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


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 42,212

Journal Archives

"substantive proposals"

We were waiting the entire primary to hear about those. Funny he didn't release them then. The NY Daily News in particular wanted Bernie to explain his "substantive proposals" on Wall Street reform but he never did. He instead said he shouldn't be expected to know how banks would be split up since he didn't run Citigroup.

Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.


He continued to repeated his core beliefs, which are indeed heartfelt, but he never developed substantive policy proposals of HOW he was going to execute what he talked about. Nor did he have any idea of how he as president would gain the authority to enact his goals.

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?


Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

You might recall that in the debates he was very critical of Clinton for saying that Dodd-Frank enabled the government to identity banks that were too big to fail. He insisted only reinstating Glass-Steagal would do. Yet in that interview he said he would rely on Dodd-Frank, though he was unsure about what authority it provided or how that mechanism worked.

These are ideas he has talked about for years, yet he gave little thought to how to implement them. The same with prosecuting bankers. He could not speak to the legal basis under which they would be prosecuted. He just said they should be. I found it astounding that in all the years he's been talking about locking up bankers, he didn't once think to look into the legal provisions that would make that possible.

Substantive proposals are not something he developed during his campaign. I remain doubtful that he has since done so.

I don't in any way disagree with his overall goals or his outrage at the financial sector, but a president's job is to make those goals happen and that requires serious thought and detailed policy about the precise governmental and legal mechanisms necessary.

Clinton's loss in the GE was all her fault

personally and had nothing to do with racism or sexism, yet Bernie's loss in the primary was entirely due to the DNC and the media. He bears no responsibility at all for it.

Clinton was a "flawed" candidate, too weak to win, but Bernie isn't at all flawed, despite losing to the hopelessly weak candidate by 3.75 million votes.

Is that supposed to be logical or remotely convincing?

(This isn't basing either candidate but rather pointing out a contradictory argument).

I've noticed some "progressives" seem to think Hillary owes them something

After their prolonged absence during the general election, they've appeared to attack her for not speaking out on this or that. Hillary owes you nothing. She put up her candidacy for president and lost. She was defeated, which is exactly what her detractors wanted. Not content with seeing her defeated in the GE, they stick the knife in and twist it. It would seem that decades long habit of directing their wrath toward one woman is difficult to break.

Here's the deal. She is now a private citizen. It's not her job, nor is it particularly appropriate, for her to speak out on any issue. She will never be president. She can spend the rest of her life walking her dog if she wants to. Her life is her own. She no longer has to be subject to the hatred and vitriol that the alt-"progressives" have directed at her non-stop since the GOP first told them what to think. The Trump wing of the "progressive" movement can direct their outrage toward the man they helped put in office. Maybe they can stop making excuses for fascism and ask about what he intends to do about Standing Rock, fracking, campaign financing, single payer, tuition-free education, or the other issues they claimed to care about until they decided issues really weren't important enough to keep them from supporting, either directly or through a third party vote, a fascist for president.

You vanquished the beast. Humanity has been saved from the scourge of her potential presidency. Move on to your next target while you keep making excuses for Rococo Hitler. You don't own Hillary, and she owes you exactly nothing.

Here we see the problem with a scapegoat. When she is gone, the people so invested in demonizing her are left without an outlet for the inner rage, and they find themselves flailing to cover up that emptiness.

that people continue to believe Bernie should not have been criticized or vetted

shows how unprepared they were to face a general election, given they continue to harbor animosity toward criticism made months ago during the primary that paled in comparison to what the GOP would have done or what they themselves threw at Clinton. That double standard, the notion that Bernie was too superior to be criticized by lowly citizens whereas Clinton was insulted with misogynist slurs and propaganda fed by the GOP and Russians, points precisely to the double standard Sheshe's references.

By March 15, it was clear Sanders could not win. His own staff knew it. Any other candidate would have dropped out at that point, except since he wasn't a Democrat he wasn't concerned about the well being of the party or its prospects in the GE, and he had massive amounts of money at his disposal. That unprecedented cash haul and record-breaking spending on advertising allowed him to stay in a race long after he had no chance of winning. He misled his supporters about his chances and ginned up false claims of rigged elections to keep his donations flowing. Sanders lost the primary by 3.75 million votes out of less than 26 million votes. In contrast, Trump's win in the key states combined is about 55,000 out of 125 million votes. Clinton's popular vote lead is over 2 million out of 125 million. Bernie came nowhere close to winning, which is why Clinton never used any opposition research on him. She didn't have to. While he did better than many anticipated, his principal success lay in fundraising, not votes.

Some of Sanders successes had do with the extremely restrictive caucus system, which keeps turnout low and is particularly prohibitive for the poor and minority voters who were Clinton's biggest supporters. His rhetoric about large turnout was not only precisely the opposite of his actual performance but the opposite of his campaign strategy, which Tad Devine articulated in early Jan of 2015 as being to focus on caucus states with lower turnout and less diverse populations. That is exactly what they did.

I could not disagree more strongly that more Independents should run for the Dem nomination for president. I don't want the party become Trump lite or less committed to equal rights in order to court the GOP white male voters some have decided are so much more valuable than the Democratic base. I don't want to go back to "the gold old days" or "make America great again, and I will never support anyone who engages in that kind of rhetoric. To move backward is not progressive or liberal; it is regressive by its very definition. It is at the best ahistorical and at worst exclusionary. I would like to see the party develop a better approach to the economy, class, and outreach, but those ideas need to be forward looking.

As for resentment from the primary, many of us who didn't support Sanders were insulted on a daily basis, and those insults were personal. Everyday I see posts from people who treated me like shit throughout the primary. I've decided to forget about many of them, or simply not respond to the ones who were particularly vicious. I even see on this site people who voted third party or for Trump, according to their declarations on another site, and I don't say anything to them about it--unless they deliberately provoke me (as one, who has since been PPR'd, did last week). Everyone has to swallow shit. That Sheshe posted some OPs critical of Sanders is the least of what transpired in the primary. People can damn well get over it or put her on ignore.

"Owning Our Shit" (warning, lots of salty language).

An epic rant with lots to be offended by. So don't read it if you can't handle criticism.

Adrian J Anchondo

I’ve got one major thing to say to you. HILLARY CLINTON DID NOT FAIL US, WE FAILED HILLARY CLINTON. Now I know, I know, she won the popular vote by almost two million votes, and I know that a lot of you were a part of that so yay go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. You done? Okay. You say she was flawed? Y’all motherfuckers didn’t DESERVE the candidate you got, and every day I watched as progressives posted on Facebook about how much they hated corrupt Clinton, talked about how imperfect she was as a candidate, posted articles that were flat out lies, or wrote things like #ImWithHerIGuess. Your enthusiasm for the former First Lady, Senator of New York, Secretary of State and first ever possible female President was shameful when you compare it to the enthusiasm the other side had for their “flawed” (racist homophobic tax evading possible rapist who has to make his undocumented Mexican maids wash the orange out of his bedsheets every fucking morning) candidate. If you would have just swallowed your pride and given Hillary half of the love you gave Obama, then we might not have woken up on November 9th worrying about families being torn apart, marriage licenses being taken way, guns getting into the wrong hands and women having to stay pregnant after getting raped. Does that sound too harsh? Too bad! This reality show is now our reality and we need to accept it and own our shit. We stepped in it and now its going to take at least four years to clean it off.

And to you people out there saying “Don’t blame me, I voted for Bernie”- suck a dick. Oh noooo- I’m so sorry you didn’t “like” Hillary. That’s so saaaad! I guess that’s worth this result. Your “I told you so” is so worth the millions of people who will suffer because of selfishness and pride. We all act like our nominee has to be the perfect representation of us regardless of how many years they’ve spent working tirelessly for the people. I didn’t give a shit about John Kerry, but I voted for the rest of my country. Every candidate has an email/Swift boat Veteran/Born in Kenya/Benghazi/Reverend Wright/Gennifer Flowers bullshit scandal that gets played over and over again, and for some reason we thought Hillary’s private email server (WTF is even a server?) was more damaging than Trump ADMITTING TO SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CALLING MEXICANS RAPISTS. Who’s talking about those damn emails now? NO ONE. Think about how the world must perceive us.

Who the fuck said you had to LIKE your nominee anyway? Guess what? There has always been and will always be at least half the people in the country who hate a Presidential nominee! This kind of thinking started with the whole “who would you want to get a beer with” bullshit from the Bush/Gore era and now it’s just gotten out of control. We didn’t always have primaries. Our parties used to pick our nominees for us. We had to deal with our choices. Now we get angry and picky if someone doesn’t meet every single criterion that we have created or if we don’t trust them because their positions evolved in a more progressive way over the years. If I had to talk to one more gay person about how Hillary wasn’t always for same sex marriage I was going to start having sex with women. Oh really? She wasn’t for gay marriage? WHY WERE YOU SO SUPPORTIVE OF OBAMA IF THAT WAS YOUR MAIN REASON FOR NOT LIKING HER??? AHHHHHH! Is it because she’s a woman and it reminded you of your own mother when she didn’t fully accept you as gay? We found a way to forgive our mothers who raised us, but we couldn’t find it in our hearts to forgive someone of no relation who evolved in their beliefs and ended up speaking on behalf of the LGBT and providing AIDS medication to people all over the world? I swear I saw more gay people posting about Hillary hating LGBT than articles about Mike Pence believing in electro shock gay conversion therapy for children, or the fact that in Indiana you can get put in jail and fined 10,000 just for applying for a marriage license if you weren’t a man and a woman. So what did we do? We’ve given a billionaire who hasn’t paid taxes the most power of ANY PRESIDENT SINCE THE 40’s. It’s like we’ve given a plumber permission to do open heart surgery on our kids. It’s because of us that one of the best Presidents this country has ever seen actually had to shake the hand of a man who was blatantly racist towards him and tried to get him out of office. Shame on us.

To the protest voters (whether you voted or not) I hope you are proud of yourself for being “right” while others continue to struggle and lose their rights and healthcare. We are in such a place of privilege to pick and choose what we like in a candidate when people died just to have the right to vote. I’m so over all the self righteousness. Bernie himself begged his followers to do the right thing, but we were too selfish to come out and support our nominee. Did you know that 11,000 people wrote in “Harambe” for President? Does that make you angry? It should. It should also make you angry that progressives voted for candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson WHO DID NOT HAVE THE PROGRESSIVE POSITIONS THAT BERNIE HAD. These people weren’t able to put themselves in the shoes of a mother who lost her Black child to a bad cop, or the shoes of someone who lost their best friend in Orlando. How quickly we forget.

And to those of you that say Bernie would have won? Suck two dicks. We look back and say that the Democrats should have focused their campaign on the white middle class and criticize Hillary for focusing on racial and gender equality. FUCK YOU!!! I am sick and tired of people making the white middle class the biggest victims in this election. Oh the Caucacity of it all! The real victims are the Black and Latino kids out there living in a trailer park eating canned food for the 4th day in a week. That was me. I know how it feels. I’m sorry, Becky, for hurting your white feelings and for being upset by your privilege, but your pain and guilt are a small price to pay for the millions out there who are struggling in this country. And we are thankful to you for trying to help- that goes without saying. White people lost limbs and lives fighting against slavery, but they knew it was caused by them and probably didn’t complain when they received criticism. If they can accept that, I’m sure you can handle when people point out inequality and racism amongst white people in general.


It's already a clusterfuck

Voters wanted change rather than someone competent. Now they get rank incompetence.


New York Times

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition was in disarray on Tuesday, marked by firings, infighting and revelations that American allies were blindly dialing in to Trump Tower to try to reach the soon-to-be-leader of the free world. 
One week after Mr. Trump scored an upset victory that took him by surprise, his team was improvising the most basic traditions of assuming power. That included working without official State Department briefing materials in his first conversations with foreign leaders.

Two officials who had been handling national security for the transition, former Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan and Matthew Freedman, a lobbyist who consults with corporations and foreign governments, were fired. Both were part of what officials described as a purge orchestrated by Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser.

The dismissals followed the abrupt firing on Friday of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who was replaced as chief of the transition by Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Mr. Kushner, a transition official said, was systematically dismissing people like Mr. Rogers and Mr. Freedman who had ties with Mr. Christie. As a federal prosecutor, Mr. Christie had sent Mr. Kushner’s father to jail.

Prominent American allies were in the meantime scrambling to figure out how and when to contact Mr. Trump. At times they have been patched through to him in his luxury office tower with little warning, according to a Western diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail private conversations. . . .

There were some reports within the transition of score-settling.
One member of the transition team said that at least one reason Mr. Rogers had fallen out of favor among Trump’s advisers was that, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he had overseen a report about the 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, which concluded that the Obama administration had not intentionally misled the public about the events there. That report echoed the findings of numerous other government investigations into the episode.

Eichenwald: The Myths that Cost Democrats the Election

I've noticed that people are reading the election results through their preexisting views. Some are taking advantage of it for their own purposes. If that analysis were sound, it would be one thing, but it isn't. This article by Eichenwald explores a number of the myths some, particularly Bernie or Busters, bought into. If we are to believe the exit polls, which given how lousy polls have proved to be is a major question, Clinton won those making less than $30k and less than $50k. Trump performed better with higher incomes. I seriously question the media narrative that the white "working class" cost Hillary the election due to economic decline since Trump voters averaged above the median income. Eichenwald's piece lends some insight into voting results:

Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.

Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one who appeals the most to their egos.

I share Eichenwald's disgust for the liberals who collaborated with Trump. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary in the GE is my view indistinguishable from the deplorables. I don't care what they call themselves; they chose to stand with the Klan in enabling a racist, sexual predator to usher fascism into this country. That makes them my enemy. Unfortunately, my own brother is a Bernie or Buster. Despite making 4x the income I do and owning three rental properties, he refused to vote for Hillary in the GE. He instead wrote in the name of his 6 yr old son, as though a child were better suited for the presidency than Hillary Clinton. I suppose like many he thought Hillary would win and he could maintain his sexist purity by making sure his write-in had a penis. Only our state of MN came 1.4 points from going for Trump. I will have to figure out how to deal with him on Thanksgiving. In all likelihood, I won't say anything (partly because Republican in-laws will be there), but I will not forget.

Now to the rest of Eichenwald's piece. You really need to read the whole article, but here are a few paragraphs.


1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Almost every email that set off the “rigged” accusations was from May 2016. (One was in late April; I’ll address that below.) Even in the most ridiculous of dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19, since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate after that, something no rational person could believe.

This is important because it shows Sanders supporters were tricked into believing a false narrative. Once only one candidate can win the nomination, of course the DNC gets to work on that person’s behalf. Of course emails from that time would reflect support for the person who would clearly be the nominee. And given that their jobs are to elect Democrats, of course DNC officials were annoyed that Sanders would not tell his followers he could not possibly be the nominee. Battling for the sake of battling gave his supporters a false belief that they could still win—something that added to their increasingly embittered feelings. . . .

2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach. . .

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers. . . .

Please read the rest.

Hysterical picture of the Trumps voting

Toxic Tangerine is afraid that she's with her!

Powerful Evangelical Women Split From Male Church Leaders To Slam Trump

This is bigly.

Beth Moore doesn’t spent much time on politics.
The enormously popular evangelist—her sermons and conferences sell out arenas and printed bible studies are perennial bestsellers—is more likely to be found helping women understand the life of the Apostle Paul or tweeting about her husband, new granddaughter and two adorable dogs.

But something changed for Moore after Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President of the United States, was caught on tape bragging about his ability to sexual assault women. When Trump said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,” Moore had had enough.

“I'm one among many women sexually abused, misused, stared down, heckled, talked naughty to. Like we liked it. We didn’t. We’re tired of it,” Moore said. She also had a word about evangelical leaders still supporting Trump: “Try to absorb how acceptable the disesteem and objectifying of women has been when some Christian leaders don’t think it's that big a deal.”
Moore’s broken silence about the 2016 race—rooted in her own experience with sexual assault—signals a widening gender divide between evangelicals. Increasingly, moderate and conservative Christian women are speaking out about Trump’s brand of misogyny and divisiveness, and condemning support for the nominee or silence about him from male evangelicals. . . .

Beth Moore wasn't alone in her condemnation of Trump. Her comments sent ripples around the evangelical world and were seconded by Christian mega-speaker and author Christine Caine. Sara Groves, the Dove Award-Nominated Christian artist, told me, “Someone like Beth can go a long way in helping Evangelicals recognize these major blind spots.”

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 38 Next »