HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RiverLover » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 38 Next »

RiverLover

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2011, 12:59 PM
Number of posts: 7,830

About Me

FDR Populist Progressive who believes the environment trumps all. We\'re sinking the only ship we\'ve got, and govt leaders are ignoring it.

Journal Archives

Yes, it is shocking. And no it doesn't seem Democratic. But then neither does Hillary.

I'm done here.

‘Immunity’ should make Democrats very nervous

by Chris Cillizza
3/5/2016

‘Immunity’ should make Democrats very nervous

....Here's the thing: The Democratic establishment, a long while back, put all of its eggs in the Clinton basket. No one of considerable stature in the party challenged her for the nomination (Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, I am looking at you), and virtually every member of the party's power structure got on board with her very early on.

That bandwagoning around Clinton has been overshadowed over the past few months as Sanders' surprisingly strong challenge to Clinton (and his amazing small-dollar fundraising) has drawn much of the focus. But the truth of the matter was and is that the Democratic Party made a massive bet on Clinton about two years ago. That bet was that she was the strongest possible candidate they could field and so it only made sense to push everyone else to the side for her.

But it was a bet. And, like all bets, there was - and is - risk involved. That risk was that sometime before the 2016 general election something might happen that would make it more difficult - or even impossible - for Clinton to win. This is the Clintons we are talking about, after all. For all of their smarts and deep résumés, there does tend to be some serious baggage that trails them wherever they go.

No one - or at least no one outside Clinton's inner circle - would have known way back when that the "Hillary or bust" gamble was made that she had exclusively used a private email server while secretary of state and that a number of pieces of classified material had passed through that server. (There is no debate that classified information was on Clinton's server; the debate is whether it was classified at the time or whether it was classified at a later date.)

That news didn't break until March 2015, when the lining up behind Clinton was already very much under way.

.....But it's my strong impression that the Justice Department doesn't go around granting immunity to people unless the person getting the immunity may be able to shed light on an important part of the investigation. After all, if Pagliano a) knew nothing or b) did nothing wrong, why would he need immunity to talk to the FBI?

That's the question skittish Democrats have to be asking themselves today. The granting of immunity to someone at the center of the email controversy will be taken as a sign that things may get worse for Clinton when it comes to the email server before they get better.............

Read in full~
http://www.commercialappeal.com/opinion/national/chris-cillizza-immunity-should-make-democrats-very-nervous-2d2bca54-b782-51b2-e053-0100007f6976-371133781.html

Yes.

I think so too.

What is Bernie's position on these trade deals of Clinton1 and Obama?

Does not support ANY free trade agreements
Q: What do you think about the new TPP trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

SANDERS: I voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China. I think they have been a disaster for the American worker. A lot of corporations that shut down here move abroad. Working people understand that after NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China we have lost millions of decent paying jobs. Since 2001, 60,000 factories in America have been shut down.

We're in a race to the bottom, where our wages are going down. Is all of that attributable to trade? No. Is a lot of it? Yes. TPP was written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street. That's what this trade agreement is about. I do not want American workers to competing against people in Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour for a minimum wage.

Q: So basically, there's never been a single trade agreement this country's negotiated that you've been comfortable with?

SANDERS: That's correct.
Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 11, 2015

China trade has led to loss of 3M American jobs so far

Q: What does Bernie's track record look like with regard to Chinese trade policy?

A: Time and time again, Bernie has voted against free trade deals with China. In 1999, Bernie voted in the House against granting China "Most Favored Nation" status. In 2000, Bernie voted against Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China which aimed to create jobs, but instead lead to the loss of more than 3 million jobs for Americans.

Q: Maybe these trade agreements aren't all great for Americans, but don't they provide millions of jobs for Chinese workers?

A: Bernie firmly rejects the idea that America's standard of living must drop in order to see a raise in the standard of living in China.

Q: So what does Bernie propose we do?

A: Instead of passing such trade deals again and again, Bernie argues we must "develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad."
Source: 2016 presidential campaign website FeelTheBern.org, "Issues" , Sep 5, 2015

Priority of trade deals should be helping American workers

Bernie Sanders believes that the top priority of any trade deal should be to help American workers. Unfortunately, as Bernie has warned year after year, American trade policy over the last 30 years has done just the opposite. Multinational corporations- who have helped to write most of these trade deals--have benefited greatly while millions of American jobs have been shipped overseas. American trade policy should place the needs of American workers and small businesses first.
Source: 2016 presidential campaign website FeelTheBern.org, "Issues" , Sep 5, 2015

Base trade policy on working families, not multinationals
Q: The president says that expanding trade helps service industries & opens new markets. You talk about workers that would lose their job from trade. They say this will open up markets that will increase jobs.

