HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » 99th_Monkey » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

99th_Monkey

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: Potlandia
Member since: Fri Sep 28, 2007, 03:39 PM
Number of posts: 19,326

Journal Archives

Washington State Considers Ending 'Virtual License to Kill' Given to the Police

Washington State Considers Ending 'Virtual License to Kill' Given to the Police
The law from 1986 assumes that officers who kill, act in good faith unless “evil intent” can be proven.
By William N. Grigg * The Free Thought Project/Alternet * Sept. 30, 2015

Enacted in 1986 with strong support from police unions, RCW 9A.16.040, which addresses “Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force” by a police officer, assumes that officers who kill, act in good faith unless “evil intent” can be proven.

Jamitha Burley of Amnesty International describes the Washington statute as “the most egregious” law of its kind in the United States. Attorney Jeff Robinson, who directs the Washington ACLU’s Center for Justice, believes that the statute is “virtually a license to kill.” King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg observes that officers who use lethal force in Washington are protected by an “almost perfect defense” – not merely the “qualified immunity” routinely invoked by police everywhere, but something closer to absolute impunity.

Enacted in 1986 with strong support from police unions, RCW 9A.16.040, which addresses “Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force” by a police officer, assumes that officers who kill, act in good faith unless “evil intent” can be proven.

Jamitha Burley of Amnesty International describes the Washington statute as “the most egregious” law of its kind in the United States. Attorney Jeff Robinson, who directs the Washington ACLU’s Center for Justice, believes that the statute is “virtually a license to kill.” King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg observes that officers who use lethal force in Washington are protected by an “almost perfect defense” – not merely the “qualified immunity” routinely invoked by police everywhere, but something closer to absolute impunity.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/washington-state-considers-ending-virtual-license-kill-given-police

The Hill: CNN Reports Biden to skip first Dem debate

Report: Biden to skip first Dem debate
By Jordan Fabian * October 01, 2015 * The Hill

Vice President Joe Biden is not expected to participate in the first Democratic presidential debate on October 13, CNN reported Thursday, a sign he is delaying his decision whether to jump into the 2016 race.

Biden is not preparing for the debate, which will take place in Las Vegas, according to several Democrats who spoke to CNN. Instead, the vice president is likely to announce his 2016 plans in the second half of October.

Should Biden skip the debate, it would further fuel speculation about one of the biggest unknown factors in the Democratic presidential primary.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/255585-report-biden-to-skip-first-dem-debate

The Hill/Brent Budowsky: Dem debate showdown

This kinda makes perfect sense to me, as a Bernie supporter, who feels America deserves more Democratic
candidate debates, especially ones that are not micro-engineered by a DNC that is trying to force ONE
"preordained" Establishment candidate down all Democrats throats, whether they like it or not.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has issued an edict that sells short the soul of the party of the people.

There will only be six presidential debates for Democrats in the 2016 cycle, and any candidate who participates in any others will be banned from the DNC debates. As recently as Wednesday, Wasserman Schultz, sounding like Vladimir Putin dictating to the Russian Politburo, declared that she will not budge on this.

Here is a proposal for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and other Democratic candidates for the nation’s highest office: You should join together to publicly state that if any respected organization wishes to hold additional debates, you will participate in defiance of the Putin-like commands from Washington.

What will happen if this showdown offer is extended is that media organizations and others will come forward with new debate proposals. Other Democratic candidates will accept. Wasserman Schultz will ban those candidates from the DNC debates. Hillary Clinton will be forced to choose between being the only candidate on stage in the DNC-sanctioned debates, which would make her and the DNC look ridiculous, or participating in the rogue debates, which she would almost certainly do.


http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/255517-brent-budowsky-dem-debate-showdown

Screw Benghazi. Screw the emails. Let the Dem Candidates debate REAL issues!

So with the upcoming debate, I'm hoping that finally Clinton, Sanders & O'Malley (and others) can finally
start discussing REAL issues that voters actually care about, issues that have a profound effect on their
lives, such as income disparity, ending mass incarceration & private prisons, addressing institutional racism
and ending the epidemic of police murdering POC, Citizens United, TPP, Climate Change, moving away from
fossil fuels to sustainable energy, etc.

Is this too much to ask? Or will ^these^ issues continue to be somehow ignored & shunted

Facebook's Feeling The Bern. Hillary counters with foreign "Click-Farms"

Bernie Sanders might still be trailing Hillary in all the national polls, but late last month he took the lead in a more newfangled — if possibly meaningless — measure of political strength: Facebook love. According to data obtained by Quintly, a social media analytics firm, Sanders’ presidential campaign page began the day of Saturday, August 22 with 1,197,290 likes to Clinton’s 1,199,797. By the end of the day, he had 1,218,879 to her 1,205,437. His lead has only increased since then.

