HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » stupidicus » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Name: Jim
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 2,570

Journal Archives

DC Press Corps Spins Itself Silly Over Sanders’ Specifics

I think sillier would be a better description of the HC-supporters conduct, which includes those that benefited from her husband signing that 1996 Telecom Act into law. But we know how it goes -- they'll cling to their talking points like a Pee Partier does their guns and bibles -- with the mythical tenacity of a Gila Monster -- and similarly, they'll retain some vestige of truth to them long after they are thoroughly debunked.

Among the frenzied were the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic‘s David Graham and Vanity Fair‘s Tina Nguyen, with CNN‘s Dylan Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview, I would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders’ answers, but I’m an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.

When asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks. That’s exactly the right answer. The government doesn’t know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan; JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.

The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage-backed security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high-level bank executives? Who knows, but they obviously didn’t try.

And the fact that Sanders didn’t know the specific statute—who cares? How many people know the specific statute for someone who puts a bullet in someone’s head? That’s murder, and if a candidate for office doesn’t know the exact title and specifics of her state murder statute, it hardly seems like a big issue. http://fair.org/home/dc-press-corps-spins-itself-silly-over-sanders-specifics/

Why Hillary Isn't Sweating Losing Wisc.

because she's hopelessly corrupt and unfit for the high office?

Given the invisible handwriting on the wall the BS campaign has revealed, it could well be that it is all downhill for her kind whether she buys the office this time around or not. Hopefully it will mean another primary challenge in 2020 if she does.

In short, that deal secured the support of a significant number, if not a majority, of the super delegates for Hillary. In essence, she purchased them with the help of the DNC and the 33 state parties cast their vote for Clinton long before we cast our votes. It explains everything you need to know as to why super delegates are vowing to support Hillary regardless of the outcome of their state's primary or caucus elections.

This arrangement whereby the fealty of powerful individuals to their sovereign could be bought through the payment of money, land or other "favors" used to be called Feudalism. But we don't have kings and queens in America, anymore, at least not in the legal sense. However, what we have is a sham "democracy," i.e., a Potemkin facade of a democracy, where the majority don't get to decide who runs for office, the rich, powerful and well-connected do. The elections in the Soviet Union are the closest facsimile to our modern day political system.

It's one of the reasons that Bernie's campaign is a historic event in American history. Despite all the money and skullduggery and flat out corruption by the movers and shakers of the ironically named "Democratic Party" directed against a virtually unknown, self-described Democratic Socialist is unique in this era of Oligarchic control of the political process. Powered only by the enthusiasm of his supporters and their small, but far more numerous donations, Bernie has pushed, arguably, one of the most corrupt candidates in my lifetime to spend far more money, time and effort to secure the Democratic nomination than she ever anticipated, one which she no doubt once believed would be a stone cold lock the day after the results of the Iowa Caucuses were counted.
Well, as Cenk says, it's "her party," though even the candidate who now appears more electable versus any Republican in the national polls is her opponent. Of course, we are witnessing the same drama play out on the Republican side, with a full court press by the Republican establishment to do anything to stop Donald Trump, even if that means getting into bed with the loathsome Ted Cruz. http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/4/6/125944/4747
Go to Page: 1