Shemp HowardShemp Howard's Journal
I'm watching the debate tonight, and at about 9:45 Eastern time, Anderson Cooper asked Hillary about some fossil fuel executive who held a fund-raiser for her. Cooper was trying to make this point: How can you rein in an industry while taking money from them?
That was a tough, and very important, question. Hillary answered by saying that while she and Bernie have their differences, either would be much better than a Republican.
Not only did she ignore the question, but, by praising Bernie, Hillary made it difficult for Bernie to challenge her non-response.
It was a clever trick, and Bernie fell for it.
I'm not quite sure what's going on here. My best guess is that Clinton people are cold-calling Democrats. If the person called does not favor Hillary, that person would be given no caucus information, even if that information is requested.
This doesn't seem to be in any way illegal. But I suppose some could reasonably say it's unethical. Here's the MSNBC clip.
I was listening to NPR the other day, and during a news break they reported that both Hillary and Bernie were campaigning in Massachusetts.
That was followed by an audio clip, maybe 20-30 seconds long, of Hillary talking about, among other things, the importance of being civil during the campaign season. Now, I'm sure you're curious about what clip they played from Bernie.
Well, there was no Bernie clip. No balance. No fair play. Just Hillary's remarks.
Is one little NPR news segment all that important? In my opinion, yes it is, because it's part of the pattern.
There is no doubt, in my opinion, that Bernie Sanders is the better candidate for working people. If you're a banker, then Hillary is your pick, of course. But I'm just another member of the working class. So it really upsets me to see that Hillary Clinton has swept South Carolina.
I'm really not all that angry at Hillary (or the DNC). One percenters gotta do what one percenters gotta go. Instead, I'm disappointed that Bernie's team was not able to get the message out effectively enough.
Team Bernie, it's past time to take the gloves off.
According to the article, this is due to the DNC's superdelegate system. Six out of New Hampshire's eight superdelegates have pledged to Hillary. The other two are uncommitted as of now.
Disclaimer: A friend of mine mentioned this odd result to me earlier today. I found it hard to believe, so I did some quick research. The best explanation of it that I could find was at the site linked below. However, that site seems to be rather right-of-center.
I decided to post this anyway as a warning.
If the site is in error, please let me know and I'll delete this.
It looks like the Iowa Democratic Party officials have changed their minds. From the article:
But as errors are being discovered, the final tally is being changed, party officials confirmed to the Des Moines Register on Friday.
"Both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns have flagged a very small number of concerns for us, and we are looking at them all on a case-by-case basis," Iowa Democratic Party spokesman Sam Lau told the Register
I acknowledge that I'm a relative newbe here at DU. And I acknowledge that many people at DU are very passionate about certain topics. Furthermore, I acknowledge that most DU posts are not vulgar.
But I just don't understand the vulgarity, when it is used here. What is the difference between "Bush was wrong" and "F*cking Bush was wrong"? The first is a statement that invites a civil conversation. The second is more like a childish playground taunt.
I'm a progressive because progressiveness is, to me, a world-view that tries to see the best in people. To me, progressiveness is a humane and compassionate way of looking at things. Vulgarity just doesn't seem to fit into all that.
As I mentioned in post #24, I'm going to listen to some Joan Baez now. So I won't be responding to posts here. I hope I've added some food for thought. I'm not advocating censorship, just rational self-control. Because I, for one, have never been swayed by arguments that are full of vulgarity. But maybe that's just me. Now it's time for some Joanie.
Question: How many countries can you bomb before your Nobel Peace Prize is revoked?
Answer: At least seven.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that every last thing that the Ferguson police have said is true:
1. Brown robbed a store just before the shooting.
2. When the cop stopped Brown, Brown punched the cop and tried to take his gun.
3. After running 35 feet from the cop, Brown turned and began running towards the cop.
So here's my question:
Don't the Ferguson police carry non-lethal weapons? Why didn't this cop use pepper spray, a taser, or a baton? Any of those three would be effective in neutralizing an unarmed man. If you've been pepper-sprayed, tasered, or hit by a baton, you'll know what I mean (in my younger years, I was pepper-sprayed).
I haven't seen the question asked anywhere, so I'm going to ask it. Why wasn't a non-lethal weapon employed here?
Side note: I think I know why. The cop was, at minimum, a coward. But I would like to see the Ferguson police chief try to answer my question.
I've been following the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza. And I've tried to be objective, ignoring all the propaganda and disinformation.
So here's my question to the DU community. Why all the horrific civilian casualties? As I see it, it is one (or perhaps a combination) of the six possibilities below. Note that I am not focusing on the reasons for the incursion, but on the reasons for the civilian casualties.
How do you see it, and, more importantly, why?
1. Israel is trying to target military targets only, and the civilian casualties are just an unfortunate side effect of that. (No one's fault.)
2. Israel is trying to target military targets only, and the civilian casualties are mainly due to where Hamas placed its weapons. (Hamas at fault.)
3. Israel is trying to target military targets only, and the civilian casualties are mainly due to Hamas rockets that have fallen short. (Hamas at fault.)
4. Israel is trying to target military targets only, but without any regard to civilian casualties. (Israel at fault.)
5. Israel is deliberately trying to kill Gaza's civilians, to punish them for supporting Hamas. (Israel at fault.)
6. Israel is deliberately trying to kill Gaza's civilians, as a type of ethnic cleansing. (Israel at fault.)
Profile InformationMember since: Mon Sep 9, 2013, 12:10 AM
Number of posts: 889