Sanders’ success comes despite some suggestions that the Clinton campaign has been padding its totals on Facebook with purchased likes. Back in April, Vocative, a data mining media site, reported that Clinton’s presidential campaign page was more popular among Facebook users in Baghdad than any American city. And a further side-by-side comparison of both candidates’ page data shows that, over the last month, 95% of Sanders’ growth came from within the United States, while for Clinton that number is only 74%.

Oftentimes, so-called “click farms” are based out of developing countries and employ legions of low-paid workers to create fake Facebook profiles and then like the pages of clients. Clinton has seen strong growth over the last several weeks in followers in developing countries. To cite a single example, her followers in Myanmar tripled, to 18,150. (By contrast, Sanders’ share of foreign followers is much smaller and comes mostly from Western Europe.) This doesn’t necessarily mean Clinton’s campaign was paying click-farms directly — sometimes customers buy ads from Facebook, which promises to generate a certain number of likes, and those end up coming from click farms — but that didn’t stop some Reddit users from accusing her of buying likes to stave off Sanders.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/sanders-has-army-die-hard-facebook-fans-while-clintons-campaign-trying-buy-popularity

10 Reasons Bernie Sanders Will Overtake Hillary Clinton in National Polls Before the Iowa Caucus

10 Reasons Bernie Sanders Will Overtake Hillary Clinton in National Polls Before the Iowa Caucus
09/28/2015 * HuffPo * H. A. Goodman

Back in late June, when I wrote Why Bernie Sanders Will Become the Democratic Nominee and Defeat Any Republican in 2016, Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead over Bernie Sanders. According to the Huffpost Pollster interactive chart, Clinton's support within the Democratic Party was at 58.3% to only 15.6% for Bernie Sanders. Fast forward a couple of months and Bernie Sanders is now only 7 points from Clinton. Therefore, below are ten reasons Bernie Sanders will continue his ascent atop the Democratic Party and officially surpass Clinton in national polls before the Iowa Caucus.

1. Bernie Sanders is now only 7 points behind Clinton in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
2, The email scandal is "defining" Hillary Clinton according to Gallup and making it difficult to discuss issues important to voters. In contrast, Bernie Sanders has surpassed Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, even though 25% of voters have "not heard enough" of the Vermont Senator.
3. A recent CNN Poll finds that 42% of Democratic Primary voters back Clinton while 24% support Sanders. However, this poll (or at least its long-term relevance) is contradicted by various other polls illustrating voters don't trust Clinton.
4. Women are leaving the Clinton campaign and supporting Bernie Sanders.
5. The main reason that polls show Hillary Clinton ahead of Bernie Sanders is the belief that "non-white Democrats" will continue to support Clinton by a wide margin.
6. Swing states critical to winning the White House don't trust Hillary Clinton.
7. Bernie Sanders has surpassed Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire for the same reasons Sanders will surpass Clinton in most other states.
8. One look at the HuffPost Pollster interactive chart illustrates that Clinton won't be able to hold on to a lead.
9. Standard poll questions aren't relevant to voters in 2016. Here's the question Democratic presidential polls should ask.
(see link)
10. The FBI is investigating one candidate's emails.

Bernie Sanders has already surpassed Clinton in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls for the same reasons he'll win the Democratic nomination. Along with the ten reasons above, basic logic dictates that he'll overtake Clinton in every major poll before the Iowa Caucus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/10-reasons-bernie-sanders-will-overtake-hillary-clinton_b_8205712.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Worker-Owned Co-ops: Bernie's Platform Plank No One is Talking About

Bernie Sanders Has One Socialist Agenda Item On His Platform That No One Is Talking About
by JOE FLETCHER * Addicting Info * September 27, 2015

Bernie Sanders’ self-identification as a “Democratic Socialist” has been the subject of much discussion. People in the United States are not particularly fond of the word “Socialist.” In 2011, Pew released a survey that found that only 31% of people feel positive to the term. Millennials had the most favorable opinion of the term Socialism, with 49% reporting positive feelings towards the term.

Now, there is huge difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism. A contemporary Democratic Socialist is very much still a Capitalist, though they favor strong social welfare programs that aim to reduce economic inequality and favor regulations that curb the worst behaviors of the private sector. A Democratic Socialist is essentially nothing more than a left of left-of-center Liberal.

Socialism encompasses many varying schools of thought on how to achieve Socialism. However, all Socialists share the same broad goal of creating an economy where the workers collectively own and run their workplace. No matter how many well-intentioned memes or viral videos you might have seen that attempt to de-mystify the word Socialist, by describing things such as public roads, food stamps, public housing, or the postal service as features of a Socialist society, they are ultimately false. Those things are still the trademarks of a Liberal Capitalist society.

