The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Yeah, they have more money

    By Flavius on Sat, 04/30/2016 - 11:56pm |

    Hemingway's famous reply to Fitzgerald's "the very rich are different from you and me"

    Does being part of the 1% make you evil?

    Of course not. But it calls attention to the fact that we 99% are stupid. Not because we haven't executed our current versions of  Marie Antoinette. That  didn't provide any cake for the Paris poor.But because we've permitted the tax code to degrade to the extent that when a Susan Wojcicki earns an extra thousand dollars she'll pay the same $300 or so as her secretary.

    Who's Susan  Wojcicki?  I thought you'd never ask.

    In 1999 she was broke and rented her garage to two guys for $1700/month. And now she's worth $300 million.You can read about her in this weekend's Financial Times. And maybe you should. Maybe it would complicate your view of Bernie's view of the 1%. Or reinforce it.Either way it would  be a better use of your time than insulting one another here in Dagblog.

    As is happened ,  the two garage-renters were named Larry Page and Sergey Brin  so when they had enough money to rent an office instead of her garage she went to work for them and got salary instead of rent..

    At some point she spent an hour and persuaded them to pay a billion and a half for a year-old company named You Tube. Which the lead dotcom analyst described as "moronic". Perhaps, but now  she'd have to lose $300 million before she'd be reduced to renting her garage again.

    So when Bernie correctly  rails about the unfairness of the 1% owning half the country's assets , or whatever, the question is not whether he's right , it's unfair. It's whether the solution is a guillotine or just more cake for the 99%

    You can make your decision about  that if you check out Susan Wojcicki's story. Did she "deserve" to accumulate  $300 million? You might think she did.Or not .Or do maybe you  think she  doesn't   "deserve" to keep as much of it as she did.

    Get's us back to capitalism vs. Bernie's proposed  Socialism.

    Capitalism caused Susan to work hard and smart enough so she accumulated $300 million.Would she have done that if her reward was just to keep her house and renting  her garage to pay her bills.? What does Bernie think?

    In many,almost certainly most, socialistic countries the poorest citizens are treated for illnesses that kill them here. And their businessmen don't produce services like You Tube.

    Should we have taken away her profits anyway? Or just scared her enough of that prospect that she moved

    to ,say Paris?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    Neither Bernie Sanders nor anyone I know advocates eliminating capitalism. Nor does anyone I know advocate pure free market capitalism. The only serious question is a matter of degree: to what extent do we temper and regulate the free market.

    Susan Wojcicki is entitled to make a lot of money, by luck or talent or both. But if she earns her money in the United States, then the United States is entitled to tax it. Even if Wojcicki's windfall were taxed at 50 percent, she would still be an extremely rich person.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 05/01/2016 - 7:34pm

    Bernie and all of us should lay off the implication  that the 1% are bad people. ( I am not at all implying that you do.)Civilization entails avoiding adverse generalizations about groups of people. We've seen where that can  lead.

    The very few members of the 1% I've known were ....normal.. Conducted their personal affairs well, supported good causes.Etc.  I have no doubt there are many others of whom that's not true. As like the rest of us. 

    As for economic systems: I advocate capitalism . And regulating the hell out of it.My shorthand for that is "bring back the tax  code of Jan 1 1981."

    But , and perhaps like Bernie,   I welcome the existence of more socialistic systems  in particular because they shame us by demonstrating  it's possible to run a country in which no one dies of avoidable diseases. 


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 6:39am

    I thought the high end of the tax code when Reagan got in was a bit extreme. 

    I'm fine with what Clinton pumped it back up to, before Bush killed the death estate tax and unbalanced the budget & social security with rebates we couldn't afford, a new permanent tax holiday for the rich, and a permanent war on everyone else we couldn't afford.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 7:03am

    "I thought the high end of the tax code when Reagan got in was a bit extreme."  Why exactly did you think that?  Did you have a problem with job creation in the 40s, 50, and 60s and the 3-5% unemployment rate we had during nearly that entire time?  How about the fact that the poverty rate was halved between the late 50s and the early 70s?  Did that bother you?  Were there not enough Rolls Royces plying our streets at that time?   Were you displeased by civil rights movements that flourished in the absence of a hereditary wealth class?  Maybe the balanced budgets that our government ran were a problem for you?  Did the fact we demobilized an enormous army in 1945 yet still had more than enough jobs to go around cause you pause?  How about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Great Society?  Do those programs rankle?  What exactly did you find extreme about the top marginal tax rate of 70%?


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 12:31pm

    You have to beware the "post hoc ergo propter hoc " fallacy. 

    The economic results of the 50s may have been achieved despite rather than because of the 91% tax on incremental ordinary income. Likely the 25% tax on  Capital Gains was more significant.

    I''m curious about Peracles ' grounds for questioning the  rates when Reagan got in. The trick has always been  to balance the  need for the things you properly extoll with that for a sufficiently gradual slope to the progressivity curve so the next generation of Larry Pages don't decide it's not worth renting a garage.  


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 1:42pm

    Thanks Flavius - I agree with you.  Correlation isn't causation.  But we did have very high tax rates at the exact time when we had a booming economy.  Since we cut the rates, our economy has grown in fits and starts and the starts have led to great times for a small number of people and water treading for everybody else.  I'd peg the capital gains tax to the income tax.


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 2:15pm

    I think a marginal tax rate >50% as likely too much, though capital gains at 28% (Carter) and 28% Reagan) as too little. The corporate rate decrease under Reagan from 46% to 34% leaves me a bit indifferent without assessing budget needs, social programs, unemployment, etc. Both seem theoretically fine.

    Comparing postwar economy when we had a near monopoly with post-90s when we had freed iron curtain and Deng xiao Peng reformed labor and up-and-coming India to contend with is certainly comparing apples to orangutans.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 2:26pm

    So your point is that since the global economy is more competitive now, we should drop the defenses - tariffs, high marginal tax rates - that we employed when the playing field was tilted in our direction.  Makes sense.


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 2:28pm

    I challenge you to find a quote by Bernie Sanders that calls the top one percent bad people


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 9:40am

    He has called them greedy

    “you can’t have it all.” You can’t get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can’t continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as Americans.

    https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 9:56am

    Hardly the same as calling the one percent bad people, but I'll give it to you. Do you feel that "greedy" is an inappropriate characterization of billionaires who demand tax breaks and shelter their wealth offshore?


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 10:43am

    Greed is good

          Gordon Gekko

    Yes, I find the attempts of the Kochs, Adelsons, etc. to buy state legislatures and judges evil. Moves to control education and suppress votes are evil.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 11:01am

    How about those who gave millions not just to the campaigns of politicians you presumably consider to be corruptible, but directly to the pocket of our likely next President? An attempt to buy? Evil?  

