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


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:50 AM
Number of posts: 1,748

Journal Archives

Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton Pitched Iraq As 'A Business Opportunity' For US Corporations

When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.

“It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity," she said in a 2011 speech.

The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation.

(more at link


Bernie Sanders Will Make the Economy Great Again

Liberal critics like Paul Krugman argue that Sanders’s economic platform is unrealistic. They are dead wrong.

Does Bernie Sanders’s economic program amount to pie-in-the-sky nonsense? The short answer is no. All of his major proposals are grounded in solid economic reasoning and evidence.

But that hasn’t stopped a major swath of leading liberal economists and commentators to insist otherwise. Paul Krugman has led these attacks from his New York Times perch, charging repeatedly that Sanders makes “outlandish economic claims,” embraces “deep voodoo” economics, is “not ready for prime time,” and so forth. A recent Washington Post article by columnist Steven Pearlstein cites several other liberal economists criticizing Sanders’s support for Scandinavian-style social democratic policies, concluding that his program “promises all the good parts of the Scandinavian model without any of the bad parts.”

(Omitted point-by-point, detailed analysis at link)

It is true that the overall share of GDP going to corporate profits and the rich will decline, and this will likely counteract to some degree the positive factors encouraging private investment and growth under Sanders. But even The Economist recently concluded that corporate profits in the United States are excessive, so much as to be damaging the economy’s overall performance. The entirely feasible challenge today is therefore to produce higher growth rates through creating more jobs, getting more money in people’s pockets, widening educational opportunities, and raising productivity rather than allowing the country to slip further into economic oligarchy.

In short, if something like a Sanders program is enacted in the United States, the critical point will not be whether GDP grows, on average, at 3 percent, 4 percent or 5.3 percent. A Sanders economy will be fully capable of growing at healthy rates. But more than just growing, a Sanders economy will also deliver standards of well-being for the overwhelming majority of Americans, as well as the environment, in ways that we have not experienced for generations.


Sanders campaign, New York officials cry foul after New York voters report issues


New York City (CNN)Bernie Sanders' campaign on Tuesday called reports of voting irregularities in New York state "a disgrace" as New York City officials contended with the potential for mass confusion in Brooklyn, where the Board of Elections has confirmed that more than 125,000 Democratic voters had been stripped from the rolls.

"From long lines and dramatic understaffing to longtime voters being forced to cast affidavit ballots and thousands of registered New Yorkers being dropped from the rolls, what's happening today is a disgrace," Sanders spokesman Karthik Ganapathy said in an email to CNN, calling the difficulties a "shameful demonstration."

"It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists," de Blasio said in a statement Tuesday calling on the board to "reverse that purge."

The Clinton campaign had no immediate comment when asked by CNN.

Mindful Self-Acceptance? Bad Idea According to Ancient Chinese Philosophers.

Community of Hope - P J Harvey

Love the last refrain.

"She's Baldly Lying": Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton's Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup

As Hillary Clinton seeks to defend her role in the 2009 Honduras coup, we speak with Dana Frank, an expert on human rights and U.S. policy in Honduras. "This is breathtaking that she’d say these things. I think we’re all kind of reeling that she would both defend the coup and defend her own role in supporting its stabilization in the aftermath," Frank says. "I want to make sure that the listeners understand how chilling it is that a leading presidential candidate in the United States would say this was not a coup. … She’s baldly lying when she says we never called it a coup."


This interview is a must-read for anyone interested in the facts surrounding Hillary's involvement in this incident.

Why 'Basta Hillary!' Protestors Say Hillary Has Blood On Her Hands

According to the group, while Clinton may be wooing the immigrant vote and have increasing support among immigrant groups, she actually has “blood on her hands” and is responsible for forcing immigrants into low paid jobs while destabilizing their Latin American homelands.

Here is how they explain Clinton’s actions in Honduras and other Latin American nations:

Hillary Clinton supports violent military coups in Latin America and, specifically, is responsible for the coup in Honduras that ousted Zelaya and the recent assassination of the beloved Berta Caceres.

The coup governments supported by Hillary Clinton then open up their economies to US capital for further exploitation. Through free-trade agreements and other neo-liberal policies Hillary Clinton destabilized Latin America. The devastating effects of these policies then lead to mass migration across the border.

Once here migrants are forced to work low paid jobs while under the constant threat of deportation. Hillary Clinton doesn’t just support mass deportation, but is also supported and funded by companies that build and maintain FOR PROFIT immigration Detention Centers.

She is a former member of the Obama administration who oversaw the recent raids and deportation in this community right here in Corona.

So, how is it that Hillary Clinton supports the Latino community?

On April 10, the group attempted to protest Bill Clinton’s stumping for Hillary in Corona, Queens.

According to the members, they were removed by the police immediately.


More at link

Love Thy Neighbor: Enemy Love

An Easter message

How did most people here react to Hillary voting for that Bankruptcy Bill as a Senator?

Those of you who were here, do you remember? Just curious.

edit: And since people are already selling her excuses, rationalizations, justifications, etc - don't waste your time. I'm sure we've all heard them before and those of us who (for whatever reason) believe Hillary will continue to do so, and those of us who believe otherwise will continue to do so.

Hearing Hillary's excuses again is not what I'm asking this for.

| want to know how the majority of the people posting here reacted at that time. That's what I'm curious about. ('m also curious if any people who were furious then are magically accepting of her rationalizations now that she's THE REAL DEMOCRAT[sup]TM[/sup].)

Do we all recognize that the major parties in this country have shifted DRASTICALLY to the right

especially over the past few decades?

And that being the case, do we all recognize that the terms 'centrist' and 'moderate' as labels are, at best, misleading?

And due to these facts, anyone calling themselves a centrist or a moderate today is actually a republican?

And therefore, referring to Hillary or those who champion her policies (which includes a LOT of "real democrats" in congress) as not just 'republican lite' but actually 'republican' is factually (though not technically) correct?


This sick twisted two-party system is using semantics to shift us ever rightward and it is sad to see people treating politics like a football game because it only aids in their agenda.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »