited to add:
How often, I wonder, does Hillary mention Robert Kennedy in her speeches?
... again, I can only see out of my eyes, not your eyes.
But that's what I saw.
**"'At our best, we are'--as Robert Kennedy said---'a great
country, an unselfish country, and a compassionate country.'"
She buys into that conservative ideology that separates the deserving from those sho are not. To BLM activists, she said: "We can do a lot to change some hearts and some systems to create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them."
Who decides who deserves them? I typically only hear that crap from RW fundamentalists.
I can't help wondering: As a lawyer aware of every jot and tittle---plus what "is" is---did she ever peruse that sentence with the comma removed and chuckle to herself?
In reply to your question: Someone with a god complex?
I think it requires a degree of narcissism to be willing to run for president. But, she seems to be more interested in world domination.
Or naive for pointing out the system is completely broken. These issues are going to have to be addressed, and Hillary vs Bernie is not the point, honestly- and it's not gonna happen this cycle- and maybe the Democratic Party is too compromised to be part of the solution.
Hillary supporters assume that mentioning the problem money in politics causes is a personal attack on her- it's way bigger than her.
... and those not even getting alerted on because of the other rampant incivility..
Is truly heartbreaking for me.
I wish we could try and treat each other with a little respect and empathy.
Suggest you read the article & watch the video of MSNBC Monday Town Hall w/Hillary
Does it break your heart that the Clinton Foundation works like a slush fund and Bill stumps for Hill.
'Gullibility' fits better. Some Hillary supporters probably mean well, but they have been subjected to years and years of propaganda which they were ill-prepared to resist. The proof of this is the fact that so many consider Hillary to be liberal and/or progressive.
They are not stupid, they just believe that their mastery of DoubleThink makes them smarter than everyone else.
I still voted for him in 96 and I voted for Gore. But, I wasn't really happy that this was the best the party could do.
...when it dawns on us in January 2017 that we have elected Bush, Part III. More war, more elite rule.
Side note: Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a very good president. Do not for one second assume that Hillary is Bill, Part II just because they share the same last name.
Perhaps to some degree the media you rely on has distorted the truth. I could provide many examples on both sides where people are misinformed or buy into distortions and lies. Bernie is a good person, but not as good as his campaign makes him out to be. Hillary is not as progressive as Bernie, but not nearly as conservative as Bernie's campaign makes her out to be. Bernie is an honest person, but not as honest as his campaign makes him out to be. Hillary is a less honest person, but not as dishonest as Bernie's campaign makes her out to be. The fact that Hillary is getting so much support for minorities should be a little telling. You may have to trust their intelligence and their instincts on this one in order to find hope.
Hillary advocates pre-emptive surrender. "We can't win, so don't fight" (and thus guarantees failure). Effectively, she is saying "Can't happen, so shut up about all that New, New Deal stuff." (And "Can't win, so don't fight" is what we've been hearing from our so-called "leaders" for far, far, too long.)
Bernie is committed to doing everything in his power to make the New, New Deal a reality. He is committed to giving voice to the people who recognize the depths to which we have fallen as a nation. He knows the Big Goals can't be achieved overnight. He's not an idiot. But he also knows we will NEVER achieve those goals if we refuse to say, "As a moral people, this is what we must do. These must be our goals." Inspire the people, and the people will make it happen. Can't get it through this congress? Elect us a new one. Don't be silenced.
Hillary's message is essentially "go back to bed America" I'll do what you need. She doesn't seem to have a sense that Americans, as a people, can be a political force if woken up. For her it seems to just be about Me the President, and what "I can get done."
Every Bernie delegate we send to the convention is our statement that we want that New, New Deal. We want our party to grow a spine and set the Big Goals. And when 45% of the pledged delegates on the floor are Bernie delegates, Hillary may find it harder to say "I won, so go screw yourselves" (which is essentially what she has been saying to us).
-- Mahatma Gandhi
-- Samuel Adams
It's about "stfu I want to be POTUS so I can get those speaking fees after my term since I'm the first woman" and I'll take it one further. She says she sees Eleanor Roosevelt as her role model, well I think Eleanor would be absolutely DISGUSTED at where she stands on issues. If we look at the definite influence that she had on the New Deal as well as Ms.Perkins it's worth questioning where Hillary is at.
Hillary is a Hawk and she isn't even a Hawk where it would make sense...that is, on North Korea(defensively). She wants to go after Iran, that one country that could've been our moderate ally back in the day.
Also, look at some of the results on the voting. Read Lee Camp's tweet on Delaware and see the machine tampering picture in result numbers and TELL me that Bernie's voters haven't been subjugated. When Bernie operates in good faith and there's CHEATING when it comes to tampered voting machines all bets are off.
I think Clinton is the epitomie of a corrupt and vaguely fascistic corporate governance system that is taking us all down
She may have personal qualities some people relate to, but we're all getting the shaft from that system. It is colorblind in its greed and immorality.
Clinton did right? It's a little hard to give him credit for something he's not allowed to do.
Black voters of all education levels have given Sanders the side eye instead of their votes and he's all but tied among college educated whites.
than how they advocate for their own best interests, or are you going to tell me that that's why so many people went for W.. they did it because he was good for them and for the nation? As another poster said, all of us our capable of being duped; don't forget how many blacks and latinos voted for the protection of marriage act in California, totally buying into a discrimination agenda that worked as more divide and conquer bullshit.
Enough people here carried Hillary's water when it came to spreading misinformation about Sanders as to whether he's been an advocate for civil rights in the past, and many of them did it cynically, knowing that the black community has damn good reasons to not trust the next white guy that appears out of nowhere to not do them dirty. No, Bernie did not actually appear out of nowhere, he's actually been fighting a principled fight on matters of inequality his whole career, but he has never been a household name. The Clintons are a familiar commodity, and a dynasty that many black leaders have sold as the best white option black people have in this racist country. They probably were that too once, if you had to operate within the establishment to get any lip service at all, in their own quid pro quo way. But this was a chance for something better.
So congratulations to those who were a part of the effort to defame Sander's actual record with the hopes of shutting down any interest in his platform before people even got a chance to know him. It worked like a charm. It saddens me that Dolores Huerta and John Louis carried Clinton's water too, but I suppose they're trying to get things done within the system, and that almost certainly means they have plans on the table in the event of a Clinton Presidency. That's a lot to jeopardize, so I guess it was worth a small compromise of integrity to paint a disingenuous narrative about Sanders and his campaign and past efforts.
I do think that I've got it right this time, but of course I do or I'd be advocating a different candidate's platform. I have been duped before though, and I follow politics as my past-time. Most people don't have that interest or luxury. Of course my interpretation of why the black vote went for Hillary is first of all, monolithic in its presentation, so at best indicative of less than half of that vote, but Hillary supporters are making a different assumption, and only because it suits them, that because black people went for Clinton in droves, then Hillary must be the better candidate for black voters, and you challenge anybody to imply that black people don't know what's good for them. That's your framing! Its an attempt to shut down any argument that might say Hillary is not the one, and in my opinion that's pretty cynical.
Read some Chomsky. Better yet, a great book titled "The Two Income Trap", a book by Elizabeth Warren. She describes an encounter with then First Lady Hillary, who was eyeing a run for the Senate, regarding upcoming legislation that would protect single mothers who had recently declared chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. This article pretty much sums it up.
He is on all the morning shows. His speeches have been broadcast in full. The networks love horse raises - they like when things are close. The problem is, he just isn't get as many votes as Hillary. She literally can lose every singe state by 5-10 points moving forward and would still have more delegates than him.
Bernie was not allowed by law to accept a fee for speeches while in Congress.
Hillary (like hundreds of others) accepted fees while not in office. Out of many, many speeches, she gave a few (3 ?) to bankers and the content was not secret, there was no controversy, and even if tapes of the speech are available, they won't be any more than the usual dry talks to business groups.
Bernie is much more a typical politician that you seen to realize - he employs family so they benefit, he votes in ways that gets him support from the MI (Lockheed Martin) or organizations (NRA) and against social justice (immigrants) whenever he thinks it helps him get elected. Bernie has, in fact, been inconsistent on policies and positions.
The biggest contrast between candidates is in training and experience. Bernie is a lightweight - no legal training; little experience outside of being a politician, and nothing international.
Hillary has a world of experience (literally) with the law (where she excelled), internationally, with domestic policies, and with big business. She will be a much better President.
anybody in politics, since her defense of herself could be applied to just about any politician with superpacs and huge corporate donors.
She and the Republicans were happy to continue to duke it out with each other over abortion rights and never touch that third rail of campaign finance, except to occasionally throw us a bone that yes, its bad.
Bernie is actually addressing what is, the root problem of government in America. Money in politics is THE thing that will always stand in the way of actual progress, and will always feed divide-and-conquer tactics that have made a fearful population and have given birth to the candidacy of somebody as crazy as Donald Trump.
So, honestly, I don't care if he's a lightweight as you say. It makes no difference to me. He's on the right side of the only issue that can stop this one step forward two steps back journey we've been on for over 30 years now, regressing all the way back to the roaring 20's and the robber barons. That's the kind of incrementalism Hillary is in favor of. That or she's fooling us all with her words and her actions.
Good luck with that....Bernie can "address" whatever he wants - how does it really work?
Tell me exactly how 3 (out of hundreds) of speeches while she was out of office translated to exactly some action?
It's all speculation and innuendo, but Hillary hasn't done anything or it would be easily visible. Hillary isn't pretending. OTOH, there is evidence that Bernie was influenced on occasion.
The Governors of Virginia and Illinois are going to jail because they took money for influence and were caught.
Mitt Romney was an unethical, corporate raider, but as far as we know it never crossed over into take money for influence as Governor of Mass. People are watching. Sometimes they get caught. I remember when Nixon got caught.
You can pass an amendment to get rid of Citizens United, and you can support regulations like Dodd-Frank, and lots of other things no matter who is President. The only way to deal with bribery is to watch for bribery.
its what she said in them, and why she was offered such a pay-off, or lets just say rate, to speak at all. When her policies seem to be fairly soft on Wall Street, except that she "basically" and she always says "basically" told them to cut it out, and she actually takes money from them, NOT JUST in speaking fees but also through campaign contributions and money put into super pacs(I'm not sure why you left this out) it seems reasonable to wonder where her allegiances are.
So yeah, I'll take just being honest about the problem as a significant starting point. Why wouldn't you want that in your candidate? Why would you expect any results from a candidate who won't take on this most fundamental of issues by name?
and NO ONE including Bernie can find a single thing she has ever done (including working as a lawyer, giving speeches, working in business, etc) and ANY quid pro quo! If there was such an incident, there is no one on earth who was watched more than Hillary. It didn't happen.
She has NOT been soft on Wall Street. She is correct that you can put people in jail (like we did during the savings and loan crisis, Enron, etc) and it will do NOTHING because they will be replaced by another crook. She is correct, you have to have enforceable regulations that are international and go beyond banks.
Bernie is simplistic, wrong, and incorrectly describing the economic issues in the world today.
No, she is not tough on Wall Street and no she's not tough with regulations. Just giving lip service to needing regulations when the subject is brought up to her is not doing anything. She doesn't care to break up the big banks, she thinks Dodd Frank is sufficient ... what is her actual plan when it comes to Wall Street that isn't maintain the status quo?
The crux of the problem IS simple. Get big money out of politics. Doing something about it is harder than calling it out, but if your candidate isn't even going to admit its a problem, well, there's a reason for that and its not because she thinks Washington is as pure as the driven snow. its because she partakes in the spoils.
You may be right about the transcripts, and generally I wouldn't expect Hillary to be any more tactless than she already has been by characterizing the bankers as martyrs and homebuyers as the culprits, but she appears to think there's something compromising in them, or else why have let the issue bloody her in the primaries? What pray, did she have to lose by showing transcripts that don't incriminate her? This isn't like demanding she air her own private laundry, it's a speech and nothing more. It's just weird as fuck that she wouldn't have gotten ahead of it. Is that proof? Hell no. But in the context of her coziness to the industry and her empty luke-warm rhetoric about fixing it, I wouldn't be surprised if there's something to them.
By the way, I would love to hear your take on the economic issues in the world today, because apparently I need to be enlightened as well.
If they differ, it's on how to get international cooperation to fix things - and even then they have the same goal:
First, breaking up banks will do NOTHING. Second, the main cause of inequality have been happening for a hundred years, and the US Congress along won't change the dynamics. Third, big donations to politicians is nothing new, and those big donations are not the cause of crooks on Wall Street, because we've had crooks forever and will always have crooks. Wall Street and banks need broad regulations like Hillary proposes (and Dodd Frank) are intended to be.
Breaking up US banks would do nothing. Closing tax loopholes might help. Most big banks are not in the US, and most influential money is not in the US. The US can't "break up" international banks, and without Congress cannot change the possibility of "influence".
1 China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
2 China China Construction Bank Corporation
3 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings
4 China Agricultural Bank of China
5 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co.
6 France BNP Paribas
7 China Bank of China
8 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
9 France Crédit Agricole Group
10 United Kingdom Barclays PLC
11 United States Bank of America
12 Germany Deutsche Bank
13 United States Citigroup Inc
14 Japan Japan Post Bank
15 United States Wells Fargo
16 Japan Mizuho Financial Group
17 United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group
18 China China Development Bank
19 France Société Générale
20 Spain Banco Santander
Global Super-Rich Stashing Up To $32 Trillion Offshore, Masking True Scale Of Inequality: Study
The global super-rich are stashing trillions of dollars offshore with the help of some of the world's biggest banks, putting billions of dollars out of the taxmans reach and masking wealth inequality's true heights.
Wealthy people were hiding between $21 and $32 trillion in offshore jurisdictions around the world as of 2012, according to a 2012 study from the Tax Justice Network, an organization which aims to promote tax transparency. The study, highlighted by a recent Bloomberg News report, found that more than $12 trillion of that money was managed by 50 international banks, many of which received bailouts during the financial crisis, according to James Henry, the studys author.
Theres a lot more missing wealth in the world than we had known about from previous estimates, Henry told The Huffington Post. The real scandal is not all these individual scandals but the fact that worlds policy makers who know about this stuff, have basically done nothing.
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The legislation marks the greatest change to the financial landscape in decades, affecting the regulation of domestic and foreign financial institutions, banking entities and commercial companies. Many of the Dodd-Frank Act's provisions rely heavily on rulemaking and interpretation by financial regulators. Since Dodd-Frank's enactment, Davis Polk has offered a growing suite of resources to help institutions and market participants understand and comply with the new requirements and stay informed about recent rules, regulator studies, important dates and upcoming deadlines in the implementation process.
SOLVING THE "TOO BIG TO FAIL" PROBLEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORITY VS. CHAPTER 14
On June 20, 2012, Davis Polk lawyers Randall Guynn and John Douglas spoke on a teleforum entitled, Solving the Too Big to Fail Problem: Resolution Authority vs. Chapter 14. The event was hosted by The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group, and explores the Too Big to Fail problem in the post-Dodd-Frank era.
the top earners in this country? I know who is in favor of that, so I'm not sure why you're doing your best to try to reduce Bernie's platform on these matters to any one thing that "won't fix the problem." In fact, you have a whole lot of interesting information here that says nothing at all about how I'm wrong about what Hillary is doing about any of it. In fact, you don't mention her efforts at all. Is she really doing something about offshore tax havens? Actually, doing a search on this subject tends to come up with all the ways in which the Clintons have been complicit or tied to players who have offshore tax havens, and of course the Clintons use the more local "homegrown" Deleware tax haven themselves. The good news is she's said something about offshore Tax loopholes lately. I wonder what brought that on. Maybe it was a primary opponent who has actually been pushing this issue for years.
Here's a couple links for you.
Bill & Chelsea are receiving a salary for working on the campaign & I know that Hillary, Bill & Chelsea receive salaries from Clinton Foundation. BTW, Bernie was a Professor of Political Science at Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Hamilton College--he is no lightweight. The dismissal attitude of HRC supporters of Senator Sanders are not helping her cause at all.
The stark difference is between them and Trump or Cruz.
Bush a stronger hand in bargaining, and that he would follow the letter of the IWR and not invade Iraq unless he found WMD's. She was wrong and she has apologized for it.
She was a fine Secretary of State, except to the Rethugs.
Which terrifies me to think of her as president. Especially with Clinton Foundation and her corporate sponsors nipping at her heals.
Eta: home server.
Just ugh. No!
his foreign policy.
That tells me all I need to know.
And didn't do what he told her. He's already admitted mistakes. I was so glad the day she left office. Worst decision he made was letting her anywhere near his administration.
Oh, he was getting paid by the Clinton Foundation while discussing classified info with Clinton when Obama didn't want him involved in his admin. Okay.
And again... Libya. Because that clusterfuck was so successful.
Btw, how much did bill pocket in speeches and donations every time Hillary made an arms deal, government contract, or on that UBS agreement that got so many off the hook for tax avoidance? Just speeches my ass. She's a walking money machine for her family bank account, and their corporate friends on the backs of tax payers and the sake of poor countries.
She hid her actions away from his sight with her personal server.
She paid Sidney Blumenthal 120,00/year under the table to advise her despite Obama having ordered Blumenthal banned from advisory capacity to her
She used faulty intel from Blumenthal to push Obama to bad decisions.
She damaged Obama's legacy.
That's how helpful she was to him as SoS.
...as a public official he's barred from accepting them. But the holier-than-thou language sounds nice.
As a senator, Bernie CANNOT go before a big bank, give a boilerplate speech, and then accept a thick roll of hundred dollar bills.
But here's what he can do. Bernie CAN go before a big bank, give a boilerplate speech, and then sit back and accept their campaign contributions.
Both are forms of bribery. And Bernie will have nothing to do with either of them.
seeking a return to 'public service'. Her time as an actual official was as limited as possible.
See reply #34 for one of the reasons I think, as you said, "...the differences between the two top candidates are so stark."
We have unify our party and bring at least another 25% of the voters to our side. The longer we feed the differences and division in our party the easier it will be for the GOP to win at the top and bottom of the GE. I am appealing for a strategic unification. It's ok for Bernie to keep on running but it is not ok to keep trashing Hillary and to continue to encourage his supporters to stay angry and keep on trashing Hillary around the board. Just talk about the issues and keep talking about our differences with the GOP.
FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clintons email server, MSNBC, February 8, 2016
In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the worlds worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clintons use of a private email server.
Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judges direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.
Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBIs general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clintons use of a private email server.
Baker says the FBI has not, however, publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.
He ends the one-paragraph letter by saying that the FBI cannot say more without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.
Be patient. The leaks are saying "indictment recommendation" and "very soon". Bernie still has to earn it.
We knew that our party is dominated by Establishment types. We are lucky to have a real progressive running, and his great success against a moneyed household name show that progressivism has begun to motivate more people. Sanders was always a long shot, having started a national campaign so late.
But it's a movement, and far bigger than one candidate. He's not shutting up, and neither should we.
This has never been about just winning the White House. That was a means to an end. Bernie set out to start a movement-THAT was the end goal, and despite all the barriers put before him, he's succeeding.
That hasn't changed, you nailed it.
But this was really only our first try. More people will be on board next time, even if it's only to demand that President Clinton work harder for us against the money.
She does nor plan to push for an expansion of Medicare to provide truly universal access to affordable healthcare.
She is happy to keep the Monopolistic Wall St. Big Banks in place as they are, with a few slaps on wrist of their misbehavior become too obvious
She denies that a livable wage should be $15.
Overall, she is happy to keep bad things in place, with a few little tweaks to keop up appearances.
than sticking to the tired Glass/Speigal that is irrelevant to the issues with our economy. The affordable levels out the playing field, free health care does not and is off the backs of our poor and middle class, while people like Sanders pays a lower tax than the rest of us enjoying the free part of it all, that they can easily afford.
Clinton does not deny livable wage, she is just clever enough to know what will work and why. Not a simply back and white, couple word sentence.
Over all.... she works at leveling the playing field for this disadvantaged and oppressed while Sanders is comfortable with the obstacles in front of all of us, making adjustments for the privileged.
simplified stuff that is complicated individually.
Minimum wage,for example.
The cost of living is not something that can be tailored to political expediency. The minimum wages proposed will not go into effect for several years. By that time a $3.50 carton of milk -- which is already too high for someone minimum wage -- will probably be up to $5...So the benchmarks we use today will already be outmoded.
Also the "phased in" geographic nonsense ignores an additional reality -- gentrification. Within urban and rural areas there is often upward pressure that results from the affluent moving into or vacationing in neighborhoods or regions with lower and moderate incomes. So while the local "cost of living" may be lower, the actual costs of living is pushed upward by the influence of people from other areas with higher incomes. So the existing population gets doubly screwed.
You dismiss it as talking points. If I had gone thru discussing the issue of nationally raising us to $15 an hour, then what a waste of my time, effort and thinking, right?
Past $18/hr. That is reality. Instead, the top 1% captured 86.3% of all income growth in 2011 alone. That's completely insane! 86.3% we're 5 years past that mark, and we know it's only gotten worse.
I did a write up not long ago commemorating my 10k post here at DU (I joined in 2004). I went back and pulled a front page article to highlight and contrast. When I thought of the idea, I assumed it would be war related, because that was the big topic of the day. But there it was, front and center, "who will save the children". It was an incredible rebuke on GWB, but as I read through, I realized we were much worse off, despite all the dramatic interventions. It was really sad to face. I knew things were bad, I'm not blind - I'm living it. We've seen almost no growth in our own family in all these years. Loss actually, if we factor that our home value hadn't rebounded, and costs for everything have gone up. But honestly. It's harsh.
Anyway, here's the write-up with link backs to the original. I spent a couple days sourcing data for it.
2/3 of the American people consider her untrustworthy.
The opposite is true for Bernie.
And her approval/disapproval numbers keep going farther and farther south.
She is not able to attract crowds or generate excitement.
So, so what?
warmongering, Third Way benefits-slashing, ally to Wall Street/corporations and fracking and crushing college debt - I cannot get on board for that, so it is, for me, pretty much time to just leave, if the nominee is not Bernie. My entire family feels the same way. Irreversible.
They are only of use so long as they represent the interests of their constituents. Now that the Democrats have whittled down their constituency to "socially liberal rich people who like war", they are no longer important.
My candidates of choice in the past have lost, and though I was disappointed, it didn't "break my heart."
Buck up, boyo.
In the weeks to come, the political analysts will dissect his campaign and publish their critiques and the autopsy results, but some things are readily apparent. At the very least Sanders was hampered by getting off to a late start, and early on he had trouble controlling his brand image and his expanding his message. People took advantage of him to promote their own interests. Sander's rhetoric frequently got sidelined as the headlines focused on the ungovernable zeal of his fans, tarnishing him in the process. Worse, his lack of leadership at the helm, made him look unable/unwilling to wrest back control and take charge of his campaign. He was also slow in bringing in a top tier professional management team to organise his campaign on a national scale, and that really hurt him in many states and limited his ability to attract voters from a broader demographic base.
shilled for the gun lobby, military weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, the fattening food industry, etc. Maybe if you knew his actual record you wouldn't feel as heartbroken. He's a politician. His brand is playing the "outsider" role. It's just marketing.
As to your point about speaking fees, please see my post #59.
As to your point about Bernie just being a politician playing a role, I do not discount that. It's possible.
But I think it's unlikely. For me anyway, the litmus test was the vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq. Bernie voted the right way, and he said all the right things, all back when doing either was very unpopular.
I suppose you could argue that he was still just playing that "outsider" role. But if it acts like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's most probably a duck, and not a squirrel pretending to be a duck.
Is this Bizarro land? I see Bernie covered on TV ALL THE TIME. And most of the coverage is about his large crowds (ENTHUSIASM!!!) and his string of victories in states very demographically favorable to him HE has the BERNMENTUM heading into New York!!!). I saw story after story which ignored demographics and delegate math. Places like Huffpost publish piece after piece by that hack HA Goodman. The idea that the media "shunned" Sanders is delusional. The media LOVES a horserace, and kept it alive as long as they plausibly could.
I thought he was one of the best candidates the Democrats ever put forth, and he was pretty roundly ignored.
Here, you are talking about two candidates, who, as peers in the Senate, voted together 93% of the time, and some of the disparity was on gun control.
It breaks my heart that you can't see how much more they have in common than they have differences.
as just some little part of the 7% that Bernie and Hillary did not agree on.
And - thereby hangs the tale. One candidate seems to revel in war, and fracking, and the TPP, and student debt, is against health care for all - the other does not. No, they do not have much in common, at all.
And, I know it's nuance to some, but the Iraq war vote basically was a resolution to give authority (which was then abused by George W. Bush), not a vote for war itself. You don't have to see it that way and obviously you don't. I respectfully disagree, and could point out that Sanders said - in a debate, I heard it, no I don't have a link - that he is NOT a pacifist, and that he has also voted for a lot of war funding.
Tom Harken was a missed opportunity. I worked on his campaign, and was really disheartened by the weak support he got. But, to the point, he did offer a stark difference to some of the 1992 candidates, particularly Tsongas, so I don't think it's true that there's never been such a stark difference.
Exactly how is that different than Hillary voting for the war. Maybe because he is running for president?
"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan in particular Mrs. Reagan we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."
I can't stand knowing that this is how most straight Democrats really are. I'll never feel the same about the Party again. Trust is blown to bits.
What Hillary said was disgusting. She herself could have spoken out during the crisis. As a first lady even if she wasn't well known she had a platform to speak from. She could have pushed the CDC to make stronger recommendations to test blood supplies when it was known that AIDS was transmitted through blood products. But, she didn't because it just wasn't important to her. But, speaking up meant that you were advocating for gay people even though AIDS doesn't care who it infects. She marginalized people based on the sexual orientation.
I'm gonna need to stock up.
The underdog role would shift from Bernie to Hillary and his supporters could not rail against the establishment keeping him down. Also, there would be little change in Clinton's support from women and minorities so probably less than 100 pledged delegates would shift.
get shoved down our throats as the Democratic nominee.
Maybe, just maybe, the younger generation will save us. They seem to see through propaganda, whether it be Clintonist propaganda, religious propaganda, corporate propaganda, what have you. In a election couple cycles they will be in more positions of power and influence. My college kid says that he knows nobody -- NOBODY -- his age who can stand Clinton. Not even just a "eh, she's not my candidate" type of attitude toward her. Nope. They have an active, visceral disgust with her and her record and her policies and her statements and her condescending bullshit.
But, if the party continues down this path, it might as well just change it's name. It can become "The Corporo-Republican Party" and the Republicans can become "The Openly Fascist Party." I will not belong to either.
They wanted Hillary, and they will soon have the consequences of their votes.
They wanted GWB, and we all suffered the consequences of their votes.
I'm not saying that Hillary is as bad as GWB, it's just that Bernie offered us
all the REAL opportunity of a LIFETIME. He is the REAL DEAL. Just goes to
prove what BIG MONEY can do when left to its own devices.
...Bernie Sanders said: I know this topic is controversial here but I'm going to say the same thing I say in Vermont and California: climate change is real and we need a carbon tax to stop it.
As you wrote, he doesn't pander but changing his message depending on what state he's in.
means the Democratic party has a majority membership that has become too conservative for the Dem party to ever again be an effective agent for significant progressive political change.
The country will accelerate its consistent movement to the right if Clinton is nominated, regardless of who wins the GE.