For Hillary Clinton the buck stops somewhere else

    KissofDeathParticipating in racist humor:

    “Well, look, it was Mayor de Blasio's skit[.]  He has addressed it, and I will really defer to him because it is something that he's already talked about." http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/...

    Using a private email server in violation of federal rules:

    We had a development in the email matter today when it came out that Secretary Powell and close aides to Former Secretary Rice used private e-mail accounts. Now you have people in the government who are doing the same thing to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice's aide they've been doing to me. They are retroactively classifying it. I agree completely with Secretary Powell, who said today this is an absurdity. I think the American people will know it's an absurdity.

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

    “I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world — I didn’t really stop and think, ‘What kind of email system will there be?’”  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-denies-private-e-mai...

    Past support for the Trans Pacific Partnership:

    "I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped [the TPP] would be the gold standard." (Oct 13, 2015)

    "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field."  (Nov 15, 2012)

    www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/...

    Gloating about killing Muammar Qaddafi:

    During the theatrical and exhaustive Benghazi hearing in October 2015, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) asked Clinton about a video clip that read, “‘We came, we saw, he died [meaning Qaddafi].’ Is that the Clinton doctrine?” Clinton replied, “No, that was an expression of relief that the military mission undertaken by NATO and our other partners had achieved its end.”

    www.foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-inte...

    Voting for War with Iraq:

    During her 2008 campaign, Clinton defended her vote as a way to give President George W. Bush authority to deal with Iraq, which she said he then abused. She frequently followed up this statement by saying that if she had known what Bush would do with the authority she would not have voted the way she had, but declined to call the vote a “mistake."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mist...

    Explaining Wall Street's long-time love affair with her: 

    "I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is,” she said. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country."

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/hillary-clinton-wall-street-septe...

    Claiming she landed in Sarajevo under fire:

    "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."  http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=hpm...

    On Bill Clinton signing NAFTA into law:

    "NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration." http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeli...

    On the "trust issue":

    "Have you always told the truth?"

    "I've always tried to. Always, always," Clinton replied.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-shes-truth-americans/story?id=37043658

    Comments

    Hal, we need to give numbers to these points like the two guys in a cell who numbered their jokes, saving a lot of breath in retelling them.

    1E. Email. Violated Fed. rules.

    1T  Dishonest

    2TS Dishonest Sarajevo

    1Q. Qaddafi offensive remark.

    1TPP Changed position.

    Peace, Hal.

    This has been a long trip. When do we get there?

     


    Word.  

    And 26.  Hahahahaha!


    I dunno - some people just don't know how to tell a joke.

    So Hillary knocked off Qaddafi an and 40 of her closest friends, tunneled money to her charity, got us into Iraq, created ISIS, killed welfare as we knew it, made huge amounts of money from Wall Street as they gutted the economy and the poor, helped a back a rightwing coup in Honduras, backed trade agreements that favored the rich and killed jobs, and supported  a polluting dangerous pipeline down from Canada, hung candy cane dildos from the White House Xmas tree, scuttled health care for a generation, and now is backing the establishment to wipe out democracy and our only chance at long needed revolution. How does she describe her act? The Aristocrats!!!


    Well, Senator FOUR PINOCCHIOS, what are you hiding?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/12/recidivis...

     

    The same guy who wants Hillary to release all of her talks that she has ever given, can't be bothered to release his taxes, after using the excuse that his wife has been "too busy?"  This guy is so full of it!  


    Plucked right out of the Clinton playbook - distraction.  Well-played C'Ville.


    No!  I won't accept that!  You cannot justify his refusal to put his taxes out so you blame it on Clinton!  What a lame response. 


    1D sub a: Distraction.


    You would have a valid point if Sanders supporters did not ignore questions about Sanders voted on issues like supporting Israel in Gaza, the F-35 fighter, etc. 


    A) The post is about Clinton's history of passing the buck not about arguably ill-advised decisions by Sanders.

    B) The fact that some Sanders supporters may try to excuse bad decisions by Sanders is utterly irrelevant to Clinton's long oily record when it comes to blaming others for what she has done or merely eliding responsibility.

    C) If you want to compare Sanders and Clinton on foreign policy in another post, be my guest.  There's no question but that Sanders is much better.


    Your response is a distraction because this post is about Clinton's long history of trying to evade responsibility for various missteps, errors, failures, Wall Street bribes, voting for war, and dishonest remarks.  The fact that Sanders has failed to release his tax returns is utterly irrelevant to the points I made.  Moreover, Sanders has not set forth a bunch of disingenuous explanations for not disclosing his returns.  He hasn't, for example, claimed the dog ate them or Mitt Romney didn't release them so he shouldn't have to either or he'll release them when every Republican everywhere in the world does.

    On another but related note, I stated in a one statement reply to this issue at this site that Sanders should release his tax returns.


    My response is appropriate, because it is about the Sanders' LYING about their tax returns!  That is what FOUR PINOCCHIOS means.  They have said that they released all their taxes annually, which they haven't done.  The only thing they have made available is a SUMMARY of their 2014 taxes (not the full accounting of that year, either.  Bernie is EVADING the issue by saying his wife is too busy to do this (?)

    I'm curios though.  I read that Bernie did not have any real jobs, and in fact was on unemployment when he got elected as mayor at the age of 39.  He had a history of not paying his bills and often had his electricity turned off from time to time.  Are you aware of this?

    Here's something I thought was interesting:  http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12189-the-trouble-with-bernie.html

    Talk about problems!

    i would also like to say that Hillary and I are both ticked off at you and your ilk for stating unproved innuendo as facts!  You have not shown any proof that she has taken bribes...she has been very well-paid for being a sought-after speaker. Should we all consider ourselves to be bribed because we get paid for what we do?

    Furthermore I simply have to award you a big LOL for your high dudgeon about this thread only being for Hillary bashing!  Surprised you weren't embarrassed to write that.  Actually, no I'm not. 


    Voters that feel the bern really don't care about her emails, speeches or his tax returns. They are just fed up with the oligarchy buying politicians and getting what ever they want even if it is hurting the world and humanity.  They want the banks broken up and the trade treaties broken.  It is as simple as that. They are willing to throw their money in for that change.  This is not a campaign that can not be compared to any other in history because how deeply people are involved in it. Just to make my point, Sanders' ground game has phone banked 48 million calls so far in this campaign. So how many people do you think it takes to make that many calls in 3 months?  How much money do you think will pour into Sanders' war chest in the next few days after the debate tonight? 4 million? 5 million? 6 million? It is all coming from the general population. 




     



     

    please, look at his lifestyle! (and hers...)


    Yup!  This is not a tough one.


    Right.  They have friends and he doesn't. Oh.  And they have more money.  That's true about most ex-Presidents.  It doesn't mean they're in the bag for anyone.  


    Thanks LuLu,    That is why Hillary's campaign is in a downward shift in the polls. Many people get this and don't like where the money in her campaign is coming from. They also don't care much about the details that get argued about on this site. They sit around their kitchen table and realize the current Democratic Party with their Ivy League brain trust has failed them. The Democratic Party has not taken good care of their needs but certainly taken care of the upper economical classes and they know exactly the reason why. 

    When Obama won the 2008 election, 36% of the voting population was registered in the Democratic Party. Now only 29% of the voting population is registered as a Democrat. What happened? Why is 43% of the voting population is now Independent?  Depending on what polling you look at, three fourths of the independents are supporting Sanders. When the primary in their state is open Sanders does very well. Maybe not in the red states but very well in the blue and purple states. The polls show Clinton is not trusted and that makes her a very weak candidate in the general.  

    I don't know how many independents will vote for Hillary? But I would like to know how the hell is the DNC going to win this for Hillary with 29% after Obama blew the Supreme Court argument out of the water with his latest appointment that supports Citizens United and is a right of center judge? This is an anti establishment election cycle and the country is moving farther left then the Obama administration. Hillary can make a sharp turn to the right but really how many Republicans will vote for her?  Do you think they want the Clintons any where near the White House ever again?

    Bernie or Bust Democrat argument is a red herring when the Democratic Party registration is at a historic low.  Even if they fall in line, there is no guarantee that Clinton will make it to the White House.  Sanders has a better chance with the current support from the independents.  


    I interviewed Iowa right-wing radio host Steve Deace this morning.  He endorsed Cruz last summer and said he would not vote for Trump in the general election and might not vote for Kasich.  He also said that Bernie Sanders would be a much more formidable opponent in the general election than Hillary Clinton.  Of course, he could have been lying with the intent of suckering Democrats into voting for Sanders but he certainly sounded sincere. 

    The evidence supports the theory that Sanders is more electable given that he consistently beats all of the Republicans by more (or loses by less) in head-to-head polls than Clinton does and he is much more popular among independents.  On the other hand, Florida is the ne plus ultra swing state and if there is a state where Clinton has an advantage over Sanders in the general election it is Florida with its very high percentage of seniors and African Americans.


    Do you think that black voters will come out in large numbers to support the guy who wanted to Primary Barack Obama?


    Would black voters stay at home or else vote Republican if Sanders is the Democratic candidate? Should they? If that happens and a Republican wins will it be fair to blame blacks for the Democratic loss? 


    Ah! Blame the black voters for voting their consciences. Sanders paid little attention to black voters before his quest for the Presidency. He wanted to Primary Obama, a President beloved in the black community. So there may be less enthusiasm for Sanders than for a woman chosen to be Obama's Secretary of State.

    BTW, the attitude that the CBC is a "nuisance" and that the 20% of Blacks in Ohio who voted for Bush "lost" the election for the Democrats is something the black community is used to hearing. It does not stand up to scrutiny. The CBC stood by Bill Clinton and other Democratic Presidents. 

    If you want to assure the election of a Democratic President, you might work on getting a majority of whites to vote for the Democratic Party. Black voters were OK with Gays and Latinos getting some relief. They now believe it is their turn. Sanders focuses on economic issues. The black community is focused on racial injustice. If Bernie Sanders wants black votes, he needs to be very specific about what he plans to do. Hillary has endorsements from mothers of unarmed sons killed by police and the Mayor of Flint. She has a majority of the CBC. Sanders did not reach out to the CB until very late.

    If Sanders wants black votes he needs to be very loud and specific on what he is going to do and how.Would some blacks stay home? It is possible. They may mimic Susan Sarandon and wait for the revolution to commence.

    Your response is what many black voters expect from a Sanders supporter. Cornel West is very outspoken on what he thinks about blacks who will not vote for Sanders.


    All true, but irrelevant because as you and many others have noted, Bernie will not be the nominee.


    I love how quickly it became blame the black voters.


    Ah! Blame the black voters for voting their consciences.

    rmrd, your comment is completely unresponsive to my questions. It would make for more sensible conversation if you would make a better effort to pay attention to what is said and to understand. My comment did not blame black voters for anything. Nothing. Nada. 

     Would black voters stay at home or else vote Republican if Sanders is the Democratic candidate?  That is not in any way blaming any black voter for anything, it is asking a black man, who relates absolutely everything about this election to the black community's interests and to virtually nothing else, a simple question.   Should they [stay home]?  That is another question about your opinion since you seem to qualify yourself to answer everything and anything about the black community and how they should and how they will act and react to the ongoing campaign.   If that happens and a Republican wins will it be fair to blame blacks for the Democratic loss? That is both an honest question about your opinion and also a bit of a rhetorical question since you have stated that Sanders supporters who refuse to vote for Hillary would be to blame for a Republican win and you have never allowed anything good about them voting their conscience.  

     


    Simply look at the other responses to your post. They had the same interpretation of your post.

    I am proud of the fact that I bring up concerns of black voters. I'm sorry it upsets you. You vote for Sanders based on your issues. I vote for Hillary based on my issues. I can state without hesitation that I will vote for Sanders if he is the Democratic nominee. Sanders is not my first choice, so I feel free to criticize him on a blog. If he is the nominee, I will switch to focusing my attack on Trump or Cruz.

    Sanders is not able to articulate how he will accomplish his goals. He is a Democrat as a matter of convince, He did not reach out to black voters before running for President. Hillary sought out and got support from mothers who had children die at the hands of the police. Danny Glover called Sanders. Killer Mike smoked dope and called Sanders. Sanders did not reach out to black activists in Vermont.

    I cheered when Gays  and Latinos made some advances. I want the next President to do some things for blacks. I do not apologize for that position.Ill cheer when the next President works on green energy, unions, minimum wage, etc.I am a proud Democrat.


    Simply look at the other responses to your post. They had the same interpretation of your post.

     Yours is the only response to my post with the one exception of OceanKat who said:

    If that happens and a Republican wins will it be fair to blame blacks for the Democratic loss? 

    yes

    Also, your attention to the concerns of blacks does not upset me. 


    My 2 cents from the Gore travesty is it's the candidate's responsbility to attract voters in a reasonable way, it's the voters' responsibility to assess both the candidate and the total ramifications in how he/she votes, and it's the media and others' responsibility not to lie and mislead the public at large as to the issues and the candidate's character.

    In Gore's case, I felt he sadly ran from the successes of his own administration and tried to be a populist that he wasn't, and sometimes just being daft (like answering a question in the debates about his message for youth, and his answer was Social Security Safety Deposit Box and some other old fart priority).

    And the media trashed his reputation, with lie after lie after lie, along with personal smears. Including the media on the "left" and the 2 awful disgraced juvenile rags, the NY Times & Washington Post.

    Still, I blame American voters the most for being dumb as a bag of marbles for what what was obviously going on. "Compassionate conservatism" my ass. "Candidate I'd like to have a beer with" - an unreformed clueless ornery drunk that was only outsneered by his conniving VP pick? 

    Sure, Nader purists a tiny bit, but there weren't that many, and protest votes are needed in our society - candidates should factor them in. Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida, which is fewer than a NASCAR race.

    But Gore had a record with Clinton of job growth, tackling tough problems, environmental concerns, bolstering new tech. Bush had a record of mimicking people on death row unsympathetically and skipping out on his Guard obligations. Case should have been fucking closed. Instead we got Iraq, and even that's gotten shifted to Hillary rather than staying stuck on Bush & Cheney & Powell & Condi & Scooter Libby where it should have stayed.

    Blame? dumb white Americans, especially men. Blacks voted 90% against Bush both times - no need to worry about them.


    If that happens and a Republican wins will it be fair to blame blacks for the Democratic loss? 

    yes


    I would say it's fair to blame those blacks and whites and Asians and Latinos who voted for the Republican and those who chose not to vote for the Democrat.  Each of us votes as an individual.  We don't vote as whites or blacks or Asians or even as Democrats.  Each of us is responsible for our vote.  I blame Nader voters for W.  But if it turned out that a majority of residents in East Tree Stump, FL, voted for Nader, I wouldn't blame East Tree Stumpers.  I'd blame the Nader voters in East Tree Stump and everywhere else in Florida who denied Gore (and us) victory.


    Hal. I've enjoyed your Sisyphus like quest to roll back the crushing inevitability of the Clinton Machine but when you spout the sour-grapes  BS about Nader or his supporters being responsible for the downfall of that POS AL Gore i have to call your lame and typical Liberal projection what it is, sniveling and weak. I doubt that you or anyone else can say with any certainty or predict what would have transpired under that corporate, militarist elitist who is not that different from todays HRC.


    We can't know what would have happened if Gore had won as he would have if Nader and his supporters and acted responsibly instead of betraying America.  But here are a very few well-educated guesses:

    Gore wouldn't have signed off on the 2nd and 3rd most irresponsible tax cuts in the past 80 years (1st worst was Reagan's). 

    Gore wouldn't have ignored/denied the onrushing global warming ecological cataclysm. 

    Gore probably wouldn't have ignored the warning signs that Al Qaeda was going to hit us and even more probably wouldn't have launched a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. 

    Gore wouldn't have ignored the warning signs that the big banks were overextended and likely to crash and we wouldn't have gotten Citizens United because he wouldn't have appointed Alito and Roberts.


    Hal, 

    A word of advice. I'll be voting for Hillary on Tuesday  and of course you will have, or already have, voted for Bernie but I'd prefer for you to not embarrass yourself. Stay away from arguments based on the banking crisis.With respect you don't know as much about that as many of your readers and  your cringe- making statements about it tend to cast doubt on  your other positions. 

    For starters the trigger for the 2008 crisis was Lehman's failure. It's not a big bank.

    All banks are overextended, all of the time and "apt to crash".. That's called  banking. 

    I could go on but that's not the subject here. Really, stay away from it, or give a draft of your proposed comments to a "Bankers for Bernie" friend. .Surely there  is such an org. A friend of mine once headed Wall Street For McGovern. 

     


    I wrote "Gore wouldn't have ignored the warning signs that the big banks were overextended and likely to crash."  You take exception to this unexceptionable statement by dismissing me as embarrassingly ignorant about banking matters.  Without evidence you write: "For starters the trigger for the 2008 crisis was Lehman's failure. It's not a big bank. All banks are overextended, all of the time and "apt to crash".. That's called banking."

    I wrote what I wrote based on my understanding of what happened in 2008.  I didn't do any specific research in advance but, in response to your citation-free claim, I googled "Bush responsible for 2008 failure".  Here are some choice quotes from the articles that came up:

    From Brookings Institute Fellow Daniel Kaufmann at Forbes

    There are multiple causes of the financial crisis. But we can not ignore the element of “capture” in the systemic failures of oversight, regulation and disclosure in the financial sector. Concrete examples abound.

    . . .

    Fourth, how in April 2004, during a 55-minute-long meeting at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the largest investment banks persuaded the SEC to relax its regulatory stance and allow them to take on much larger amounts of debt.

    From "Bush can share the blame for [2008] financial crisis" in the NYT.

    Bush's early personnel choices and overarching antipathy toward regulation created a climate that, if it did not trigger the turmoil, almost certainly aggravated it. The president's first two Treasury secretaries, for instance, lacked the kind of Wall Street expertise that might have helped them raise red flags about the use of complex financial instruments at the heart of the crisis.

    . . .

    experts say the administration could have done even more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street, which transmitted those problems around the world.

    . . .

    voices inside the administration who favored tougher policing of Wall Street found themselves with few supporters

    . . .

    As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

    . . .

    To some extent, Bush was simply following a deregulatory pattern set by Clinton. Perhaps the most significant recent deregulation of the banking industry - the landmark act that allowed commercial banks to expand into other financial activities, like investment banking and insurance - was signed into law by Clinton in 1999.

    From FactCheck.org's  "Who caused the [2008] Economic Crisis":

    The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

    . . .
    The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

    From Time Magazine's "25 People to Blame for the [2008] Financial Crisis":

    George W. Bush: From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.

    . . .

    Bill Clinton: President Clinton's tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.

    So four very credible (not progressive) sources provide specific examples supporting exactly what I wrote.  Two also blame Bill Clinton's policies for the 2008 crash, which I have also argued.

    Finally, you claim bizarrely that Lehman Brothers wasn't a "big bank."  From Investopedia:

    On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. With $639 billion in assets and $619 billion in debt, Lehman's bankruptcy filing was the largest in history, as its assets far surpassed those of previous bankrupt giants such as WorldCom and Enron. Lehman was the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank at the time of its collapse, with 25,000 employees worldwide.

    My sincere hope Flavius is that you now recognize that you really don't understand financial matters and will henceforth choose not to comment on them lest you embarrass yourself further.  Seriously.

    "A man's got to know his limitations." 


    Ever  deposit your pay in a Lehmans'  checking account.? You couldn't. You could in  Bank of America .  .

    Because it's a  bank.

    Lehman was an "Investment Bank"

     It's like the difference between a pitch and a pitchfork.

     

     

    I hope Bernie loses tomorrow  but if he wins and goes on to get the Democratic nomination I'll certainly  vote,and work for him. Obviously it will take you a while to recover from your disappointment  but if Hillary wins I',m confident  you'll do the same.

    Cheers


    You make two specious arguments here.

    1) You argue big investment banks are not big banks.  Obviously, the former are subsumed in the latter and nobody, except you, thinks they aren't.  Hence, in pro publica's  Bailout List Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan are all classified simply as "banks".

    2) Nevertheless, you attempt to define banks as financial institutions in which you can deposit your pay into a checking account.  This is far too narrow a definition.  Still under it, Shearson (the bank you contend isn't a bank) is in fact a bank.  From a 1992 Hartford Courant article on Asset Management Accounts:

    Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc., New York City.

    Minimum: $10,000 cash and/or stocks or bonds to open; $5,000 to maintain.

    Features: Free check writing, direct deposit, American Express Gold Card, ATM card.

     


    In 2008 Lehman was the trigger that forced Paulson to act. Countryside- not a bank but a dodgy mortgage company was the most egregious offender. AIG -not a bank but an insurer- was the major problem.

    Hal you know many things but nobody can know everything about everything . The crisis wasn't triggered by Chase, or Citi or B of A , or Wells Fargo - the banks- collapsing. It was by the  failure of an Investment Bank not even a third of their size. Which was about to cause each an every one of them to collapse because of course their short term liabilities exceeded their immediate cash availability. As does that of every bank at every time.Banking consists of "borrowing short " and "loaning long." Accepting cash deposits which can be withdrawn overnight and using them to finance , say, home mortgages. 

    Gotta go vote for Hillary. Who I'm sure fully understands this. As BTW I'm sure does Bernie.

    Cheers.

     

     

     

     


    Flavius, I take it that you mean the average person, probably no one in the 95%, is going to deposit and extra ten grand in an asset management account which has checking privileges.( Actually, someone here pointed out that the average guy has about $1500 in savings.) Let alone deposit their paycheck. In that sense I agree with you---a significant difference between Lehman and Citicorp.


    You're right. Sure I know there are  asset management accounts with checking privileges . I have one. But Hank Paulson wasn't terrified about my behavior in Sept 2008 he was frightened that the  95% would attempt to all take their cash out of Citicorp et al which  would of course be illiquid and the resulting panic would morph in to a depression.

    Unpopular as it is to say this , Bush/Paulson did the right thing (maybe the only time Bush did) which of course Obama continued.   

     


    Hal, Florida voter suppression is going to really show in Nov.  For the last 15 years I have been taking several older women to the polls and this year some of them can no longer vote because of voter ID laws.  I look to see Florida swing Republican in Nov. if Hillary is on the ballot. More Republicans turned out then the Democrats in the primary this year. These women simply don't have the money to get the documents to trace their last name back to their birth certificate.  Jim Crow is a live and well when it comes to voter rights. 


    I'm interested in why you say that Florida will be red if Hillary is the nominee.  It isn't explicit in what you posted. Non-Cuban Hispanics are happy with Clinton, as well as others. What pull does Bernie have in Florida?  How would he over-ride voter suppression as opposed to Hillary?


    The Latinos I know don't like Hillary and it has to do with her activity as SOS in Central America.  They are better informed about this because of the local Spanish language news paper and Spanish language TV. Many still have ties in Central America. There is also a large Haitian community here also, and the Clintons are not liked very well by them.  

    Young voters don't have to spend as much to prove who they are because they have not been married and divorced a long time ago or multiple times.  Men only have to get a new style birth certificate.  This targeted women because I think the Republicans were preparing for a Hillary run. It took me 2 trips to the DMV and over a $100 to get a star on my driver license and I was only married once and no divorce.  Most here at Dag already knows about my adventure at the DMV because I rant about it. 

    Florida had a closed primary so Independents didn't get to vote. 

    Rick Scott has done all he can to make Florida out of the reach of Democratic wins. 


    Greenwald didn't even bother to address democrats core argument. And no Sanders support will address it either.

    "We've got some of these (Republican) super PACs that have pledged to spend up to half a billion dollars to try to buy this election," Obama said yesterday in an interview with WBTV, the CBS affiliate in Charlotte, N.C.

    "And what I've said consistently is, we're not going to just unilaterally disarm."

    "With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,"

    I keep looking for articles from Sanders supporters explaining why democrats can play by a different set of rules and win. This is Sanders big issue with Clinton and even in a democratic primary it's not a winning issue. The republicans care less about pac money than democrats. So how do we win by unilaterally disarming? Even with all those small donations Sanders can't win on this issue. So how can down ballot democrats win on this issue without those small donations? Sanders is nobly going down to defeat and the Wall Street argument isn't helping him. Do you want down ballot dems to nobly lose too?

    You would think the Sanders supporters would jump at the chance to explain how democrats can unilaterally disarm and still win. Just one convincing argument of how democrats win while taking no pac money would change a lot of minds and votes. But no one, not one single article, explains how democrats win while being vastly outspent by republicans.


    There does seem to be some magical thinking. One argument is that Sanders has long coat tails and downstream Democrats don't need a lot of money. The other is that Bernie can get the revolution going even without Democratic numbers in Congress.


    rmrd000 - can you tell me who thinks "Bernie can get the revolution going even without Democratic numbers in Congress"?  It's certainly not Bernie.  He's said repeatedly change will only come with Democratic majorities in both houses.  That said, the President has very significant power even when Congress is in the other party's hands.


    I will repeat, Bernie is doing nothing to make that happen.


    Just found this video explaining how democrats win without pac money

    The Winning Issue For Democrats in the Fall. No Corporate Donations.


    There is a list of candidates that is running for the House that Bernie supporters are also donating to. 


    Interesting, is the list available for access, or are these donations on an individual basis?


    And most of those candidates will also get money from the DNC which Hillary is fund raising millions of dollars for. How many of those candidates have publicly stated they will take no corporate money?


    The DNC will recruit people to run then expect them to fund raise on their own.  Many never sees a dime from the party.  I have known this for years.  Worked on a few campaigns that was the case. Right now there are 36 states that have an agreement with the DNC to launder pac money.  The DNC sends it to the state party then the party sends most of it back to Hillary's campaign.  You have to be well connected and under the good graces of the state parties and DNC to get money for your campaign. It usually goes only to incumbents. There is corruption all over the place and has been for a long time. It is very much a insiders game. 

    Sanders don't hold fund raising events.  He simply asks for some help.  People like him and give.  

    There is a list of candidates that is supported on Sanders web page.  I only give to Tim Canova and Allen Greyson because they are in my state. I haven't paid attention to the other ones.  

    If you really would like to know what is going on in Sanders campaign you can find it in Redditt sub groups for Sanders.  The group I follow has 1300 members and are very active.  It is one of the smaller groups supporting Sanders.  . 


    It's not corrupt for the party to fund state organizations and candidates. It's not money laundring. The Supreme Court declared it was not only legal but a constitutional right. We both agree that much of this giving should be illegal. But that's not the choice atm. The choice is doing the same money raising as the republicans or being vastly out spent. Which do you prefer? Using the rules as they are or unilateral disarmament?

    Dean's whole plan after losing and going on to be president of the DNC was to use DNC money to fund a 50 state democratic party.  According to numerous metrics it was successful. Did you support that strategy? I did. Where do you think that money came from?   Sanders has taken money from the DNC and other party organizations. Where did he think that money came from?

    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.
     
    If Sanders used his own standards that he applies to Hillary to himself he was bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and Wall Street. Frankly that's what I hate about him the most. He's a fucking hypocrite.
     
     

    Billy's barking.

    Enjoy.

    Thank Verizon for some excellent lines for tonight's debate. pic.twitter.com/mvtUFndCYZ

    — Billy Glad (@GladBilly) April 14, 2016

     


    Ah, Billy compares Sandy Hook/gun atrocities to business cycles and sunspots.

    Shame he wasn't up on stage, but recognizes that playing grumpy irascible old man with occasional slips into absurdistry and detached optimism is Bernie's side of the street.


    Latest Comments