      Slightly off point but since you have praised Hillary for raising so much money for down ticket candidates and been harsh with your judgment of Sanders for not doing as much, you might give this some consideration. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 11:15am

    Hillary gets the bulk of small donations, larger donations like the George Clooney affair net larger funds for downstream candidate.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/apr/17/george-cloon...

    Sanders supported three candidates who had to agree with his politics.

    Edit to add: 

    Our basic difference is that I see Hillary as a Democrat and Sanders as an opportunist. Sanders has a litmus test for those Democrats he supports. I would rather have Conservadems like Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln in the Senate then see them replaced by Republicans. Conservadems are with you most of the time. Republicans are never with you. We have gone though the election of GW Bush because certain Democrats weren't Libersl enough. No great revolution occurred when people suffered under George Bush or as Republicans blocked legislation supported by Barack Obama.

    Many people want to believe that Hillary is no different than Trump. I do not believe that is the case. I see Sanders as willing to have Republicans elected if he cannot get his purity-tested Liberals. I see that stance as disastrous. I will vote for the Democrat, Hillary Clinton in November.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 11:54am

    I  do not find a statement by George Clooney about what the Clinton campaign, and its co-joined twin the DNC, does with its money to carry much weight.  

    George Clooney: Bulk of the money collected at Clinton fundraiser will go to down-ballot Democrats

    I don't think he is in a position to know. The first paragraph at the site you link to says this:

    Editor's note, May 2, 2016: We are currently reviewing this fact-check after a report from Politico raised questions about how funds raised by the Hillary Victory Fund are shared with state parties. We will update this fact-check when our review process and additional reporting are complete. 

    Politifact apparently gives Politico enough credibility to go back and re-evaluate its conclusion. If it turns out that Politifact, which you quoted with apparent confidence because it says what you want to hear changes its evaluation, will you? 

     

     

     

     

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 4:55pm

    Does the fact that Bernie Sanders does not support downstream candidates change your vote?

     


    by Iphonermrd (not verified) on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 6:10pm

    No, it doesn't change my vote. Now will you answer my question or will you revert once again to what you have been charging others of which is double speak? If it turns out that the reports from several sources showing that Hillary was using deceptive tactics to raise big money from rich donors that she said was for downstream candidates but in fact was almost all diverted to her own campaign are correct, will it change your evaluation of her on this one point? I know it won't change your vote. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 8:31pm

    If Hillary killed Vince Foster it would change my opinion of her

    If Hillary told Navy Seals not to launch a rescue, it would change my opinion.

    If Hillary raised no money for downstream Democrats, it would change my opinion.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 10:17pm

    Are you maybe practicing running for some office. You respond like an irritating politician who answers the question he wants to answer rather than the one that was asked. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 10:36pm

    Does the fact that Bernie a Sanders does not fund downstream candidates change your vote? 

    I have given my reasons for my lack of support for Sanders. 


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 6:21pm

    What do you think of the Sanders plan to steal superdelegates?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-superdelegates-strate...


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 6:28pm

    That is a question with a bullshit premise. Sanders isn't/cannot be stealing superdelegates.Clinton's tactics of lining up superdelegates with a campaign finance scheme and doing it long before the public had a chance to compare the various candidates and then vote for their choice in the primaries is a lot closer to stealing than anything Sanders is doing. He is openly before the public asking superdelegates to wait until the votes of the public are all in and to then consider voting for him if he has shown himself to be the best candidate. The only way that could be stealing is if Hillary owned them, but then again, maybe she does. Like every one of us has said at one time or another, big money does corrupt politics, doesn't it? Or would you say that it doesn't and that you have never made that claim yourself?  

     Your candidate has almost surely wrapped up the nomination. You can relax with the knee-jerk defense of everything Hillary and the reflexive attacks on everything Sanders. The truth is no longer a danger to Hillary's nomination. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 8:49pm

    That's not what Sanders is doing. He's asking super delegates to overturn the democratic will of the people. It won't happen and it hurts both him and the democratic party for him to try, but he's become enamored with the cheers from the crowds and the millions of dollars they're sending him and wants to milk it as long as possible.

    Sanders has lost the election. If there are no super delegates Sanders is losing nearly 40 to 60% in the popular vote and the delegate count. If as he claims he wants supers to vote as their state then the supers will vote proportionally against him 40% to 60%. Under no scenario would it be good for the supers to give him the nomination by voting for him 60% to 40% when the people voted for Hillary 60% to 40%.

    I want Hillary to win but I've always wanted Sanders to do well. At this point with Hillary's victory assured I wish I could cheer him on to win more states. But he has become so narcissistic and destructive that he is no longer pushing liberal values forward. It's so sad to see this happen. I can now only hope that Hillary crushes him in every primary going forward.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 9:25pm

    You can't steal Democratic super-delegates since neither candidate owns them.  Cruz's strategy comes a lot closer to an attempt to steal delegates since he's trying to get the ones pledged to Trump to switch after the first ballot in Cleveland.  That said, I don't think much of Sanders' strategy here.  It's a bad one just as he should have focused more on beating corporadems like Katie McGinty and DWS in the primaries.  None of this means he isn't demonstrably superior to Clinton - which of course he is.


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 9:38pm

    Fair comment that I can't quote Bernie as calling the 1% "bad" people. If I phrased  it carefully I should have written something along the lines that he should avoid discussing the 1% in such a way as to cause his audience to conclude they are bad people. 

    As to whether it's "greedy" to shelter wealth offshore , it's a long story, but let's say that someone I know very well did that. In Macy's window. Taking advantage of a law specifically allowing it.

    I accept  Learned Hand's statement that is is "cant" to say that anyone should be expected to pay any more than the law requires. Also put - I think by Brandeis - as : it's one's obligation to the country not to evade taxes and to one's family  to avoid them. 

    Nor do fault any one for requesting his representative to pass a law that will lower that person's taxes. That's  as American as apple pie. Or supporting a political campaign of a politician who is made it clear he'll do that. But ,even  it were legal which I think wasn't used to be  the case  I  consider it "bad" to condition a campaign contribution on support of a particular measure .

     Citizen's United  crossed that line.

    When the giver's wish is clearly known it's also "cant"  to deny  that  a donation's over a certain size whether from a Koch or a Soros  is anything other than such an attempt.

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 12:36pm

    Greedy or not doesn't matter.  It is encoded in our genes to try to aggregate as much as we possibly can for ourselves.  Doing so maximizes the likelihood as many of our offspring as possible will survive and reproduce.  Accordingly, the desire to acquire provides a marked genetic advantage.  The question we should be asking is not whether rich people are greedy but whether it serves all of our interests for a few people to control more wealth than just about any ever did throughout history while over 20% of our children live in poverty and whether those two facts are closely connected.


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 2:27pm

    Here's a video done around a Bernie speech claiming "The 1% aren't Patriots". The video scans lines out of a report about "the rich" and "one percenters" renouncing citizenship and going abroad, and Bernie compares these avoiding taxes to kids who fought for America.

