HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 39 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 43,506

Journal Archives

Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs speech



In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party's Senate candidates.

The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party -- which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.

Among the DSCC's top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.

During that 2006 campaign, Sanders attended a fundraiser at the Cambridge, Massachusetts home of Abby Rockefeller -- a member of the same family whose wealth he had one proposed confiscating.


It turns out Bernie does raise money from the financial sector

In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.

The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.
. . .
A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.

"At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."


Lots more at the link

"Sanders military adviser briefed him once"

Since there appears to have been some confusion about the source of the reporting on Bernie's foreign policy advisers, I'm posting this piece from Politico, which actually did the reporting. It's a follow up to Saturday's Politico piece on his foreign policy interest/credentials.

Facing skepticism about his foreign policy expertise, Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he speaks to "many, many, many people" who provide him with advice on the subject.
But the sole person Sanders cited by name told POLITICO that he's spoken to Sanders only one time recently.

"I was asked to go over and speak with him just once, which I did," said Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Korb said the wide-ranging conversation "probably" occurred in December.
Korb was among about a half-dozen foreign policy experts who spoke to POLITICO on Friday after Sanders' campaign cited them as recent sources of advice for the Vermont senator. At least half of them say they have only spoken to Sanders once or twice in the past year. . . .

The ambiguity about Sanders' foreign policy team is a stark contrast to Clinton's campaign, which maintains several foreign policy working groups manned by hundreds of experts and former government officials. The groups are coordinated by Laura Rosenberger, a former top aide to deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken who manages policies, messaging and strategy on the national security issues for the campaign. One of Clinton's closest confidants is Jake Sullivan, a former top State Department official during her tenure. Sanders' campaign has yet to publicly identify a full-time foreign policy staffer.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-korb-military-adviser-218482#ixzz3yu1QpmDP

Once upon a time I might have been shocked that "liberals" or "progressives'

would blame a woman for potential illicit activity by her husband, particularly when those same "progressives" have repeatedly excused any and all activity by male politicians, but I have since learned that misogyny is not incidental to opposition to Clinton: It is in fact the heart of it, and the reactions to this story illustrate that perfectly.

The same people insist Julian Assange should not be made to face legal charges for rape or that Woody Allen's alleged abuse of his 6 year old daughter is irrelevant. We are told it is unfair to refer to Bill Cosby as a rapist, despite legal accusations by dozens of women. While Clinton was president, I would bet any amount of money that the same people now jumping for joy that his possibly illicit behavior will harm his wife defended his right to sexual escapades in the Oval Office. I know this because any man's sexual behavior--legal or not--is always defended. Yet the potential of using it against someone who had NO PART in any of it is so delightful the OP jumps for joy. You are thrilled that Bernie wasn't on that plane. Hillary wasn't either, yet that of course is irrelevant to your glee. Whatever might or might not have transpired is not Bill's fault. It's Hillary's. God knows what possible mental process puts that in someone's mind, other than than a profound misogyny and determination to keep political power the exclusive province of men.

Thanks again for demonstrating that the ultimate goal of this campaign is to ensure no semblance of gender equality rear its head. Unfettered white male privilege must be restored at all cost, by any means necessary.
Toward that end, self-proclaimed "progressives" reap the benefits of millions of dollars of campaign ads funded by Karl Rove, targeting Hillary so that the GOP gets Bernie as its chosen opponent. Some link to and celebrate pro-life groups in a joint effort to defund Planned Parenthood, while working assiduously to ensure black activists are made to realize that their concerns about racist murders pale in comparison to the far more important goal of promoting Bernie's political prospects--all in order to "take America back," to take the Democratic Party back from the women and people of color who currently comprise its support base.

By all means, celebrate bigotry. Use lots of green bouncy guys to proclaim your excitement over the misogyny that so excites you. After all, why should a man be responsible for his own behavior when the true power lies in keeping women down, away from political power, and firmly under the glass ceiling you are busily working to reinforce with ten foot steel.

Here's to hoping that you and the entire reactionary, hateful worldview you celebrate is dealt a fierce and well-deserved blow.

Where is the influence?

Like the $800 billion to Lockheed-Martin or immunity for gun corporations? That sort of influence?

No, accepting donations for a charity, a charity that works on climate change and global health, as well as empowering girls and women around the world. A charity that is chartered in the US, subject to IRS law and US government oversight. Not even chartered in the Caribbean where it's financial dealings can't be taxed or overseen by the IRS.

"Minor actions of volunteers." Impersonating union workers. Illegally using logos in mailings. Who cares? Now reportedly, supposedly (yet we still haven't seen a quote) making a statement about bused in caucusers, now that is far more egregious. She should really be poking around in his computer files instead, harvesting data, so that suddenly people in Iowa never before contacted by the campaign start getting phone calls. Instead, someone said the campaign said something. That is truly an outrage.

Please tell me when Single Payer was one known as a Democratic principle. I know a bit about US history and I know of no such Democratic Party. Please, enlighten me.

And really, how dare anyone talk about how a Tea Party House will go from a veto-proof majority to overturn Obamacare to passing single payer all cause of Bernie. Worry about the constitutional limitations of the presidency? That truly is unethical. Far better to promise a health plan to voters that the candidate himself declared a non-starter in 2009, with a Democratic majority in both houses.
Promising what he himself knows won't happen, that takes real integrity. And then floating a plan where even the summary page has inconsistent figures for cost. But Clinton talks about math. That is so un-Democratic. How dare anyone expect Bernie to account for what his proposals might actually cost? Questioning a man so clearly superior to all other human beings is the height of corruption. The public must be encouraged to refrain from critical thinking, to accept unquestioningly.

A real Democrat would count on the public being uninformed about the legislative process and campaign finance law, boast he doesn't "have super pacs" while benefiting from millions of dollars in dark money spending. Pretend it's all about his "integrity" rather than a system that he himself benefits hugely from. Promise to overturn Citizens United once elected, or that his SCOTUS appointments will promise to overturn it as one of their first decisions, counting on voters having little understanding of how the court works. Or proudly proclaiming he will sponsor "new gun legislation" when the regulations in his proposal are already in effect. Those might just be mistakes, results of poor knowledge of legislation or how SCOTUS works if we were dealing with someone like Rick Perry, but this is a man who has been in DC 25 years and does not appear to be stupid at all.

Hey, you want to do away with fracking, I appoint you to go to ND and Oklahoma and tell those workers they are now unemployed. Then you can gear up for more war in the oil nations to compensate for the oil that isn't coming out the ground in the US. Then you can secure the funding for additional military spending. But hey, Lockheed might get another $800 billion out of it. It's easy to say fracking is bad. When you have to consider the repercussions of what that means for real people's jobs (only blue color workers, not anyone who actually counts) and our involvement in the oil regions, it gets tougher. But keep the issues one-dimensional so they fit on bumper stickers. Why think about broader implications when you sell something simple to voters?

Clinton's lacks integrity because--according to you--she challenges her opponent's proposals, critiques their viability; that she fails to indulge the suspension of thought crucial to the Sanders campaign makes her corrupt. And the press actually is staring to report on Sanders inconsistencies and campaign maneuvers, which is all indicative of Clinton's lack of integrity. If she were truly honest, she would insist the press not publish anything but adoration of Bernie.

Red baiting. You want a man who claims to be a socialist in America, and who will run against the GOP, and you're complaining about red baiting? Get a fucking grip. Clearly you and your candidate are not ready for prime time. Better go curl up under the covers because you don't want to see what would happen if Bernie faced a general election, when you face a GOP that doesn't give a shit what self-entitled "progressives" think. A GOP that takes no prisoners and is currently spending millions to try to get Bernie as their opponent in the general election. We need a candidate who can take them on, and all y'alls complaints only serve to emphasize the fact that it is not Bernie. If he is anywhere as weak as his supporters treat him, he isn't up to the task.

Heads up, vagina voters! The elections are nearing

And we have got a lot of work to do to get ready. I'm a bit concerned because truth be told I'm not as flexible as I used to be. I've got to start working out to get ready to be able to fill out all those bubbles on the ballot using my vagina. I've been doing my kegels, but I'm worried that won't be enough. Voting with one's vagina takes great flexibility. Here are some exercises we need to be doing to get ready for the primaries.

Right now you may be thinking, "gee, if I just keep voting for men like I have my whole life, I can use my hands to vote." I urge you not to give in to such defeatist thinking. While the obstacles are great, they are not insurmountable. We are women, after all, the keepers of all things vaginal. We shall raise ourselves up to the challenge!

As for me, I've only got until Super Tuesday to get in shape, so I've got to get cracking!

Planned Parenthood Stands with You

For 100 years, Planned Parenthood has provided reproductive healthcare for American women. I myself received my first gynecological exam at a Planned Parenthood clinic. In many places in the nation, they are the only clinics that provide such services--not just abortion but regular gynecological exams, pap smears, cervicals, and birth control.

We are experiencing renewed calls by the GOP to defund Planned Parenthood and to deprive women of those basic medical services that allow us autonomy over our lives. Now, a movement of some "progressives" has arisen to deny them funding--essentially to encourage private citizens to stop donations--because Planned Parenthood endorsed for the presidency a candidate who has forcefully and proactively defended their work with American women.

The primary contest of 2016 is a historical blip, a brief moment that will pass. The work Planned Parenthood does is far more enduring. Denying Planned Parenthood funding now can result in unwanted pregnancies that might otherwise have been prevented by family planning services birth control. That affects the entirety of women's lives and even subsequent generations.

Yet some insist what really matters is not the work PP does but Bernie's career. They should be punished for failing to endorse him. For that vocal minority of Sanders supporters, his political prospects trump the reproductive rights of the women of America, particularly those in rural and poor areas with no other options.

I don't care much who anyone supports for the nomination, but when Planned Parenthood is targeted because they failed to prioritize the electoral prospects of a particular member of the political elite, an indelible line in the sand is drawn. If Bernie's candidacy is really more important to you than the work Planned Parenthood does, something is seriously wrong. If people advocate that Planned Parenthood be deprived of funding and girls and women saddled with unwanted pregnancy as a result, they forsake any pretense of standing for any just or justifiable cause.

When "progressives" target an organization that has worked for the reproductive rights of women for many decades, their priorities are made clear. It's not enough to openly court the votes of anti-choice advocates, but now they they share the right's enemies list: First Black Lives Matter, then one union after another, Emily's List, and now Planned Parenthood. Why people claim to justify that opposition matters far less than the fact they are actively working to undermine them.

No politician is worth more than the lives and rights of half of the American population. Joining the GOP War on Women is not progressive or leftist. Its simply wrong.

Planned Parenthood has stood with us for 100 years. It's time we stand with them. If you're a Sanders supporter, stand up for equal rights. Make clear that you do not elevate one man above the women and families of America, that supporting Bernie (or Hillary or Martin) demands standing up for rather than forsaking equal rights.


Actually it was Bernie Sanders who said single payer never had a chance

On March 10, 2010, Sanders insisted single payer was never a possibility. That was during a period when Democrats had a majority in both the House and Senate.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday. . .

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.


Now, when we have a Republican majority in both houses, we're supposed to believe that he can deliver something he insisted was not viable a few years ago. Do you actually think the GOP is more amenable to single payer? Or is he making promises he thinks will help his presidential campaign? Do you think the failure of single payer in VT actually makes it more possible nationally? I seriously doubt it. You can blame Clinton supporters for Sanders' double talk, but it doesn't change what he said. There is no logical basis to conclude it is more possible under a GOP majority than a Democratic one.

Nothing is.easier than promising the moon. Delivering on those promises is another story. What is sad is that some actually want to hear promises, even knowing the candidate making those promises said the opposite just a few years ago. All a candidate has to do is tell you what you want to hear, and he's golden.

We are told we are "conservative" for critically examining such promises. Actually it means we aren't gullible. We care about what can get done, not empty rhetoric. Blaming Clinton supporters for what your own candidate said about single payer is just sad.

Your post says a great deal about this election

And is emblematic of the fault lines running across gender, race, and class that are at the heart of this primary contest.

As offensive as I find your post, at least you've put it all on the table. It's not enough for you to say I support another candidate because of x, y, and z. You have to attack her very womanliness, make clear that you see her and other women who don't behave as you think acceptable as trangressing the gender norms that uphold your fragile sense of masculinity. You've demonstrated just how much your opposition to Clinton is based in no small degree on her gender. The irony is in that announcing what you think is acceptable womanliness, you've showed precisely what kind of a man you are.

Vote for whomever you want, Sanders, Trump, whoever meets your standards of acceptable gender norms. It doesn't really matter. No one expects you, or those who think like you, to support Clinton, least of all the candidate herself. She had doubtless encountered men like you her entire life, and she has risen in spite of their efforts to demean her for transgressing gender norms they think their right to impose on women. Make no mistake about it. That is a form social control, but it is an increasingly tenuous one. Your day has passed. The US is starting to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of women in political office, and you are not going to be able to stop it.

The Democratic party is majority women and people of color. White men are not only a minority within the party but in the nation as well. Their privilege, their uncontested grip on power, is slipping away, and it's about goddamn time.

I secretly hope (I guess it's not a secret anymore) that Fiorina wins the GOP nomination because then guys like you will be faced with two women who don't behave like you feel women are supposed to.

I'm so looking forward to election day 2016. It will be a thing of beauty.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 39 Next »