AFL-CIO Says 'No' To Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Source: Sunshine State News
By LESLIE WIMES
June 18, 2016 - 1:45pm
For the first time in 24 years, Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not get the endorsement of the AFL-CIO.
Despite winning the recommendation of the Broward County chapter, Wasserman Schultz failed to get the required 2/3 votes to secure the endorsement.
The National AFL-CIO sent out an advisory stating there would be no endorsement of Democrats who voted in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
That includes Wasserman Schultz.
Read more: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/afl-cio-says-no-debbie-wasserman-schultz
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
phazed0
(745 posts)Well, except for Clinton, that is.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)......Department of State Official who advocated strongly for it with 33 other countries, calling it the "Gold Standard"? That's not a vote, but it sure is a vital part of making it ready for the vote.
phazed0
(745 posts)
zentrum
(9,865 posts) bjobotts
(9,141 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)and had nowhere to go but up. I have a feeling it will indeed go up.
Autumn
(45,064 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)Just noticed it.
Puzzling, except that it's endorse her or Trump.
Autumn
(45,064 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they must feel they have to get along with the new "leader".
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)and those kinds of things can be overlooked. DWS not so much, easy to throw her under the bus.
Hoping they will endorse Tim.
cstanleytech
(26,284 posts)might have to work with in the future.
wallyworld2
(375 posts)Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Would Be Equally Good for Finance Industry, Says Top Executive
Zaid Jilani
June 17 2016, 10:09 a.m.
The head of the largest derivatives marketplace in the world, CME Group, told an audience at a financial industry conference that it doesn’t matter if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump becomes president, because both understand the industry and are only criticizing it during the campaign for political reasons.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-would-be-equally-good-for-finance-industry-says-top-ceo/
ToxMarz
(2,166 posts)
TwilightZone
(25,467 posts)I think you're confusing the word "supported" with the word "supports". At present, she does not support it.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp/
Perhaps they're taking her at her word.
Autumn
(45,064 posts)
If she told me the sky was blue I would look outside and check, twice. SouthernDemLinda
(182 posts)[link:http://|http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/clinton-should-ask-obama-withdraw-tpp]
CROOKS AND LIAR
Clinton Should Ask Obama To Withdraw The TPP
By Dave Johnson
4/12/16 5:00am
Hillary Clinton has a credibility problem when it comes to our country's trade policies
and the resulting enormous, humongous trade deficits that measure job loss – especially
with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
But Clinton has a chance to shore up her credibility with Democratic voters on this issue.
It comes as President Obama, Wall Street and the multinational corporations are preparing
to grease the skids for pushing the TPP through Congress in the post-election "lame duck" session.
Clinton, Credibility And Free Trade
Following months of demands that she take a
position on the trade agreement, Clinton stated during an October PBS Newshour interview (just before the first debate with candidate Bernie Sanders) that TPP could, “… end up doing more harm than good for hard-working American families whose paychecks have barely budged in
years.”
Unfortunately for Clinton, few believe she means it. The business community, for example, sees Clinton's position as simple posturing to voters for the election, believing she will switch back to supporting the agreement immediately after the election, as Obama did on NAFTA after promising
throughout the 2008 campaign to renegotiate the agreement.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)One who switches so frequently no can keep track is not reliable.
spud_demon
(76 posts)First she called it "the gold standard"; then she called it "flawed". Right?
I doubt AFL-CIO would settle for anything less than total repeal.
chapdrum
(930 posts)Thanks to the AFL-CIO for its advisory.
The cause could use some more support, too.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)How can you call this good news?
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)DWS supports pay day lending. That, by itself, makes her a bad candidate. Anyone that supports an industry that preys on the poor by offering loans that take advantage of people in need then charge up to 300% interest is not someone that should be in the party.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Else You Are Mad, the results of which will set the nation on one of two very different courses for at least the next couple of decades, likely longer because the next president will likely be able to achieve an ideological majority on the Supreme Court.
Everything you think you want will not be achieved for a very long time, years, if the Republicans win. How old will you be in 30 years?
For just one example of many, thanks to conservative opposition, it took nearly a century to pass even a limited market-friendly healthcare reform. Toward the end of that century, when healthcare problems had built into a major national emergency, destroying the lives of many, it still took two major efforts by two Democratic presidents 17 years apart to finally get it passed. That 17 wasn't laziness, it was the time it took for the national will to rebuild to the point that it was possible, even as many thousands of people died every year from lack of medical care.
You should be afraid. Your newborn movement will die, and the half of our nation that is conservative and very opposed to what you want will win, if the Republicans add the White House to Congress.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Is because you prefer the status quo rather than try for any change. She is an awful Democrat, and we lost more seats -- both federal and state -- to Republicans under her watch than any other in recent times. I would rather have ANY other Democrat in her place.
I am not hoping a Republican wins her seat, I am merely stating she is not the best Democrat and we need someone to replace her.
SouthernDemLinda
(182 posts)[link:http://|http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-opposes-perpetual-war_b_8882886.html
THE HUFFINGTON POS
THE BLOG
Bernie Sanders Opposes Perpetual War. Trump and Clinton Could Usher Another Military Draft 12/28/2015 08:16 am ET | Updated Dec 28, 2015
H. A. Goodman
Columnist published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Baltimore Sun, The Hill, Salon, The Jerusalem Post www.hagoodman.com
Hillary Clinton’s plan to fight ISIS is essentially the same as the Republican military strategy, as explained in a recent Slate article titled “Pssssssst: Hillary and Her GOP Rivals Have Pretty Much the Same Plan to Deal With ISIS.”
While the author believes Clinton’s overall strategy would differ from Trump’s (accepting Syrian refugees, for example), the military phase wouldn’t be very different, and the rhetoric between GOP candidates and Clinton amounts to essentially “the same” plan to destroy ISIS.
As for a willingness to send more Americans into quagmires, Clinton’s Council on Foreign Relations speech after the Paris attacks references American “ground troops” as a key to defeating ISIS:"And we should be honest about the fact that to be successful, air strikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS..."
As stated in a Guardian article titled “Hillary Clinton calls for more ground troops as part of hawkish Isis strategy,” Clinton explained the U.S. should “intensify and broaden” efforts and called for “greater use of American ground troops.”
As usual, the CFR speech led to a reversal in sentiment, with Clinton now focusing her views somewhere in between mass deployment and Special Forces deployments. It’s important to note that Clinton has already flip flopped on the topic. The International Business Times, in a piece titled Hillary Clinton Flip-Flopping On Ground Troops To Fight ISIS? explains that “Clinton’s latest opinion on the topic was an abrupt departure from her previous stance.”
As president, Clinton could easily evolve again, considering she might have neoconservative advisers. One New York Times article titled “The Next Act of the Neocons” states, “It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration.”
In addition, many others have foreshadowed what a Clinton presidency would look like in terms of war and foreign policy. Quoted in The New York Times, Robert Kagan states “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue...it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that.”
Of course, Kagan is right on this point, Clinton supporters won’t ever call her foreign policy “neocon.”
An article in The Nation titled “The Hillary Clinton Juggernaut Courts Wall Street and Neocons” states Clinton has “close ties” to “a passel of neoconservatives.”
One Huffington Post piece titled “On Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties, Hillary Clinton Is Not a Progressive,” refers to Clinton as a “liberal George Bush.”
I could go on forever, but why is Clinton’s penchant for “neocon” policies important?
Presidents can’t repeal the ACA or end mass shootings and Planned Parenthood debates, but they can wage unilateral wars like Obama’s over $2.4 billion battle against ISIS and recently scrapped $500 million program arming Syrian rebels.
As president, both Clinton and Trump would utilize the AUMF in a far more aggressive manner than Obama; Clinton’s “neocon” foreign policy could easily lead to the U.S. military becoming even more overstretched.
Like Slate, The Nation, and The New York Times, Vox published a piece titled “Hillary Clinton will pull the Democrats — and the country — in a hawkish direction,” and states “If Clinton skates to victory, she will take a more aggressive approach to world politics, pulling the party in a new direction without much of a debate.”
The words “without much of debate” speak volumes. Clinton voted for Iraq, oversaw a disastrous Libyan bombing campaign, and has a weapons deal scandal. Based on her track record, it’s plausible that Clinton would send Americans off to more counterinsurgency conflicts as president. It’s also likely that her supporters would wholeheartedly justify future deployments, like they’ve defended her Iraq vote and Libya bombing.
From a critical thinking vantage point, let’s first remember two devastating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where Americans served (and are still fighting) longer than ever before. Then, let’s recall that President Obama deployed American soldiers to Syria, Iraq, and kept them in Afghanistan longer than expected. After two wars and continued deployments, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that women too will likely have to register for the draft and that our military has been overstretched by never-ending conflict.
With the recent VA crisis, military suicide epidemic, and a horrific stop-loss program (referred to by Senate Democrats as a “backdoor draft” in 2007) that kept American soldiers in battle far longer than they initially signed up for, just read the writing on the wall.
Perpetual wars can’t exist forever with an all-volunteer military. General Stanley McChrystal states that “I now believe we need a draft” primarily because “there’s a sense that if you want to go to war, you just send the military.” The Nightly Show’s Larry Wilmore echoed this sentiment, asking if America should reinstate the draft. Lawrence J. Korb in The New York Times argued, “A Draft Would Force Us to Face Reality.”
The Economist writes in an article titled “Who will fight the next war?” that future American conflicts might need a draft:
The result is that America may be unable, within reasonable cost limits and without reinstituting the draft, to raise the much bigger army it might need for such wars. “Could we field the force we would need?” asks Andrew Krepinevich of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Probably not.
In other words, we’d need more soldiers in future wars. Yes, defeating ISIS with Clinton’s reference to “ground troops” (remember, she just flip flopped on the issue) could come with a price. The same goes for Trump’s bellicose rhetoric.
If you think this viewpoint is unrealistic, then revisit the March 9, 2015 MSNBC transcript between Chris Hays and Col. Lawrence Wilkerson:
HAYES: The drums of war get louder and Americans increasingly favor
sending troops to fight ISIS. So, tonight, the question: should America
reinstitute the draft?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL:
I want to say that if the polls show 62 percent of Americans want to use ground forces against ISIS in Syria or Iraq or whatever, then I suggest we have a draft and we draft those 62 percent to lead the way.
Like Col. Wilkerson and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes pointed out, increasing the burden of fighting wars upon all Americans is a possibility.
The Atlantic in March of 2015 asked if the U.S. should reinstate the draft. Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel in 2014 asked for a war tax and a reinstated draft. In addition, a VOA article titled Is the U.S. Military Overstretched? highlights the fact we don’t have enough soldiers to implement Clinton’s or Trump’s hawkish rhetoric:
With more than 250,000 American troops deployed in nearly 130 countries, many analysts are questioning whether the United States military is stretched in ways that could undermine its future capabilities should new threats arise.
...some observers say that the draft cannot be discounted as a possibility for beefing up the number of American troops.
If Clinton implements her stated goals, echoing neocon advisers, then a future draft is quite possible.
In contrast to Trump or Clinton, America has a choice in 2016. I explain in The Huffington Post why “The Only Way to Destroy ISIS Is With a Bernie Sanders Presidency.” I also write in The Hill that “Only Sanders, not Clinton or Trump, has right plan to defeat ISIS.”
Only Bernie Sanders says “I’ll be damned” to more Middle Eastern quagmires.
Sanders states “I’ll be damned if kids in the state of Vermont — or taxpayers in the state of Vermont — have to defend the royal Saudi family, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.” Only Bernie Sanders won the Congressional Award from the VFW and only Sanders foreshadowed the consequences of Iraq, while Clinton cast her vote with “conviction.”
Most importantly, Bernie Sanders addressed the repercussions of perpetual wars during the debates. While Trump and Clinton compete to sound more militant, only Sanders mentions the amputees from both recent wars. Sadly, Trump and Clinton are actually similar candidates, especially on foreign policy, and I explain why in this YouTube segment.
America’s one-party system on foreign policy and war comes with consequences. Don’t discount the reality of a military draft with either Trump or Clinton, especially with low Army recruiting numbers. Only Bernie Sanders opposes perpetual quagmires in the name of defeating terror (as I explain here), finally giving Americans a genuine choice in 2016.
ALSO ON HUFFPOST:
Follow H. A. Goodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HAGOODMANAUTHOR
Chan790
(20,176 posts)If people start to notice that labor is no longer willing to back anti-labor pols just because they're Democrats...maybe it'll help move the knife to sheer off some of these anti-progressive, anti-labor, pro-Wall St. neolibs masquerading as Democrats and move the party back towards its traditional base.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)
arikara
(5,562 posts)How dare they! All democrats must march in lockstep.
merrily
(45,251 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)That is where I am at!
No vote from me for any politician who voted for Fast Track, or who votes for the TPP or TTIP - or for any politician who shilled for them.
...
Canova has challenged Wasserman Schultz to a series of six debates, in which she will have to defend her record publicly.
So far, she has refused to commit to any debates.
Politicians are realizing that votes have consequences, and for Wasserman Schultz, one of those consequences is losing the support of major labor unions.
...
CD 23 is heavily Jewish, but Wasserman Schultz’s vote for the Iran agreement has angered many in the Jewish community.
..
Wasserman Schultz, who received $68,000 from the Payday Loan industry, walked back her support of the industry after heavy pressure from Tim Canova and Allied Progress.
Gee, it seems that so many politicians just pander for votes and then do the lobbyists' bidding once they get to Washington. I have known of DWS' shenanigans for years, living in Florida, but it took the increased scrutiny of her actual record, due to her prominence in the primaries, for anything to challenge or affect her.
phazed0
(745 posts)No more voting for the lesser of two evils any longer, for me.
wallyworld2
(375 posts)you don't have to vote for the lessor of two evils with Tim Canova running against her.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and not a minute too soon, as every second before that, there will be people afraid she will become that cancer that will grow.
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)"The National AFL-CIO sent out an advisory stating there would be no endorsement of Democrats who voted in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."
How does this reaction to DWS' support of TPP differ from our "Gold Standard" presumptive nominee?
chapdrum
(930 posts)Unless hairsplitting.
StoneCarver
(249 posts)Obama will push through the TPP during the lame duck congress. The republicans have voted to fast track it and they will vote for it, and Obama will sign it into law. All this hand-wringing over something that is a done deal! Hillary will most likely be elected and say "there's nothing I can do" the republican hold the house.
It's kabuki theater!
Stonecarver
djean111
(14,255 posts)and DINOs, so Hillary does not have to do anything but say hey, "I didn't sign it".
Kabuki theater indeed.
geretogo
(1,281 posts)OwlinAZ
(410 posts)anyone has made on this site for a month.
Are we suddenly becoming sane?
SirBrockington
(259 posts)Howard Dean was much more effective as head of DNC
TonyPDX
(962 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)That deserves to cry more.
wallyworld2
(375 posts)I am tired of voting for Democrats and then having our jobs sent overseas and our laws and environmental protections dropped in favor of corporate campaign donors.
How could any Union support that?
I hope Hillary is paying attention or better yet respects that, because now a days Democrats don't really need Union support with Citizens United
Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)Keep on dreaming.
wallyworld2
(375 posts)
floriduck
(2,262 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Anyway, She's still going to be re-elected.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
Stellar
(5,644 posts)
Omaha Steve
(99,608 posts)Donate to Democratic Underground for Tim Canova FL-23 here: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/du4timcanova
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)DWS = someone who lost their way on the way to becoming a Democrat. She doesn't seem to be able to find her way back as someone who represents Americans.
I'm sick to death of these corporate shills. Every single vote should go to Tim Canova.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... because she's the lesser of two evils.
merrily
(45,251 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I'm supporting Canova. I thought we were discussing the endorsement of HRC by the AFL-CIO, even though they DON'T support DW-S. I'm tired... maybe I said it wrong. Sorry.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I need coffee.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... sometimes I don't know wtf I'm saying. 
peacebird
(14,195 posts)She has a long record of bad judgement in Foreign affairs. Hondouras, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Haiti.
Trump says stupid things, Hillary...
Remember "Sticks & Stones (or cluste bombs) can break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I would think you are advocating for a DT vote. 
crim son
(27,464 posts)Because he DID know better, I realized he was being an asshole and blocked him.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I was being an asshole. I promise I wasn't. I hate assholes and try to not be one myself. So would you mind explaining again in a slightly different way what you meant? Thanks. 
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I'm not voting for Trump. However I also dont fear him like some do
ReRe
(10,597 posts)
marble falls
(57,079 posts)AllyCat
(16,180 posts)After tomorrow?
Jazzgirl
(3,744 posts)I remember a few years ago she actively promoted her republican friends over competing democrats in the same area. She has always been a closet republican as far as I'm concerned.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Thank you.