dagblog - Comments for "The Watchdog's Watchdog"

End Citizens United and pass

trkingmomoe — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 03:05:09 +0000

In reply to The Republican Party would

End Citizens United and pass public funding of elections and then Wall Street won't matter because they can't buy congress critters. That will happen and much sooner then you think.

But he will have a large

trkingmomoe — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 02:53:50 +0000

In reply to Sanders doesn't have a track

But he will have a large group of supporters that he can call on to rally for passage of bills and put pressure on congress. This is going to happen whether he is in the Whitehouse or serving his term out as Senator. He tells his supporters he can't do it alone without their help.

Congress has been useless for a long time. We still have to clean out that swamp. No matter who we send to the Whitehouse.

Media doesn't pay much attention to liberals or progressives in congress so we think they aren't there or willing to work with a liberal Whitehouse.

Sanders doesn't have a track

barefooted — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 20:47:11 +0000

In reply to 1) why are Brock's complaints

Sanders doesn't have a track record pushing this stuff through, so why the optimism?

A point to be considered, since the president doesn't introduce legislation. Any bill would need co-sponsors, along with real support from a (in this case) minority party before it ever got to the point of being considered by the Republican Congress. A President Sanders would need a chorus of full-throated Democrats behind him in order to push any of his plans through ... does he/will he have it?

The Republican Party would

NCD — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:45:47 +0000

In reply to These sound like good reasons

The Republican Party would never allow a tax on Wall Street transactions to pass. We would need a huge Democrat majority of 70 or more Senators as many Democrats are also beholden to the big money. As money buys TV ads, and corporate controlled for profit TV is as effective a medium at spreading lies and misinformation and controlling dumbass voters as has ever existed in the history of civilization.

Even if Bernie had a magic tax wand to make it come true, the casino players on Wall Street would shift trading to the Cayman islands or beyond.

If we elect a Democrat as President in 2016 the most important thing we realistically could hope for will would be to:

Prevent more taxcuts for the rich, paid for by the Republican push to privatize and profitize Medicare and Social Security. An action that would lead ultimately to the collapse of both programs after they are 'gamed' and bled dry by Wall Street.

1) so if I describe you as a

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:01:19 +0000

In reply to 1) Lied? What is your

1) so if I describe you as a child molester and withdraw it after a week, all copasetic? 2) OK maybe wasn't hit job... Anyway not outrageous to ask where the trillions come from and what the repercussions are. The best laid plans o mice and men... 3) not sure what outrage I'm supposed to have - must be getting old 4) you totally screw up what I said re Hillary and Iraq, then and now. Forget it, enough trying to clarify.

'Tax on Wall Street

Peter — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:35:26 +0000

In reply to These sound like good reasons

'Tax on Wall Street transactions', you temperature must be spiking due to The Bern and causing your hallucinations. Wall street dictates policy to its minions in Washington not the other way around.

1) Lied? What is your

HSG — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:28:00 +0000

In reply to 1) they specifically lied and

1) Lied? What is your evidence the paper knew it was reporting something that was false? In any case, is it your argument that the Times deserves to go to "a special place in hell" because A) it accurately reported that Clinton violated federal rules when she failed to preserve emails on the government's record-keeping system and B) it first erroneously reported that there was a criminal investigation into her use of a private server and then corrected the record to reflect that the investigation is apparently civil in nature and is not directed solely at Clinton.

2) I did not ask you if it was "a hit job". I asked you if the article was a "blatant example of conservative bias". You apparently agree it is so how can you defend Brock's failure to cover it at his site?

3) Latest media fail - Sanders drew 26,000 people to a rally in Boston Saturday. Eight years ago, Obama drew 24,000 to an event in New York City which has a metro area 3X the size of Boston. Sanders's rally was the largest ever in that Democratic city for a Democratic candidate. Yet, only the Boston Globe covered it and Media Matters ignored it. Care to defend that editorial choice?

4) On another note, you have repeatedly argued that we shouldn't hold Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq War against her since she was a new Senator who was just getting a feel for the place and couldn't take a partisan position against W. You also claim she now gets it and would be a peace-promoting president. Really? Late last week, she called for the US military to enforce a "no-fly zone" over Syria - an idea Obama calls "half-baked" - and Sanders opposes. Such action would be tantamount to an act of war.

I always found her fair. She

trkingmomoe — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:11:51 +0000

In reply to Salon has now posted Reich's

I always found her fair. She was the reason I read Salon for so many years. Nicholes is a big fan of Sanders at The Nation.

1) they specifically lied and

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:03:09 +0000

In reply to 1) Brock said there's a

1) they specifically lied and protected the "anonymous source" that said Hillary was under criminal investigation when she wasn't. That's journalistic malpractice. Brock was not over-the-top. It was character assassination - from a paper that's done it over and over.

2) you asked me firstif it was a conservative "hit job". It's biased on the conservative side, but I've seen much worse. You can bet when Hillary releases more detail, the cuts will be much harder and will of course lead to Benghazi + email server + Clinton Foundation something, likely a small detail about Monica Lewinsky.

3) a friend used to say Budweiser spills more beer in a day than Sam Adams brews in a year. Apply the same logic to Hillary smears vs. Bernie.

Salon has now posted Reich's

HSG — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:23:37 +0000

In reply to Salon may not post it because

Salon has now posted Reich's response to Farenthold and the Post. Walsh's departure is interesting but she was Salon's fullest-throated Clinton supporter so I doubt she would have pushed to include Reich's article.