SANDERS: I have been hearing that argument for the last 25 years. I heard it about NAFTA. I heard it about CAFTA. I heard it about permanent normal trade relations with China. Here is the fact. Since 2001, we have lost almost 60,000 factories and millions of good-paying jobs. I'm not saying trade is the only reason, but it is a significant reason why Americans are working longer hours for low wages and why we are seeing our jobs go to China and other low-wage countries.

And, finally, what you're seeing in Congress are Democrats and some Republicans beginning to stand up and say, maybe we should have a trade policy which represents the working families of this country, that rebuilds our manufacturing base, not than just representing the CEOs of large multinational corporations.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 coverage:2016 presidential hopefuls , Jun 14, 2015

Wrong, wrong, wrong that trade deals create jobs here


Q: As secretary of state, Clinton said she favored a trade deal with our 11 Pacific partners & fast track authority to make that happen. Is that an issue for you?

SANDERS: In the House and Senate, I voted against all of these terrible trade agreements, NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trades relations with China. Republicans and Democrats, they say, "oh, we'll create all these jobs by having a trade agreement with China." Well, the answer is, they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Over the years, we have lost millions of decent paying jobs. These trade agreements have forced wages down in America so the average worker in America today is working longer hours for lower wages.

Q: So, is that a litmus test for you, to see whether or not Clinton is going to come out against the TPP?

SANDERS: I hope very much the secretary comes out against it. I think we do not need to send more jobs to low wage countries.

I think corporate America has to start investing in this country and create decent paying jobs here.


http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm



I believe this is the number one reason the Democratic Party is losing members & the largest voting block is now Independents.

The trade deals that have decimated the middle class and have made the US a service economy, leaving retail jobs that don't provide a living wage.

We can thank Bill Clinton for bringing third way (republicanism) into the party and tanking the country with his trade agreements. Then Obama's deals with Clinton2 paving the way. Korean, Columbian, and the coming TPP.

Pragmatism. Getting things done with republicans.

Corporations have bought our representatives in every branch and their reward is being able to pay slave wages and make massive profits from exploiting workers in foreign countries.

Want to see a blast from the past (con job) in action? Watch Obama & Clinton2 in 2008 talk about how bad NAFTA is and how they both want to change it (not)~




GO Bernie!!!

Fair trade is what he champions. Not the bs free trade deals we're getting. Please see~

Does not support ANY free trade agreements
Q: What do you think about the new TPP trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

SANDERS: I voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China. I think they have been a disaster for the American worker. A lot of corporations that shut down here move abroad. Working people understand that after NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China we have lost millions of decent paying jobs. Since 2001, 60,000 factories in America have been shut down. We're in a race to the bottom, where our wages are going down. Is all of that attributable to trade? No. Is a lot of it? Yes. TPP was written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street. That's what this trade agreement is about. I do not want American workers to competing against people in Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour for a minimum wage.

Q: So basically, there's never been a single trade agreement this country's negotiated that you've been comfortable with?

SANDERS: That's correct.
Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 11, 2015

China trade has led to loss of 3M American jobs so far
Q: What does Bernie's track record look like with regard to Chinese trade policy?

A: Time and time again, Bernie has voted against free trade deals with China. In 1999, Bernie voted in the House against granting China "Most Favored Nation" status. In 2000, Bernie voted against Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China which aimed to create jobs, but instead lead to the loss of more than 3 million jobs for Americans.

Q: Maybe these trade agreements aren't all great for Americans, but don't they provide millions of jobs for Chinese workers?

A: Bernie firmly rejects the idea that America's standard of living must drop in order to see a raise in the standard of living in China.

Q: So what does Bernie propose we do?

A: Instead of passing such trade deals again and again, Bernie argues we must "develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad."
Source: 2016 presidential campaign website FeelTheBern.org, "Issues" , Sep 5, 2015

Priority of trade deals should be helping American workers
Bernie Sanders believes that the top priority of any trade deal should be to help American workers. Unfortunately, as Bernie has warned year after year, American trade policy over the last 30 years has done just the opposite. Multinational corporations- who have helped to write most of these trade deals--have benefited greatly while millions of American jobs have been shipped overseas. American trade policy should place the needs of American workers and small businesses first.
Source: 2016 presidential campaign website FeelTheBern.org, "Issues" , Sep 5, 2015

Base trade policy on working families, not multinationals
Q: The president says that expanding trade helps service industries & opens new markets. You talk about workers that would lose their job from trade. They say this will open up markets that will increase jobs.