Now that being said, there is one truly Socialist agenda item in Sanders economic platform, that no one is talking about – building worker co-ops. Sanders introduced legislation with the aim of helping to build worker owned businesses in 2014. In press release Sanders stated:

“At a time when corporate America is outsourcing millions of decent-paying jobs overseas and with the economy continuing to struggle to create jobs that pay a livable wage, we need to expand economic models that help the middle-class. I strongly believe that employee ownership is one of those models. ”


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/27/bernie-co-op/

Bernie Sanders' Shrewd Move That May Push Clinton Left

Bernie Sanders' Shrewd Move That May Push Clinton Left
The democratic socialist is taking a stand by running a clean campaign, and it’s already making a big impact on the race for president. By Marc Daalder * In These Times * September 27, 2015

When Bernie Sanders’ Senior Advisor Tad Devine announced in August that the Democratic presidential candidate would not be running any attack ads against Hillary Clinton, many saw the move as simply being consistent with his previous campaign strategies and his progressive platform. Sanders has said he “hates and detests these 30-second negative ads” and has never run one. He sees the ads as part of what’s broken with American politics, and his disavowal of them fits with his electoral reform policies, which condemn super PACs and the buying and sensationalizing of U.S. elections.

But Sanders’ refusal to produce attack ads has proven to be more than a matter of simple moral consistency. His pledge represented a shrewd political decision by the Sanders campaign—a decision that has now paid off.

Electoral reform is central to Sanders’ platform for president. By swearing off attack ads against his opponents and cash from super PACs which often fund such ads, he has attempted to show that unlike his opponents, he can actually carry out the ideals he speaks so often about. In fact, shortly after Bernie’s announcement, his campaign sent a cease-and-desist letter to a PAC supporting him, which was first formed by Congressional lobbyist Cary Lee Peterson to encourage the Vermont Senator to run. ~SNIP~

The political depth of Bernie’s refusal to run negative attack ads has proven far more important than revealing contrasts between the two candidates. This decision actually forced Hillary’s campaign into an incredibly difficult position. If she ran an attack ad, she risked coming off as desperate or a bully. But by not running attack ads, she would essentially render herself unable to combat any surge in the polls by Sanders.

MORE: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-shrewd-move-may-push-clinton-left

O'Malley is right about this: "Clinton email controversy threatens to define Democratic Party"

O’Malley: Clinton email controversy threatens to define Democratic Party
By Jonathan Easley * September 27, 2015 * The Hill

Martin O’Malley said Sunday that “legitimate questions” remain about fellow 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account and server from her time as secretary of State, and warned that the issue threatens to define the Democratic Party.

“I believe that there are a lot of legitimate questions still to be answered about this particular controversy – the email, the email server, the FBI investigation and the like,” O’Malley said on CNN’s "State of the Union.”

O’Malley has been fighting for the party to expand the debate schedule beyond the six that are currently on the docket.
He argued Sunday that more debates are necessary, particularly in light of Clinton’s email controversy, because the issue threatens to swallow the race for the Democratic nomination.

“It’s so important that as Democrats we start having debates about other issues as well,” O’Malley said. “I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate questions to be answered here by Secretary Clinton, but for our part as a party, we need to talk about the things that will actually get wages to go up rather than down, that people care about around their kitchen tables…that’s why we need to have debates.”

“Otherwise, our party is being defined by Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, and it’s not good for our country,” he added.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/255094-omalley-clinton-email-controversy-threatens-to-define

Hillary's Fat-cat Hollywood Moguls Can't Stop Fretting: “It is something everyone is talking about”

Hillary Clinton's big donors in California have found all sorts of reasons to be nervous
By EVAN HALPER AND MELANIE MASON * Sept. 25, 2015 * LA Times

During a month in which some of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s biggest donors fretted, obsessed over and second-guessed her campaign, it wasn’t Clinton’s big policy speeches on healthcare or her vow to block the Keystone XL pipeline that helped ease nerves.

It was her several minutes of banter with “Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon.

Such are the mechanics of the Clinton campaign money machine, which is driven in large part by an extremely fickle – some might argue self-important – group of California moguls. Clinton will be back in California on Sunday to collect yet more checks. And one of the toughest challenges she and her advisors face is convincing this crowd of Hollywood executives and other titans of West Coast industry that they’ve got the campaign under control.

Lately, it’s been tough. Rival Bernie Sanders – a self-described socialist – is ahead in New Hampshire. The threat of the charming and formidable Vice President Joe Biden crashing the nominating contest looms. The FBI is investigating Clinton’s email server. It has all amounted to a lot of nail-biting and hand-wringing in the cocktail lounges of Beverly Hills and beach houses of Malibu.

“It is something everyone is talking about,” said one prolific Clinton fundraiser, who asked to remain unidentified for fear of antagonizing the campaign. “Is she going to lose? What is going on? Is Biden running? Is she in trouble? Why is the campaign doing this or that?”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clinton-california-donors-20150925-story.html
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »