Clinton Reaffirms Support For Public Option In Bid For Sanders Supporters

In a HuffPo article, "Hillary Clinton reaffirmed her support on Saturday for creating a “public option” within Obamacare and allowing people to enroll in Medicare at age 55.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee also called for a substantial increase in funding in medical clinics that serve low-income Americans, fully embracing a proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

While Clinton has long supported the creation of new government-run insurance options and reiterated that support several times this year, Saturday’s statement comes three days before she is scheduled to make her first joint campaign appearance with Sanders ― who has championed government-run insurance and federally financed clinics throughout his career and during his own bid for the presidency."

NOW you're talking! I can sure get behind this!

Has decades of corporate propaganda removed the last vestiges of empathy from Americans?

Most of you know that I'm quite to the left. I've said many times that we need to rethink our whole social and economic organization so that addresses our needs as a species and supports human need instead of human greed. I have also often said capitalism sucks and that I believe it is a cancer on the earth. I mean, we're literally destroying the planet we live on for the sake of earning a few shareholders more profits.

OK...so I read something this morning that deeply troubles me. Makes me wonder if empathy around here is so dead that I might as well shut up and not even bother.

Check out this article on Huffpo:

"These 2 Boys Were Born The Same Day In The Same Town, But Their Lives Will Be Dramatically Different"

The story is about two boys in Madagascar and talks about the effects of 'stunting' due to malnutrition. Bad enough, right?

OK. Go into the link and LOOK AT THE COMMENTS.

I quit posting on HP some years ago because I hated their censorship of comments. I tend to think mine through and not worry much about length, I know - maybe a little TOO verbose sometimes. Now I see what they wanted all along. Short and...I just don't have a word to describe the quality of those comments.

ARE THESE DEMOCRATS, DO YOU WONDER?

Trump’s Vegas Hotel Spent Half A Million Dollars To Stop Maids From Unionizing

This guy is SO not a friend to the working class. His hypocrisy knows NO bounds.

Here's an excerpt from the Huffpo article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-union-vegas-hotel_us_5776b0dee4b09b4c43c05424?c9i6yldi

(Added link to article on edit)

"Before entering the voting booth, those union members might want to know how much money one of Trump’s businesses has spent in an effort to persuade low-wage workers not to unionize. The Culinary Workers Union recently organized housekeepers and other service workers at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. The union won the election in December — but not without a fight from hotel owners Trump Ruffin Commercial LLC. That’s a joint venture between the likely GOP nominee and casino magnate Phil Ruffin, himself a major financial backer of Trump’s presidential run.

According to Labor Department disclosure forms reviewed by The Huffington Post, Trump Ruffin shelled out more than half a million dollars last year to a consulting firm that combats union organizing efforts. The money was paid from Trump Ruffin to Cruz & Associates in a series of seven payments between July and December, totaling $560,631. Nearly $285,000 of that money was paid over the course of two weeks in December, shortly after the hotel held its union election."

So there it is. Not only is he unqualified to be president at every level, the guy is virulently anti-union.

Not acceptable!

Something good about Hillary Clinton.

In an article published yesterday in HuffPo titled, "Hillary Clinton Spoke About Reproductive Justice In A Genuinely Intersectional Way," Clinton comes out unabashedly pro abortion access. Here's a short excerpt:

Clinton’s speech was a powerful reminder that the concept of “choice” is hollow for low-income people who may not actually have a choice when it comes to terminating their pregnancies because they can’t afford an abortion.

“Let’s repeal laws like the Hyde Amendment that make it nearly impossible for low-income women — disproportionately women of color — to exercise their full reproductive rights,” she said.

You know, I can understand, sort of, how I got blocked from the HRC group.

But I've recently found out that I have been banned from the Obama group. I do not think this fair, as I have never said anything that would warrant that. Yes, I disagree with Obama on the TPP, and I have talked about that, and I'm still a bit uptight about him putting 'entitlement's on the table for the so-called 'Grand Bargain.' And I wasn't thrilled with the way we got the ACA instead of single payer in 2009, and no one ever actually told us the truth - that we can't have it because it is against provisions in the GATS agreement of 1995. I'm not a big drone guy either.

Those things said, Obama has accomplished a great deal of good. I believe history will paint him as a good, likely great president. I'm especially happy he has now lent his considerable political weight to the idea that we should be expanding Social Security, not cutting it. I also like his stance on gun controls.

My point here is that banning me from the Obama room was and is unfair. The pinned thread stating the purpose of the Obama room to provide a safe haven for basically Obama fans says nothing at all about people not being able to post their disagreements with Obama.

Those times when I've pointed out what I think are weaknesses in Obama positions, I have NEVER resorted to any name calling, personal attacks or anything like that. Rather, I usually cite studies or other data in support of my positions. But to kick me out? I mean there was no notification or anything - one day I just couldn't post there.

Don't you think this is kind of a mixed message because you've allowed so much free and constructive debate in the General Primaries room? I mean, this is the Democratic Underground and I am and have been a registered Democrat since the mid-80s. Don't I get a voice when I disagree? Do I always have to agree? And, if so, why? Are those in the room so sensitive that they cannot stand a reasoned argument against a policy stance?

Because I LIKE Obama and I've never, ever done anything but issue reasoned arguments on those things with which I disagree.

You don't have to answer. I guess I don't expect one. But what I want is for you to consider the things I've said. If we take away debate, then we are little more than an echo chamber, and we've seen with Fox 'news' what an unrestrained echo chamber can 'accomplish.'

There was a post to which I really wanted to reply. This post had a video of President Obama

debunking Fox 'news' lies in a speech he gave in Indiana. But when I hit the 'reply' key, I found I had been blocked from that group by some mysterious Obama Group host.

Now, I am in disagreement with Obama's trade policies. Virulent disagreement in fact, and I have been vocal about my disagreement with so-called 'free' trade and the horrible ramifications it has had on the economy.

I have been just as vocal in saying Obama has done some really good stuff policy wise. Because he has. Obama has had to push the river because he came into office in a hole where we had just done the TARP bailout and he had to do ARRA and ACA because we were losing 750K jobs a month.

Yes, under Obama this economy has more or less come back. It is not Obama's fault that wages of middle class workers are still stagnating. Yet it is true due to neoliberal economic philosophies being propagated, flogged in fact, by virtually all the corporate owned politicians and media.

But Obama has done a good job and he's a good guy. I have also repeatedly pointed out that he is a moral man, a good husband and father, and that his administration hasn't had ANY scandals to even speak of. He is a good president and I feel reassured with him in office, unlike I felt when W was in there.

But I've been blocked from the Obama room.

SO I'M GONNA MAKE MY POST HERE AND IN GENERAL DISCUSSION. HERE IT IS:

When the general election begins after the primaries are over, the three most powerful voices on the side of sanity will be Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who I believe will all campaign tirelessly for Clinton.

So....gosh. That was horrible, awful, terrible wasn't it???

I saw a thread on which I really wanted to post. The post was about Obama

debunking Fox 'news' lies in a speech he gave in Indiana. But when I hit the 'reply' key, I found I had been blocked from that group by some mysterious Obama Group host.

Now, I am in disagreement with Obama's trade policies. Virulent disagreement in fact, and I have been vocal about my disagreement with so-called 'free' trade and the horrible ramifications it has had on the economy.

I have been just as vocal in saying Obama has done some really good stuff policy wise. Because he has. Obama has had to push the river because he came into office in a hole where we had just done the TARP bailout and he had to do ARRA and ACA because we were losing 750K jobs a month.

Yes, under Obama this economy has more or less come back. It is not Obama's fault that wages of middle class workers are still stagnating. Yet it is true due to neoliberal economic philosophies being propagated, flogged in fact, by virtually all the corporate owned politicians and media.

But Obama has done a good job and he's a good guy. I have also repeatedly pointed out that he is a moral man, a good husband and father, and that his administration hasn't had ANY scandals to even speak of. He is a good president and I feel reassured with him in office, unlike I felt when W was in there.

But I've been blocked from the Obama room.

SO I'M GONNA MAKE MY POST HERE AND IN GENERAL DISCUSSION. HERE IT IS:

When the general election begins after the primaries are over, the three most powerful voices on the side of sanity will be Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who I believe will all campaign tirelessly for Clinton.

So....gosh. That was horrible, awful, terrible wasn't it???

Democratic Primaries in the Shadow of Neoliberal Capitalism

We wonder why that pesky Bernie Sanders keeps winning primaries...

This is a very good Huffpo article that makes some very good points. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coates/democratic-primaries-in-t_b_10018638.html

Here is a good quote:
The great fear, on the left of the Democratic coalition, is that the rupture with the original Clinton list (List A) is still paper thin: and that Hillary Clinton will say radical things (from the other two lists, including List C) simply to win office. Then, when in office, she will go back to List A, triangulating with neoliberal Republicans in the manner of the first Clinton presidency. Reassuring her progressive supporters that she will not do any of this is therefore a vital task for her between now and November, because only if that reassurance is forthcoming — only if the depth of her rupture with her own past is unambiguously clear — will the vast majority of those mobilized by Bernie Sanders act as willing foot-soldiers in the electoral battle to save America from a Trump presidency. And she will need those foot-soldiers.
***
(Note: read the short article to find out what is on the 'lists' mentioned in the quotation.)

On a personal note, it's that old fear of the hard right pivot...I worry about it. Which is why I'm still for Sanders and still believe he can win the nomination, though the path is narrow and it involves an acrimonious convention. The issues Sanders is backing, though are far too important for us not to be forceful in putting them forward, even if it gets ugly, which it has. When you read the link, you'll see the blog author depicts Sanders' position as 'radical,' but it is not. The notion that helping each other is somehow radical is something we need to forcefully oppose and turn on its head. I am not radical - the radicals are the assholes in power who are systematically robbing our treasury and taking our tax dollars for profits.

It makes me sad. I just learned this morning that

Sharon Osborne has left Ozzy.

Yeah, I know there's lots of other stuff going on that could (should) be considered more important. I know that. But when I heard this, I had more than a twinge of sadness for Ozzy because he's gonna be a hot mess. Sharon took care of Ozzy for a very long time.

Fox News Asks For Respect and Acceptance as they Transition from Racist to Sexist News Organization

Well, we've all been waiting for this!

http://www.probablylegit.com/blog/2016/5/4/fox-news-asks-for-and-respect-and-acceptance-as-they-transition-from-racist-to-sexist-news-organization