SANDERS: I have been hearing that argument for the last 25 years. I heard it about NAFTA. I heard it about CAFTA. I heard it about permanent normal trade relations with China. Here is the fact. Since 2001, we have lost almost 60,000 factories and millions of good-paying jobs. I'm not saying trade is the only reason, but it is a significant reason why Americans are working longer hours for low wages and why we are seeing our jobs go to China and other low-wage countries. And, finally, what you're seeing in Congress are Democrats and some Republicans beginning to stand up and say, maybe we should have a trade policy which represents the working families of this country, that rebuilds our manufacturing base, not than just representing the CEOs of large multinational corporations.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 coverage:2016 presidential hopefuls , Jun 14, 2015

Wrong, wrong, wrong that trade deals create jobs here
Q: As secretary of state, Clinton said she favored a trade deal with our 11 Pacific partners & fast track authority to make that happen. Is that an issue for you?

SANDERS: In the House and Senate, I voted against all of these terrible trade agreements, NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trades relations with China. Republicans and Democrats, they say, "oh, we'll create all these jobs by having a trade agreement with China." Well, the answer is, they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Over the years, we have lost millions of decent paying jobs. These trade agreements have forced wages down in America so the average worker in America today is working longer hours for lower wages.

Q: So, is that a litmus test for you, to see whether or not Clinton is going to come out against the TPP?

SANDERS: I hope very much the secretary comes out against it. I think we do not need to send more jobs to low wage countries. I think corporate America has to start investing in this country and create decent paying jobs here.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm

Trump's bizarre popularity - the sanest explanation I've seen

The Atlantic
3/2/16

Donald Trump: The Protector

He will make you safe. He will give you health care. He will give you jobs. He will build a wall. Protecting you is his prime directive.



Like many people, I have been wondering: What on Earth explains Donald Trump’s remarkable appeal to voters?


I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer is fairly simple. The message of his Republican opponents has effectively been: We are more faithful to conservative principles. Trump’s message has been entirely different. He essentially says: I will protect you. I’m conservative, but if protecting you requires jettisoning conservative ideology, I will do so. Protecting you is the prime directive. This message has powerful resonance, especially for voters who feel the Republican Party has failed to protect their interests.

You see this pattern in all of Trump’s deviations from conservative orthodoxy. Take the debate over Planned Parenthood. Like all conservatives, Trump opposes abortions. But he stresses he does not want to stop funding their wonderful work protecting women from cervical and breast cancer. The other Republican candidates simply express a desire to destroy Planned Parenthood outright. Trump’s message to voters: The other candidates will adhere rigidly to ideology, even if it needlessly fails to protect millions of women from cancer. I won’t.

Or consider the debate over Obamacare. Again, like all conservatives, Trump promises to repeal and replace it. But he stresses that he is not going to let poor people die because they lack access to health care. The other candidates say: Aha! Trump is not a purist opponent of government-funded health care. Neither Trump nor his opponents offer many specifics, but the message to voters is that at least Trump’s goal is to protect them from the financial burdens of Obamacare without sacrificing their health. His opponents suggest their goal is just the ideological purge of Obamacare, regardless of the health implications.

On campaign financing, Trump’s message is basic: I am financing myself, so you can trust me to protect you because I will be beholden to no one other than the people who elected me. You can’t trust these other guys to protect you, no matter how good what they say might sound, because they will protect whoever paid for their campaigns...

..........Free trade is great, Trump says, but it has to be fair. His opponents just adhere to pure free trade, which does increase the economic pie. But economic research shows that free trade harms some subsets of voters, particularly the working-class voters flocking to Trump. The message to his voters: I will favor free trade only to the extent that I can protect you from harm, perhaps by compensating you using the gains of trade. My opponents will favor free trade even if it harms you.

Much the same goes for taxes and entitlements. Trump says he will cut taxes but not cut Medicare and Social Security, while the others favor cutting both. His message to voters: Only I value protecting your retirement benefits over tax cuts.

Read in full~
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-the-protector/471837/


Thanks for nothing, Elizabeth Warren: How the Democratic Party’s rock star missed her chance....

Salon
3/1/2016

Thanks for nothing, Elizabeth Warren: How the Democratic Party’s rock star missed her chance, hurt the progressive agenda
*************************************
The appetite was there for a truly progressive candidate to topple the Clinton machine.

That candidate did not run


Elizabeth Warren could have been the biggest political story of 2016. Well, at least, the biggest story other than Donald Trump. Right now, she could have been coasting toward a Super Tuesday landslide and locking up the Democratic nomination. It doesn’t take a wild imagination to picture it.

Instead, Warren is nowhere to be found, unless you’re a Democratic donor on the receiving end of DNC email blasts signed by the Massachusetts senator. Raising money like this — or lending her name to these emails — might be her biggest contribution to the Democrats in the 2016 cycle. And unfortunately, that’s why Super Tuesday is likely to seal the nomination for Hillary Clinton tonight.

My point is not to relitigate Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders for the millionth time. That argument closed in Nevada, and screamed to a halt in South Carolina. Hillary Clinton will make a Democratic candidate in the same mold as her husband or Al Gore or John Kerry. If elected president, she’ll likely carry on the Obama legacy, appointing the right Supreme Court justices and blocking the worst excesses of the gerrymandered Republican Congress, while also remaining the same politician who served as the senator from Goldman Sachs and toured war zones with Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Even most of Clinton’s harshest critics from the left would pinch their noses and vote for her in a contest against Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders ran a near-perfect race to make it this close, but was never likely to overcome Clinton’s superdelegate and electoral map advantages without more debates and a stronger, sharper performance in them.

What Sanders did, however, was demonstrate that with a different messenger — one willing to draw sharp contrasts, perhaps someone who was not a wild-haired socialist in his ’70s from Vermont — the appetite was there in 2016 for a truly progressive candidate to capture the Democratic nomination.

That candidate did not run.

Progressives of a pessimistic bent might feel that they just missed a once in a generation opportunity to reorient the Democratic Party.

Had Warren run, you could make the case that she would have swept to the nomination.
A February 2015 MoveOn poll found that 79 percent of Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats wanted Warren to enter the presidential race, and showed Warren polling higher than Clinton in both states.

Keep in mind that this was well before Sanders’ summer surge, when the Vermont senator had single-digit support in most polls.....

Read the rest~
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/01/thanks_for_nothing_elizabeth_warren_how_the_democratic_partys_rock_star_missed_her_chance_hurt_the_progressive_agenda/

Its a moot point now, but I agree with this article. I often say to myself, "Thanks a lot Elizabeth" when I think on how the massively corrupt conservative third way Clinton2 has taken over the party. Total control.

People love Elizabeth. The media loves her. I've never witnessed a more effective speaker. She is sharp & on point & dynamic & quick on her feet, she would have nailed this thing.

Hillary will lose to Donald in the GE. But we have lost the party.

Hey if you are cool with off shoring American jobs, underpaid service jobs left, endless war, wall

street gambling with the American taxpayer there to bail them out when they crash the economy again, monopolies, charter schools, privatization of everything,etc I say, well, I say what the OP says.

You are the victim. Of the long con. They're laughing all the way to the bank...wait they own the banks...all the way to Monte Carlo on their yachts....dreaming of when they can replace us all with robots most likely. Everyone's got a dream!

The People's Candidate raises close to $40 mill in February (WE're his SuperPAC!!)


Sanders campaign aims for $40 million month

By Nick Gass

02/29/16 07:10 AM EST

Bernie Sanders' campaign is seeking to raise just under $4 million on Monday, the deadline for the Federal Election Commission's monthly reporting deadline. That amount, according to fundraising totals announced by the campaign, would give the Vermont senator's effort $40 million in February.

From the time he declared his candidacy last April through January, Sanders raised $94.8 million from more than 3 million individual contributors. The campaign eclipsed the 4 million mark in February, raising a shade over $36 million in the month as of Monday morning.

Sanders has pointed to his campaign's disavowal of super PACs and large-money contributions throughout the course of the campaign, doing a well-worn call-and-response with supporters in Minnesota on Saturday evening about the average donation to the campaign — $27.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/bernie-sanders-campaign-2016-219951#ixzz41YoBLo00

He's bought alright. This purchased politician will have to work for We, The People now!! Just like he wanted.

USA!!

Clinton +3 in NC!



Just like Ohio, Trump will turn the state blazing RED.

He's the one talking about bringing back American manufacturing.

Which has gone away because of Clinton1.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 38 Next »