HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jg10003 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »

jg10003

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Nov 5, 2010, 11:18 PM
Number of posts: 800

Journal Archives

Who is Julia Rosen from ActBlue, who does she represent?

I only contributed to Bernie, and she is clearly not part of his campaign. But none of her emails says who she is working for.

Robert Reich; The New Common Ground Between Populist Left and Right

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-new-common-ground-bet_b_9740222.html

The old debate goes something like this:

‘You don’t believe women have reproductive rights.”

“You don’t value human life.”

Or this:

“You think everyone should own a gun.”

“You think we’re safer if only criminals have them.”

Or this:

“You don’t care about poor people.”

“You think they’re better off with handouts.”

Or this:

“You want to cut taxes on the rich.”

“You want to tax everyone to death.”

But we’re seeing the emergence of a new debate where the populist left and right are on the same side:

Both are against the rich to spend as much as they want corrupting our democracy.

Both are against crony capitalism.

Both are against corporate welfare.

Both are against another Wall Street bailout.

Both want to stop subsidizing Big Agriculture, Big Oil, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Both want to close the tax loophole for hedge fund partners.

Both want to ban inside trading on Wall Street.

Both want to stop CEOs from pumping up share prices with stock buy-backs ... and then cashing in their stock options.

Both want to stop tax deductions of CEO pay over $1 million.

Both want to get big money out of politics, reverse Citizens United, and restore our democracy.

If we join together, we can make these things happen.

Bottom line on NY: Clinton increases her pledged delegate lead by 31

It's a setback, but not a fatal blow.

Why is Clinton having so much difficulty winning the nomination?

Clinton started the primaries with more advantages then any other non-incumbent in history. In fact she has had the nearly the same status as an incumbent president running for re-election. The entire party establishment supported her, as did the financial and media establishments. The actual primaries should have been a mere formality. And yet she is still in a fight for the nomination. Even if she wins a majority of the pledged delegates, it is extremely unlikely that she will win enough pledged delegates (58.8%) to clinch the nomination without super-delegates. She has a negative favorable rating and is not trusted by a majority of Americans.

So what is wrong with Hillary Clinton? Why is she having such a hard time winning? She herself said that she is not a natural politician. Whatever the reasons are, whether fair or unfair, she is very unpopular. She could beat Trump (almost anyone could). But Cruz, and especially Kasich, might beat her. This is the reason that the super-delegates may desert her at the convention, she simply is not a very good candidate.

Bernie's goal tonight: 45.6%

So far Bernie has won 45.6% of all the pledged delegates. If that rate remains until the end of the primaries the final pledged delegate count will be;
Bernie - 1847, Clinton - 2204.
This will leave Clinton 179 votes short of the nomination.

The last primary is June 14 and the convention starts July 25. A lot can happen in five and a half weeks, especially since the GOP has its convention first. If after the GOP convention the polls show that Bernie is a significantly stronger candidate against the GOP nominee then is Hillary, then the super delegates will have to nominate him. Hillary can claim the moral argument that she won the majority of pledged delegates and the popular vote. But the party leaders are politicians, their only concern is winning.

My theory regarding what is in the Goldman-Sachs transcripts

No one can deny that there is something in the transcripts that Clinton does not want revealed. The Clinton campaign has calculated that releasing the transcripts would be more harmful then the negative publicity that comes with not releasing them. So the question is; What is in the transcript?

My theory is that there are just a couple of sentences that the Clinton campaign is worried about. And those sentences pertain to the mortgage crisis of 2008. The right wing Competitive Enterprise Institute ran an article written by head of the R Street Institute, a conservative think tank, that said “borrowers themselves should assume primary responsibility for the current subprime crisis. Millions of borrowers, all over the country, knowingly signed mortgage contracts they cannot now afford to honor.” This is a theme that Wall St. titans use to convince themselves that they didn’t cause the economic crisis. I suspect, admittedly with no evidence, that Clinton in her speech to Goldman-Sachs flattered her audience by repeating this trope.

The following is a paraphrase of what I think Clinton may have said in her speech.

“Thank you ladies and gentlemen for inviting me here tonight. The Wall St. community has been demonized for causing the financial crisis. While the financial community unquestionably made mistakes it is unfair to place all the blame on Wall St. It is true that banks gave mortgages to people with poor credit, however those same people took the loans knowing that they could not afford them. Both the lenders and borrowers must share equal responsibility for the mortgage crisis.”

I readily admit that this is pure speculation. I merely suggest that this is a plausible explanation of what the transcripts might contain. A person, especially a politician, who is paid over $200,000 for a speech can be expected to tell the audience what it wants to hear. But defending Wall St. in the current political climate is a sure way of losing an election. So it makes sense that Clinton would prefer to be criticized for not releasing the transcripts rather then be criticized for what she said to Goldman-Sachs.

Polite, friendly discussion is not allowed in the Hillary Clinton group

I have just been blocked from the Hillary Clinton group for the following post regarding the Wyoming primary:

can we all agree that when...

A candidate wins by 10% he/she should win a majority of delegates. Can we also agree that the system is seriously flawed and needs major reforms.





I felt this was a reasonable topic for discussion presented in a respectful, polite, and non-confrontational way. The Hillary Clinton group obliviously feels otherwise.


Polite, friendly discussion is not allowed in the Hillary Clinton group

I have just been blocked from the Hillary Clinton group for the following post regarding the Wyoming primary:

can we all agree that when...

A candidate wins by 10% he/she should win a majority of delegates. Can we also agree that the system is seriously flawed and needs major reforms.





I felt this was a reasonable topic for discussion presented in a respectful, polite, and non-confrontational way. The Hillary Clinton group obliviously feels otherwise.



Did HRC call herself a progressive in 2008 or in her senate campaigns?

I have tried unsuccessfully to find an instance of Hillary saying that she is a progressive BEFORE Bernie announced his candidacy. I would be very happy if anyone can provide a link showing that I am wrong.

My theory regarding what is in the Goldman-Sachs transcripts

No one can deny that there is something in the transcripts that Clinton does not want revealed. The Clinton campaign has calculated that releasing the transcripts would be more harmful then the negative publicity that comes with not releasing them. So the question is; What is in the transcript?

My theory is that there are just a couple of sentences that the Clinton campaign is worried about. And those sentences pertain to the mortgage crisis of 2008. The right wing Competitive Enterprise Institute ran an article written by head of the R Street Institute, a conservative think tank, that said “borrowers themselves should assume primary responsibility for the current subprime crisis. Millions of borrowers, all over the country, knowingly signed mortgage contracts they cannot now afford to honor.” This is a theme that Wall St. titans use to convince themselves that they didn’t cause the economic crisis. I suspect, admittedly with no evidence, that Clinton in her speech to Goldman-Sachs flattered her audience by repeating this trope.

The following is a paraphrase of what I think Clinton may have said in her speech.

“Thank you ladies and gentlemen for inviting me here tonight. The Wall St. community has been demonized for causing the financial crisis. While the financial community unquestionably made mistakes it is unfair to place all the blame on Wall St. It is true that banks gave mortgages to people with poor credit, however those same people took the loans knowing that they could not afford them. Both the lenders and borrowers must share equal responsibility for the mortgage crisis.”

I readily admit that this is pure speculation. I merely suggest that this is a plausible explanation of what the transcripts might contain. A person, especially a politician, who is paid over $200,000 for a speech can be expected to tell the audience what it wants to hear. But defending Wall St. in the current political climate is a sure way of losing an election. So it makes sense that Clinton would prefer to be criticized for not releasing the transcripts rather then be criticized for what she said to Goldman-Sachs.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »