HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » 99th_Monkey » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: Potlandia
Member since: Fri Sep 28, 2007, 03:39 PM
Number of posts: 19,326

Journal Archives

Clinton Last Night: "Name Anything [Wall Street Has] Influenced Me On" -- OK, I Will

Clinton Last Night: "Name Anything [Wall Street Has] Influenced Me On" -- OK, I Will
By HumanOfEarth * Thursday Feb 04, 2016 * Daily Kos

It is wrong and unfair to attack or critique candidates on anything but substance, policy, or record — and Clinton’s statements last night definitely fall underneath this umbrella. The following is not an unbridled attack against Clinton, but a response to a statement she made last night that went unanswered, and should not have.


While being questioned about her Wall Street ties, Clinton said to Anderson Cooper, the moderator—

“But you know anybody who knows me who thinks that they can influence me — name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing. I’m out here every day saying I’m going to shut them down, I’m going after them.”

Challenge accepted.

In 2007, while running for president, Clinton made campaign speeches attacking the tax break for hedge-fund and private-equity executives — one of the infamous loopholes that allows rich people to pay way less in taxes than they’re supposed to — but did not sign her name onto legislation that would have ended the tax break and closed the loophole.

Just as she’s doing now, she was “out [t]here every day saying I’m going to shut them down,” but did not actually use her elected-official power to keep her word, and follow through with the simple act of signing her name onto someone else’s bill.

As Politico reports,

When [Clinton] had a chance to support a 2007 bill that aimed to curb a tax break she publicly decried for hedge-fund and private-equity executives, she failed to sign on.
Clinton said one thing in public, but did another behind closed doors. She attacked Wall Street to voters, but helped them as a senator.


Because Wall Street executives were the biggest donors to her 2006 Senate campaign and her 2008 presidential campaign.

Clinton got millions from the financial industry while also protecting them — she is most assuredly influenced by her Wall Street donors.

That’s one thing right there, per Clinton’s request — but here’s even more.

In 2007 and 2008, Clinton did not work with the other senators in Congress to pass a housing bill to stop individual financial players from destroying the economy.

As ProPublica reports,

When a broad housing bill finally became law in 2008, Clinton was not among the more than dozen senators credited by party leaders as playing a key role.

She was not a leader in the Senate to stop Wall Street’s reckless behavior. In fact, she was barely even a follower.


Tweety: "SOCIALIST!!!! SOCIALIST!!!! SOCIALIST!!!! Red-Baiting every guest he has on.

What a useless tool, an obnoxious fool, an inveterate blabber-mouth spewing nonsensical
Red-baiting bullshit. Constantly saying "Bernie's NOT Democratic, not a Democrat!!!

Which is it? ... or is it "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose?"

Has anyone seen or heard of this? I'm puzzled by it, not certain of the source, but am curious what this
is about, or if there's any basis for the claim that the coin-toss rule in IA give the delegate to the "looser"
not the "winner" of the toss?

According to news outlets, and caucus reporters 6 delegates were given to Clinton because she won a coin toss, however the ruling states that the coin determines not the winner, but the loser of the delegate. Since Clinton won the toss, that means she lost the delegates, and they must go to Bernie instead, meaning he actually is the winner 698-690.

Please share, tweet, and get this message out, so that we can be certain who won the Caucus, and who lost.

Source: https://pivotamerica.com/bernie-wins-in-iowa-winner-of-coin-toss-loses-the-delegate-per-rule-28/

UPDATE: here’s a source I found, though does appear different from the image on twitter, but in rule 26 it does have the same language.. http://www.isea.org/assets/document/IA/2016-1-7%20ISEA%20Caucus%20Kit%201.6.2016.pdf

Did the "missing precinct" ever get its votes/delegates counted?

Votes from one precinct in Iowa were still missing Tuesday morning, and Democrats from that neighborhood scrambled to find party officials so that they could report their tally: Bernie Sanders won by 2 delegates over Hillary Clinton.

With Des Moines precinct No. 42's results, Clinton's excruciatingly close lead narrowed further, making the final tally for delegate equivalents in the Democratic Iowa caucuses:

Clinton: 699.57
Sanders: 697.77.

It quickly raised questions about whether Sanders had won the popular vote in Iowa. Sanders backers called for Iowa Democratic Party officials to release the raw vote totals.

“It’s important considering how close the race is. We need to be sure everyone has our accurate count,” Jill Joseph, a rank-and-file Democratic voter who backed Sanders in at No. 42 Monday night, told The Des Moines Register.


Bernie wins yet another key SC endorsement: "SC Rep. Joe Neal to endorse @BernieSanders!"

South Carolina Rep. Joe Neal to endorse @BernieSanders!
By slinkerwink * Tuesday Feb 02, 2016 * Daily Kos

Bernie Sanders just picked up an endorsement from SC Rep. Joe Neal! His county is the second most populous in South Carolina — woohoo! Let’s make some inroads in South Carolina, and make it too close to call!


No it's ALL Trump. Even though Des Moines Register just gave Bernie more delegates than Hills.

Enough Rubio already!!! Come on M$M do your job. What about the toss-up Dem results??? nt

A razor thin race on Democratic side, so M$M all cut to Rubio speech. argh. WTF? nt

Clinton declares "victory" while votes still being counted. NBC says, not so fast. n/t

Wall Street's Third Way Absurdly Wrong About Sanders' Social Security Plan

Wall Street's Third Way Absurdly Wrong About Sanders' Social Security Plan
by Nancy Altman Founding Co-director, Social Security Works * 1/31/2016 * HuffPo

Third Way is reaching the point of desperation in its quest to cut Social Security and protect its Wall Street, K Street lobbyist, and GOP donors from paying their fair share. As Third Way has become more and more marginalized, its public outpourings have become more and more extreme and, quite frankly, head-scratching.

In a 2011 Politico column, "Progressives: Wise Up," Third Way's president and vice president for policy lectured advocates for Social Security to stop fighting a Grand Bargain that would have cut Social Security's modest benefits - cuts that are opposed by 93.8 percent of Americans.

In 2013, the duo took to the Wall Street Journal where they attacked Senator Elizabeth Warren for proposing to expand Social Security as a solution to the nation's looming retirement income crisis. This time, they lectured not just progressives; they warned the entire Democratic Party not to "follow Sen. Warren...over the populist cliff." Since Senator Warren was standing with the 90 percent of Democrats (and 73 percent of Republicans) who want to increase Social Security benefits, it was no surprise that Third Way admitted that they represented, "no people," beholden only to their wealthy paymasters.

Now, as Senator Bernie Sanders is running strong for the Democratic nomination for president on a platform that includes the incredibly sound and popular idea of expanding Social Security, Third Way is at it again. In a new report, "How the Sanders Social Security Plan is Not Progressive," Third Way is warning the electorate that Sanders is coddling the rich. (In the report's words, the Sanders plan is "substantially tilted toward the wealthy."

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8