    He completely ignores that the article in question is about the new draconian US laws about reporting overseas accounts over $10K in which banks often won't accept Americans as clients anymore due to reporting costs. Additionally, people who haven't lived in the US for 30 years have to still file and pay double taxes, applying for a tax credit to try to get some back - one of only 2 countries in the world to do this. 

    Overall if you look at the facts, he looks rather overwrought.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 6:12pm

    Don't you realize how absurd these arguments are PP?  You've reduced yourself to defending tax dodgers, job exporters, and crony capitalists.  In any case, it was the video uploader "Occupy Democrats" who put in the headline about the "1%".  Sanders had nothing to do with that text.


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 9:43pm

    I acknowledged the video put in the text (Bernie did the speech). But no, I live overseas and have to fill out FBAR (FUBAR, get it?) on all my accounts (above or below $10K because 1 is above). If it were more, I'd have to do FATCA (FATCAT?), which is a royal pain-in-the-ass and many banks won't accept American as clients because of this. Do I get any US benefits more than the foreigners around me get? Not that I see. If I made more and got tired of it & took local citizenship, would that make me a "tax dodger"? I already pay local taxes and use local services for a lot of years. Bernie went off on something he doesn't know fuck-all about. The poster child of all this was the rich Brazilian who went to Harvard, backed Facebook to gain billions, and now lives in Singapore. But because he once lived in America a few years, America wants his taxes until he dies. We can't tax Amazon and Apple and Google properly on their billions, so we hyperventilate on a few individuals to feel better. #LAME


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 5:02pm

    Sanders did not say to the 1% "you can't have it all."  The complete statement from his website is:

    This campaign is sending a message to the billionaire class: “you can’t have it all.” You can’t get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can’t continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as Americans.

    Wikipedia identifies 536 America billionaires in 2015 out of 350 million people.  This means Sanders told .00015%, not 1%, of the population "you can't have it all".  He didn't even call them greedy.


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 12:24pm

    Hal, you need to talk to your boy Bernie because his website uses those numbers to target the one per centers. He uses the term repeatedly on the site.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 12:39pm

    Really?  I just gave you the full text of the quote that you employed to "prove" Sanders demonizes the 1%.  It specifically mentions the "billionaire class".  You're right though Sanders does use the phrase "one percent" exactly twice in the Income and Wealth Inequality section of his webiste.  Perhaps you can identify with which of the following you take issue:

    --------

    "There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent."
     
    --------
     
    "There is something profoundly wrong when 58 percent of all new income since the Wall Street crash has gone to the top one percent."
     
     
     

    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 2:22pm

    Hal, first you say that he didn't say 1%. Next you say he did say 1%.

    You said that he didn't call the 1% greedy. Now you are asking me if I disagree that the 1% are greedy.

    Typical doublespeak 

    Do you think that the 1% are greedy?


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 2:49pm

    You write: "Hal, first you say that he didn't say 1%. Next you say he did say 1%."

    I wrote: "Sanders did not say to the 1% 'you can't have it all.'"   I never wrote that Sanders "didn't say 1%."

    ---------

    You write: "you are asking me if I disagree that the 1% are greedy."

    I wrote: "Greedy or not doesn't matter."

    Michael W. is the one who asked whether the 1% are fairly called greedy.

    -----------

    I did ask whether you agreed or disagreed with what Sanders actually wrote on his website about the 1%.  You did not answer that question Here are the quotes again:

    "There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent." 

    "There is something profoundly wrong when 58 percent of all new income since the Wall Street crash has gone to the top one percent."

    Is Sanders right or wrong in your view?

    --------
     
    Finally, you asked whether I believe the 1% are greedy.  As I noted earlier in this blog, I believe it is encoded in our genes to be greedy/acquisitive.  I would guess the very wealthiest people are somewhat greedier than other people because their ranks are more likely to include people who chose a career in 1) finance over teaching, 2) corporate law over social work, or 3) launching a for-profit corporation as opposed to a non-profit.

    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 3:14pm

    Given your take on the matter, greedy or not doesn't matter.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 4:07pm

    You're right greedy or not doesn't matter much to me, although I certainly answered your question to the best of my ability. 

    I didn't ask you whether you thought the 1% were greedy.  I asked you whether Sanders is right when he says there's something wrong with a society where "the top tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent" and "58 percent of all new income since the Wall Street crash has gone to the top one percent." 

    Is Sanders correct?  Is there something wrong with such a society?


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 4:40pm

    C'mon. Is Sanders right?. You may be unaware but Martin Luther King Jr, planned a Poor People's March to place the issue front and center. Sanders is simply one of a long line of people who noted economic disparities.

    There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen whether [she or] he be a hospital worker, laundry worker, maid, or day laborer…. There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum and livable income for every American family.

    –Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1967,  “Where Do We Go From Here?”

    Sanders has verbal snippets. King was ready to take action. 

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 5:24pm

    You're absolutely right RMRD.  Sanders is a direct moral and spiritual descendant of Dr. King as their joint lifetime fight for poor people and peace proves.  What do you think Dr. King would think of Clinton's vote for war on Iraq, her description of black youth as "superpredators", and her speeches at Goldman Sachs?  I'm dead serious RMRD.  I'd like you to tell us exactly how you think Dr. King would have reacted - if he were alive - to these actions and words by Clinton.


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 9:46pm

    King would have been against any war.

    How would King view Sanders' stance on guns or Sanders support for Israeli intervention in Gaza?

    How would King view Sanders' support for the unnecessary F-35?

    How do you think he would view a man like Sanders who only came crawling to the black community when he needed votes?

    How do you think King would view Sanders ignoring the pleas of black activists in Vermont?

    Do you seriously believe that King would think Sanders was an innocent?

    BTW: King would have criticized Obama for approving the killing of Bin Laden.

    King was a pacifist. Sanders, Clinton, and Obama would not pass muster.

    Sanders is not a direct descendent of King


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 10:12pm

    Awesome dodges man.  But unlike you, I'll answer your questions.

    1) Like me, Dr. King would have opposed Bernie's relatively weak position on gun control.

    2) Sanders has been the only candidate in this election campaign who has criticized Israel and recognized the humanity of the Palestinian people.  King would have applauded him for that.

    3) Sanders did not support the F-35 specifically.  He recognized the value manufacturing it in Vermont had for his constituents.  I doubt King would have had too much to say about this issue.  He would have applauded Sanders' work for veterans and to cut defense spending. From Politico:

    Since he arrived in Congress, Bernie Sanders has been a fierce crusader against Pentagon spending, calling for defense cuts that few Democrats have been willing to support. Should he defeat Hillary Clinton, analysts say, he will likely be the biggest critic of the Pentagon to win a major party nomination since World War II.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-defense-budget-pent...

    4) King would have recognized Sanders support for civil rights, his endorsement of Jesse Jackson in 1988, and his repeated criticism of mass incarceration by Democrats and Republicans.  He would have applauded Sanders for fighting for poor, working, and middle-class Americans throughout his life.  He would criticize African-American leaders who support Clinton for ignoring Sanders' clearly superior record when it comes to economic justice and peace.
     
    Face it RMRD - you have been a relentless critic of the candidate whom Dr. King would have undoubtedly supported.

    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 10:28pm

    This is fucking silly trying to guess how MLK would have weighed in on the Sanders Hillary debate. How would MLK feel about Hillary using the word super predator one time? Who knows?  LBJ was racist and ni**** was just a common part of his vocabulary. Here's what MLK in his own words had to say about LBJ.

    Why stop with MLK? We need a whole thread so we can speculate what Jefferson would have thought about the Sanders Hillary fight. Guessing what Lafayette would think about their foreign policy differences. What Hamilton would have thought about their views on breaking up the banks. .What Frederick Douglas would think about Hillary's use of the word super predator.  Who George Washington Carver thinks has a better for dealing with Monsanto.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 11:01pm

    Not in the least bit silly. MLK is on the short list of the greatest of all Americans.  During his short career he fought for civil rights, anti-poverty programs, and peace.  If you want your President to approximate Dr. King, vote for the candidate whose career and message most closely resembles Dr. King's.  Sadly, that candidate is all but mathematically eliminated.

    I do wonder whether Dr. King would have voted for Clinton over Trump.  My guess is he would have but wouldn't have liked it.

    LBJ was deeply committed to civil rights.  From your own link, here is what King had to say about LBJ:

    Today the dimensions of Johnson’s leadership have spread from a region to a nation. His recent expressions, public and private, indicate that he has a comprehensive grasp of contemporary problems. He has seen that poverty and unemployment are grave and growing catastrophes, and he is aware that those caught most fiercely in the grip of this economic holocaust are Negroes. Therefore, he has set the twin goal of a battle against discrimination within the war against poverty.

    I have no doubt that we may continue to differ concerning the tempo and the tactical design required to combat the impending crisis. But I do not doubt that the President is approaching the solution with sincerity, realism and, thus far, with wisdom. I hope his course will be straight and true. I will do everything in my power to make it so, by outspoken agreement whenever proper, and determined opposition whenever necessary.

    Calling LBJ a racist brings to mind General Sherman's retort to Lincoln's advisors who claimed, from their safe perch in DC, that Sherman was insufficiently committed to helping African-Americans as he was marching through Georgia laying waste to the Confederacy.

    The idea that such men should have been permitted to hang around Mr. Lincoln, to torture his life by suspicions of the officers who were toiling with the single purpose to bring the war to a successful end, and thereby to liberate all slaves, is a fair illustration of the influences that poison a political capital.

    My aim then was, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I did not want them to cast in our teeth what General Hood had once done in Atlanta, that we had to call on their slaves to help us to subdue them. But, as regards kindness to the race, encouraging them to patience and forbearance, procuring them food and clothing, and providing them with land whereon to labor, I assert that no army ever did more for that race than the one I commanded in Savannah.

    Were LBJ and Sherman perfect?  Of course not.  Did they inherit the usual ugly prejudices and bigotries of the time and place where they were born and raised?  Yes.  But their actions made America a better country in some ways a much much better country.  I look and I look at Secretary Clinton's record and, with just one or two exceptions, I don't see a commitment to improving the lives of poor, struggling, and working people.  In fact, I see just the opposite. 


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 11:54pm

    What's silly is trying to put words into the mouth of a dead man. Considering how complicated and nuanced the MLK and LBJ relationship was the only thing we can assume is MLK's views on and relationship with Hillary, Sanders, and even Obama would be just as complicated and nuanced. All you're doing is trying to put your partisan opinions into his mouth. While you're obsessing over Hillary saying super predator one time  MLK wasn't obsessing over LBJ saying nigger constantly. But who knows? Maybe you're right and he would think exactly like you do in every single way.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 4:44am

    When he was in Congress and the White House, LBJ didn't throw the "n" word around in public.  He used it tactically to draw support for civil rights and populist legislation that helped African-Americans and the poor.  In total contrast, Clinton employed the term "superpredators" in a speech targeted to the racial fears of many white working-class voters.  She was pandering to their desire to bring blacks "to heel". 

    All that said - if LBJ treated his chauffeur Robert Parker the way Parker says, including using the 'n' word around him and to him, that is ugly and awful.

    Do you see the difference between LBJ and HC's political (as opposed to person) use of racist/racially charged language?  Seriously, do you?  This is really important stuff.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 9:01am

    Hal, Sanders spent decades in Congress without directly communicating with the black community. Now he is the  reincarnation of MLK Jr.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 9:40am

    After the nonsense of Sanders = MLK, I thought he was next going to compare Sanders to Jesus.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 11:55pm

    It is always amazing that fanatics always feel that a deity or respectable individual would have the exact responses as they have. You know King's mind. Amazing

    When Sanders was confronted by a woman who questioned his support for Israel's action in Gaza the following occurred:

    After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel's actions, he told critics: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-s...

    Link to the video

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/excuse-me-shut-up-bernie-sanders-defends-...

     

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 12:22am

    RMRD -

    1) Do you seriously think there's any chance King would have preferred Clinton's hawkish let's take our relationship with Israel "to the next level" position to Sanders' much more equivocal stance that recognizes fault and humanity on both sides?

    2) Do you seriously think there's any chance King would have preferred Clinton's pro-war positions on Iraq, Libya, and Syria with Sanders' insistent calls to reduce Pentagon spending and his anti-war votes?

    3) Do you seriously think King would have preferred Clinton with her close relationship to big banks, defense contractors, and the private prison industry when Sanders calls for breaking up the big banks, cutting military spending, and banning private prisons?

    4) Can you answer these questions simply and honestly without deflection, mischaracterization, or personal attacks as I always do my best to answer the specific questions you pose to me?


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 8:18am

    Hal, you are a dedicated Sanders supporter. You focus on how King would respond to Clinton and dismiss the critique King would have of Sanders. I think King would be critical of Sanders, Clinton, and Obama. You believe that Sanders would have skated through King's analysis. You gloss over Sanders support for other military interventions. You are not being completely honest about Sanders record.

    King was faced faced with an actual choice that is similar to the situation today. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are on track to be the Presidential nominees. King had a choice between Lyndon Baines Johnson and Barry Goldwater. LBJ was a flawed Democrat. Goldwater sought the votes of racists and bigots. King said that a person of conscience could not cast a vote for Goldwater. Given that Clinton and Trump are the nominees, I have no problem imagining that King would not feel comfortable with people voting for Trump.

    Do you believe that King would not choose Hillary over Drumpf?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 9:00am

    Who knows? I certainly don't. He said some very nice things about LBJ while he was escalating the VietNam war. No matter how much a person writes I don't think it's possible to extrapolate all their thinking and how they prioritize the good and bad qualities of a person to discern their judgments about a person. The vast majority of MLK's closest partners in the Civil Rights movement have endorsed Hillary. How do you explain that? Are they all totally different than MLK or have they all sold out?


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 9:02am

    False dichotomy - the civil rights leaders of the 60s who back Clinton are neither totally different nor have they all sold out.  They are part of the establishment now and they (and their children and grandchildren) are not feeling the pain the majority of Americans who have less than $1,000 in savings do.  Their interests and experiences have diverged dramatically from those of the great majority of their constituents.  Not a tough one really.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 2:39pm

    Hal, see below


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 2:42pm

    And speaking of taxes, where are Bernie's?  And please do not make the illegitimate excuse that he's holding out for HRC's speeches. Her taxes are out there. His should be too. Another free ride for Bernie. This guy has gotten zero vetting. Hillary hasn't attacked him because she didn't need to, and the GOP hasn't because they want him to be the nominee. 


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 12:59pm

    Hal,

    Thanks for the quote.

    Bernie is entitled to warn the billionaire class of the things he wants to stop. .

    But as he no doubt knows, every company  attempts  to do all or most of them all the time . Since their  responsibility to their shareholders is to maximize profits by any legal means . Like all the things he lists -with the possible exception of  whether  by "hiding" profits in The Cayman  he meant doing that  illegally which is unnecessary. 

    He's simply wrong  to imply that anyone who does any of these things is "refusing to accept your responsibilities  as an American." Their responsibility is to obey the laws.

    You and I and Bernie think the laws should be changed . Which requires chosing a candidate who stands a chance of  being elected and appointing Supreme Court members who'll do that.

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 1:21pm

    I agree that voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election is the only logical choice because of the Supreme Court if for no other reason.  People with billions have power and influence that is so far beyond what little the rest of us have that I think we can hold them morally accountable when they take advantage of laws that they helped pass to benefit themselves at our expense.  In the end though the burden is on us to elect people who will change those laws.


    by HSG on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 6:22pm

    We are now arguing if Bernie Sanders would be the candidate to Martin Luther King Jr. would select. This is a ridiculous and condescending argument. In Sanders case, we have minimize his stance on guns and minimal outreach to the black community. We also have overlook his votes for military interventions. In Hillary's case, we have to overlook, her votes on military intervention. Both Sanders and Clinton voted for the 1994 crime bill. Hillary apologized for her vote Sanders does not apologize, but wishes that he had been presented with a better bill. His pride blocks him

    Bernie comes from a mostly white but very Liberal state. If Sanders wants to act on his promise to release millions of blacks from jails and prisons, Martin Luther King Jr. might tell him to begin with his home state of Vermont which has a higher incarceration rate for blacks than Ferguson, Missouri. Liberal does not equate to meaning racial justice. Blacks are targeted in Vermont just like they are in other states.

    http://mic.com/articles/124341/here-s-how-black-people-actually-fare-in-...

    ​Sanders has no large scale backing in the black community because he never really needed black votes since Vermont is majority white. When asked about race, Sanders defaults a colorblind economic platform. Race is not a major issue for him. Connecting racism and economics is not something that comes to Sanders naturally, thus he leaves it to Hillary to make racial injustice a major part of her platform. This link to an interview with Jake Tapper highlights Sanders failure to launch when it comes to issues of race.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/remember-this-moment-when-bernie-sanders-...

    Black voters heard him loud and clear and they are not feeling the Bern. Bernie is not speaking to them like King spoke to them. The holier-than-thou Progressives will now tell us that Bernie is King's choice. They will find fault with black voters. They will talk of stealing the nomination at the convention. They will fail. Their arrogance won't be forgotten.

    King dealt with LBJ because LBJ could get things done. 


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 11:13am

    Hillary Clinton did not vote for the crime bill. She was First Lady in 1994. This is repeated WAY more than it should be. 

    Other than that I agree with what you said. Especially that the argument is silly. Reminds me of Thanksgiving with the fam!


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 11:47am

    Sorry about the slip on the vote.It was a heat of the battle thing. I am sick and tired of being sick and tired when holier-than-thou Progressives do things like read the mind of Martin Luther King Jr. They are no better than Glenn Beck who held a rally in DC where wingnuts claimed King's legacy as their own. If Sanders brings in holier-than-thou Progressives as part of his Presidential staff, I would fear for the county. They are as delusional as Ted Cruz.' My way or the highway.mentality.

    Here is to a Clinton win in Indiana. She will still be on a glide path to the nomination if she loses. Sanders can go back to the Senate and form a Progressive Caucus. The only problem for him will be that if it includes Elizabeth Warren, Sanders will become an afterthought because Warren actually puts detailed thought behind her ideas and can explain her position.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 12:09pm

    LBJ and Hillary Clinton are on totally different planes with Johnson miles above Clinton. 

    That you should understand this and feel it in your marrow, please consider this passage from Robert Caro's Path to Power and ask yourself whether Hillary Clinton ever did anything remotely approaching what LBJ did, as a young Congressman, for his constituents:

    The Rural Electrification Administration had minimum density standards--about five persons per square mile, I think it was--and they said, "We're not going to lay thousands and thousands of miles of wire to connect one family here and another family over there." The story of how Lyndon Johnson persuaded the REA to do this--how he circumvented through his ingenuity not only the REA but dozens of government agencies and regulations and brought the people electricity--is one of the most dramatic and noble examples of the use of government that I have ever heard. Actually it took more than ten years--it was 1948 before some of the people got electricity. But they did get it, and the men I talked to who had worked on the line-laying crews would tell me how they never had to bring lunch because the farm families were so grateful. When they saw the crews coming, stretching that precious wire toward them across the hills, they would set tables outside, with their best linen and dishes, to welcome the men.

    And all over the Hill Country, people began to name their children after Lyndon Johnson. This one man had changed the lives of more than one hundred thousand people--had brought them, practically by himself, into the twentieth century, and when Tommy Corcoran said to me, shortly before he died, "Lyndon Johnson was the best congressman for a district that ever was," I knew exactly what he meant.

    Thus we see the seeds of the Great Society in the young Lyndon Johnson.

    https://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/authors/caro/desktopnew.html


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 2:49pm

    Hal, what I feel in my bones is that an old white guy who has done nothing in Congress is saying that he can do a better job than Barack Obama. 

    Now tell me what else I should feel in my marrow.

    Just stop.

    BTW

    Sanders has been in Congress forever, so LBJ's record compared to Sanders gives me even less reason to support Sanders.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 3:02pm

    Everyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is anywhere near LBJ should read the passage I quoted and understand the difference between the two.  I did not mean to call you out specifically RMRD but I can understand why you might have thought that and am sorry for leaving that impression.

    In any case, perhaps you can explain why it's so upsetting to you that Sanders has campaigned on the premise that Barack Obama's programs and policies haven't all worked out as well as one might have hoped.  African-Americans fell even further behind whites during the past seven years yet you are outraged that Sanders might disagree with Obama on anything.  You also overlook the fact that Clinton repudiated Obama at AIPAC.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 3:09pm

    And you overlook RMRD's comment that Sanders "accomplishments" are in even starker contrast that Hillary's, when you make a comparison to LBJ, since Sanders has had over 20 years to accomplish something.  

    When you say (and apparently agree) that Sanders' opinion that President Obama's term hasn't delivered as much as he should have; are you aware that Bernie's goals are unattainable full stop?  He has no alliances to appeal to; he has no realistic path, and there is no revolution coming.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 3:24pm

    Vetoing trade bills rather than enthusiastically supporting them is something that the President can do without Congressional approval.  I'm sure you knew that though.  The President can prosecute crooked banksters without Congressional approval.  I'm sure you knew that. 

    The President can withdraw troops from the Middle East and stop blowing up Muslim weddings without Congressional approval.  I'm sure you knew that too.  The President nominates Supreme Court Justices.  The President can march with striking workers.  The President has the bully pulpit.  The President has tremendous power.  If (s)he did not, then there wouldn't be so much of a fight for the office.

    I have often pointed out Bernie Sanders has had significant legislative accomplishments despite corporate influence over Congress.  His accomplishments unlike Clinton's have actually helped people.  It is odd that you would discount what Sanders has done since I actually set out in detail for you some of his recent impressive credentials.  Here is the cut and pasted answer I posted back in February.

    -------------

    Thanks for asking about Bernie Sanders' accomplishments CVille Dem.  Here are a few.

    Last year, he won the Veterans of Foreign Wars award for best member of Congress.  Here's the announcement:

    With eight years on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee — two of them as chairman — it is no understatement to say that Senator Sanders has taken care of wounded, ill and injured veterans and their surviving family members,” said Stroud. “He has been a commanding voice against changing the COLA calculations for disabled veterans, for the proper care and treatment of women veterans, homeless veterans, for better employment opportunities and improved access to mental health programs, as well as increased congressional oversight of the VA claims processing transformation,” he said.  

    “And when the VA imploded last year, he was the lead negotiator for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, which the president signed into law last summer,” said the VFW national commander. “The VA still has an uphill climb to fix what’s broken, to hold employees appropriately accountable, and to restore the faith of veterans in their VA, but veterans everywhere should be proud and comforted to know that this United States senator has their back in Congress.” 

    Given how much Sanders talks about single-payer healthcare, you'd think he played at least some role when the Affordable Care Act was being legislated.  He did.  As Common Dreams noted on December 19, 2009:

    A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

    The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    It turns out these centers have been so important to the success of the program, President Obama announced last year that the opening of "hundreds [more] community health centers in underserved areas nationwide with funding from the Affordable Care Act."

    These days, progressive legislators don't always have the opportunity to make a significant mark since passing laws that benefit the public has become increasingly tricky given the influence of big money over the system.  Still Sanders has obviously made a difference for veterans and communities without adequate numbers of healthcare providers.  When he was Mayor of Burlington in 80s, he pushed successfully a number of initiatives that made the city a better place to live for rich and poor alike.   The Nation Magazine details these in What Kind of Mayor was Bernie Sanders.  Here are just a few highlights:

    [In order to prevent low-income housing from being converted to more expensive condos,] Sanders. . . worked with the state government and Senator Patrick Leahy to get the $12 million needed to purchase and rehabilitate the buildings.  The city allocated funds to help the tenants hire an organizer, form the Northgate Residents Association, and start the process of converting the complex to resident ownership. Today, Northgate Apartments is owned by the tenants and has long-term restrictions to keep the buildings affordable for working families.

    . . .

     Thanks to the enduring influence of the progressive climate that Sanders and his allies helped to create in Burlington, the city’s largest housing development is now resident-owned, its largest supermarket is a consumer-owned cooperative, one of its largest private employers is worker-owned, and most of its people-oriented waterfront is publicly owned. Its publicly owned utility, the Burlington Electric Department, recently announced that Burlington is the first American city of any decent size to run entirely on renewable electricity.

    . . .

     Thanks to Sanders, the Burlington waterfront now has a community boathouse and other facilities for small boats. There’s also a sailing center and science center, a fishing pier, an eight-mile bike path, acres of parkland, and public beaches. The commercial development is modest and small-scale. On May 26, Sanders kicked off his presidential campaign with a rally at Waterfront Park.

    . . .

    Under Sanders, Burlington became a magnet for attracting and incubating locally owned businesses, many of which expanded into large enterprises. Burton, the nation’s largest snowboard company, has its headquarters (as well as a snowboard museum) in Burlington.


    by Hal Ginsberg on Thu, 02/25/2016 - 4:54pm


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 4:42pm

    Yes, I read all that.  That is precisely why I am wondering how you can compare those thin accomplishments to the rural electification that LBJ supposedly caused to happen.   But I beg to differ as to the credit you give LBJ:

    This from Wiki:

    On May 11, 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7037, which created the Rural Electrification Administration.[1] In 1936, the Congress endorsed Roosevelt's action by passing the Rural Electrification Act. At the time the Rural Electrification Act was passed, electricity was commonplace in cities but largely unavailable in farms, ranches, and other rural places. Representative John E. Rankin and Senator George William Norris were supporters of the Rural Electrification Act, which was signed into law by Roosevelt on May 20, 1936.

    I do believe that LBJ did some good, but he was most definitely not the ONE mover and shaker for putting rural areas on the electric grid.  He was a Representative as of 1937, and then a Senator from 1949 to 1961.  He was very good at self-promotion and also at intimidation.  That's how he got to be VP.

    But, Hal, really -- you are loyal to the point that you have no objectivity left.  There are several months before this is over.  I am going to try really hard not to take the bait any more.  Best wishes to you.

     


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 5:08pm

    I never compared Sanders's accomplishments to rural electrification.  The point I made was Clinton doesn't deserve mention in the same breath as LBJ not that Sanders does.  While Sanders hasn't accomplished nearly as much as LBJ, like LBJ he has tried and succeeded on a smaller scale in making life a little better for poor, working, and middle-income people.  The exact opposite is true for Clinton.   What she's done has by and large harmed those same people while lined the pockets of the rich and powerful.

    Now you claim the high road here - you write about me: "you are loyal to the point that you have no objectivity left."  But you are the one who defends Clinton come hell or high water right?  You are the one who attacks Sanders at the drop of a hat and accepts every slam on him as justified regardless of how bogus, right?  I'm the one who's written about how his gun votes were wrong and harmful right?   I'm the one who agrees he should do more to help progressive candidates right? I've conceded he should have released his complete tax returns for the past ten years, right?

    So who exactly isn't objective here CVille?


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 5:21pm

    Hal, Sanders said that there should be a Primary challenge to Barack Obama that is different than a difference of opinion at AIPAC. You know there is a vast difference and pretend that you don't. You dismiss the CBC as being out of touch because they don't support Bernie Sanders. The voters in their districts also dismiss Sanders. I think your support for Sanders has become so delusional that you cannot comprehend why his message is failing.

    Let me point you to Jamal Bryant, a pastor and activist in Baltimore. Bryant is a Sanders supporters. He carries the message that voters don't know Sanders and that Sanders message is not getting out.Carried in the message were these gems.

    Sanders said he's going to have a trillion-dollar investment program. But it's not entirely clear how that gets delivered.

    he's already in a high tax orbit with the pledge for free education. Many questions are bound on how does that get paid for. So I'd like to see the concrete details

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...

    Black voters in Maryland did not trust Sanders ability to deliver on his promises. You point to the fact of household wealth inequality. That fact does not automatically lead one to conclude that Sanders has answers. You equate Sanders with Martin Luther King Jr and as the possessor of solutions to economic ills. You point to LBJ's success as a politician and ridicule Hillary. You are so blind that you cannot see that if Hillary failed as a legislator, so did Sanders. 

    You simply cannot understand why Bernie is unappealing.

    Jamal Bryant will be voting for Hillary in November

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 3:45pm

    LBJ used cemetary rolls to have dead people vote him into office. He put a radio chain then TV chain in his wife's name and used his office to give her the best frequencies and other monopolies. If people named their kids after him, he probably paid them to do it. Glad you're a fan of a master at payola. That he might have knocked off the president in his home state to become president himself, as JFK's widow believed, and his stubbornly embedding us in a bloody war to uphold a colonial power's former plantations makes the irony of that fandom even more luscious. 


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 3:47pm

    Despite the parade of horribles, he made America a better fairer less racist place and had done so even before he became President.  Hillary's actions of course, with a couple of exceptions perhaps, have made things much worse for the 99%.  Do you see how easy this is PP?


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:19pm

    You include Vietnam in your list?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:21pm

    Hal in a response to ocean-kat, you state that the CBC members are disconnected from their constituents.This is false. The CBC members live in their districts. When the protests in Baltimore occurred, Elijah Cummings was in his community trying to get people to go home.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/bullhorn-in-hand-rep-cu...

    You have absolutely no clue about the activity of CBC members. While Sanders was in Vermont typing on his keyboard, CBC members were at work.Lacy Clay's district includes Ferguson. CBC members showed up in Ferguson to offer support.

    http://www.blackpressusa.com/cbc-members-visit-ferguson-mo/

    Where was Bernie Luther King Jr.?

    Just stop.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 2:56pm

    African-American elected officials live in the same districts as their constituents but their economic circumstances and their children's and grandchildren's futures are wholly different.  I won't stop as long as you continue to make arguments in favor of policies and politicians who have harmed the community you care about most and I care about.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 3:07pm

    Are you saying that there is no such thing as empathy?  You have stated that you are reasonably well-off, but you claim to care about the needy.  I think you do.  I also think the Kennedy's did.  I think Barack Obama does.  I think Joe Biden does.  Same for LBJ, FDR, Bill Gates, and many other wealthy people who care.  Bernie is a whole lot better off than many of the people he purports to care about.  

    But according to you, African-Americans are a different class of people; they and their children cannot possibly care about others in their community who suffer for one reason or another.  Makes me kinda want to see RMRD's tax returns just to check on if he's just BS'ing all of us.  But seriously.  I really, really, really want to see Bernie's taxes.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 3:33pm

    Note how many people are not true Democrats, blacks who are "too well off" and a whole host of others are not true Democrats. Only Sanders is pure. When you get to the core beliefs the hard-core Sanders supporters are no different than the hard-core Cruz supporters. There can be no compromise on any issues. Everyone who disagrees with the hard-core is evil.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 3:56pm

    You write:  "Note how many people are not true Democrats, blacks who are "too well off" and a whole host of others are not true Democrats. Only Sanders is pure."

    I have never argued that any particular person isn't a true Democrat or that Sanders is pure.  As you well know, I have criticized his position on guns - indeed I even wrote a blog about this.  I also agree that he hasn't done enough to elect progressives.  So your claim that only "Sanders is pure" enough for me is absurd on its face.

    On a broader note this criticism bespeaks an extraordinary failure on your part to consider the arguments and verbiage you have put forth at this site.   Just off the top of my head, I can identify the following African-Americans whom you have attacked for not sharing your worldview: Danny Glover, Dr. Cornel West, Harry Belafonte, Killer Mike.

    A quick perusal of some of your posts shows you have called West "delusional".  Deray McKesson is "arrogant".  "Black Lives Matter is a finger-pointing protest group."   Regarding highly regarded African-American scholar Michelle Alexander you wrote: "When you listen to Ms. Alexander's interview, you find that she is talking about the same unhinged revolution that Susan Sarandon supports. "

    So RMRD, which of us finds impurity everywhere and slams everyone - especially African-Americans - with a different worldview?


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:05pm

    Hal, I selected individuals and made the points where I had disagreements. You lumped the CBC as a group with a few exceptions.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:08pm

    Yes.  You slammed many African Americans because they support Sanders and only because they support Sanders.  I did not slam any members of the CBC.  I expressed admiration for many and respect for their contributions while trying to explain their support for a candidate who is bad for their constituents.  Who has a purity test again?


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:16pm

    Hal, you said that they were not voting the interests of their constituents. Name the votes!


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:18pm

    You write: "Hal, you said that they were not voting the interests of their constituents."

    I never wrote that CBC members are not voting the interests of their constituents.

    Now can you tell me whether you have a purity test given your attacks on blacks who support Bernie Sanders.  If not, please identify black supporters of Bernie Sanders whose politics you respect.  I have identified black supporters of Hillary Clinton whose politics I respect.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:24pm

    Hal your words

    the civil rights leaders of the 60s who back Clinton are neither totally different nor have they all sold out.  They are part of the establishment now and they (and their children and grandchildren) are not feeling the pain the majority of Americans who have less than $1,000 in savings do.  Their interests and experiences have diverged dramatically from those of the great majority of their constituents.  Not a tough one really.

    The context of the words was that by not supporting Sanders, the CBC was not doing things that benefitted the black community. Are you now stating that the CBC votes in the interest of the black community?

    If you agree that the CBC votes in the interest of the black community then their votes for Hillary are valid


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 8:23pm

    The question was asked why do I think the vast majority of the Congressional Black Caucus supports Clinton, I answered by noting that their economic interests are not aligned with their constituents.  This does not mean I don't think they're empathic.

    Regarding the names you mention, LBJ grew up poor.  He and FDR were extraordinary individuals as was Dr. King whose background was solidly middle-class when the great majority of African-Americans were poor or working-class.  Yet King championed the interests of African-Americans with vastly different (and even worse) experiences than he had.  He also fought for poor whites, Latinos, and for peace in Asia.

    I do not view Bill Gates as a particularly empathic individual.  He has a top-down approach to solving problems rather than empowering people.  I'm not clear on JFK.  He wasn't President for long enough to know how much he really cared about the poor.  He did cut taxes on the rich.  Keith Ellison is an outstanding black Muslim leader in Congress who puts the interests of his constituents first regardless of their background and religion.  I also have great admiration for Barbara Lee who is one of the bravest and most compassionate members of Congress.

    I think  Jim Clyburn has been an exemplary representative, even though he backed the wrong candidate for President.  I honor John Lewis for his service and sacrifice.  He is a great American hero.  I am not going to run down the list as it is too long and I know I'll miss somebody.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 5:00pm

    OK.  Rather than go through your list of who you think is truly empathic, I will just point out the big hole in your argument about the CBC.   You agree that at one point in their lives they were on the receiving end of racism and hatred, but now they have moved up, and therefore they can no longer identify with those in their communities who still experience racism and hatred.

    When I gave a list of people who I believe, expressed their concern for those in need, I mentioned LBJ.  

    Your answer was:  "LBJ grew up poor."  Do you not see the contradiction in this?  The CBC also "grew up poor," but now that they are wealthy and a part of the Establishment, they are incapable of caring.  Is that what you are saying?

    I just have to add this:

    In your judgmental mind, you cannot give Bill Gates a passing grade because...why?

        Is he not giving enough of his vast fortune to research and treatment with the goal of wiping out the scourge of        Malaria?

        How about researching and eradicating Polio?,  TB?  HIV?

    The Bill and Melinda Foundation is the largest philanthropic organization in the world.

    But just not good enough to be considered empathic, eh?  Maybe they also like the fact that they get respect and admiration for their works.  So what?  I have a friend (a big geek) who will never forgive Gates for creating Microsoft -- he HATES it!!!   Two years ago, even he admitted that the Foundation is good.  I could hardly believe it.  


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 5:35pm

    I noted that LBJ grew up poor and, like FDR and MLK, was an extraordinary individual.  I also did not claim Lewis, Clyburn, Cummings, et al., were not empathic just that their economic interests no longer align with their constituents.  It takes an extraordinary person, e.g., Lincoln, the three Roosevelts, Dr. King, to truly understand the humanity of people whose circumstances are radically different than your own.  I am not attacking the CBCers who back Hillary I am saying they are like the rest of us all-too-human.

    I didn't not give Gates a passing grade.  What I wrote is I'm not fully convinced of his empathy.  This doesn't mean the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation isn't a good thing.  I accept your contention it is.  But what would be a much better thing is for Gates to figure out the most efficient way for him to drop $30-40 billion to elect true progressives in America and around the world.  The problem is if he did that, he'd see his taxes, including his estate tax, go up to what he'd consider astronomical levels.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 5:47pm

    So you want Bill Gates the be a left-wing Koch?  And the fact that he has chosen to support medical issues that affect millions of people who have, pretty much no advocates, just doesn't do it for you.  Maybe you should make a list. You could call it:

    What Everyone Should Do. By Hal Ginsberg


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:29pm

    What are you talking about when you write "it just doesn't do it for" me?  I'm glad he's giving me to help sick people.  Ultimately, I would prefer that he spend money to empower the powerless and enrich the poor.  Do you have a problem with that?  Why?


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 8:12pm

    Your comment about the CBC tarnishes an entire group of people.

    You do acknowledge there may be some good ones though


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 5:41pm

    I'm sorry you feel that way.  Fact is a number of CBC members do not support the candidate whose policies are best for their constituents and they do support the candidate who has worsened the quality of their constituents' lives.  I have done my best to explain why.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:02pm

    That is your biased opinion.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:14pm

    Bias?  Evidence for that claim please.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 6:20pm

    Bias, prejudice mean a strong inclination of the mind or a preconceived opinion about something or someone. A bias may be favorable or unfavorable: bias in favor of or against an idea.

     

    You favor Sanders

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 7:17pm

    Yes I do.  But my preference is based on the evidence.  Are you biased in favor of Clinton?


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 8:11pm

    Your preference is based on your interpretation of the evidence. Obviously my bias is for Hillary Clinton.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 9:20pm

    Bias is more than preference.  The word's meaning includes prejudice.  In other words, an unfair or unjustified preference.  While I wholly disagree with your choice in the primaries, I'm not sure you're biased.  I don't think you prefer Clinton for some irrational or indefensible reason.  Likewise, I don't accept that I'm biased.  I think I see the candidates pretty clearly.


    by HSG on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 9:38pm

    Bias is the normal human condition.

    http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/the-trouble-with-scientists

    When I hear Bernie Sanders, I reflect on past experiences and compare interactions with other people I have encountered. Sanders falls into the category of all hat and no cattle based on my past experiences. When Sanders offers "free college" paid by higher payroll taxes, I measure the likelihood of Congress passing legislation to support the plan as extremely low. My past experiences tell me Sanders is unrealistic. I do not rate his programs chances of passing as 50-50, I rate the passage as 5-95. Bias is built into my calculation, but I rate my calculation as rational.

    You look at Sanders accomplishments in Congress and his rhetoric and rate the possibility of free education as much more likely than I . You are biased towards Sanders. You are disappointed by Obama not getting everything he wanted done as a failure. You see black poverty and see Sanders as the solution. I see the same poverty, look at the Republicans in Congress and the reactionary voting block, and see little that suggests Sanders is realistic.I see Clinton as much more realistic about the obstacles that we face. Governors are actually pulling funding from education at all levels. My bias leads me to select Hillary.

    When new information occurs in the form of a townhall question, I reassess my bias. When a woman tells Sanders that the only way to fund pre-K education is to tax soda beverages, I listen for Sanders response. Sanders says that taxing sodas harms the poor. His statement is true, but taxing cigarettes also harms the poor. Sanders tells the woman to wait until he becomes President and passes his education tax plan. I reassess my bias and find that Sanders has confirmed my bias. The likelihood of passing the educational plan is low. Sanders is unrealistic. Hillary supports the tax. I find her position more realizable.

    Regarding issues of war, I find that Sanders has never really been tested. He is in a protected Senate seat and could vote however he felt at little risk. He can be a pacifist. He has never been in a position where intelligence was coming in that individual X was at place Y and could be taken out by a drone. My bias is not to trust Bernie a Sanders to make the correct decision. If an individual is enough of a threat, I do need to feel that a President has the right killer instinct. I want the President to send in the drone, or the Military team to take out Bin Laden. I realize that Martin Luther King Jr would protest on moral grounds. I have no doubt that Hillary would send in the drone or the military team.

    My bias leads me to select Hillary.v Yours likely tells you that Sanders would show more restraint than Hillary.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/03/2016 - 10:43pm