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


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PM
Number of posts: 6,409

About Me

I am a disgruntled former DU member. Most people here are fine, but the site is ruined by zealous Hillary supporters. DU took my money and put my account on everlasting review. Cowards. Dishonest cowards.

Journal Archives

Anybody know this guy?

Jonathan Allen of Vox.com has a piece expressing undisguised joy that Hillary Clinton is in trouble about her e-mails. I thought he was a liberal, but he appears to delight in Clinton's troubles, mentioning that she is being caught by Sanders in Hew Hampshire. Is everybody piling on Clinton? If so, why? Is it because she's the frontrunner? Because she has the "unlikeable" thing going on? Here's a link.


I'm having doubts

I figured I would be OK if Bernie Sanders did not become the nominee. After all, he's not connected to the Democratic Party establishment, and he has no celebrity status, and... Well, anyway, I figured Hillary Clinton would mop the floor with whatever fool the Republicans chose. Now it looks as if that may be wrong.

Yeah, I know. The e-mail thing can be shown to be essentially nothing. There is no accusation of any real wrong doing. The best Gowdy can come up with is a few post-classified messages, which is almost less than nothing. But the goddamn media is latching onto this and treating it as if Gowdy is a real person with a real brain and a real sense of public service. I think they're doing this because it plays into the image of Hillary Clinton they have been feeding for years, the image of someone who is arrogant and doesn't feel the rules apply to her. Is there any substantial evidence for this parallel to Dick Cheney? Not that I can see. It's too soon to tell if the public will buy this, but all the news outlets are pushing it hard.

Again with this explanation

Once again, Clinton supporters are circulating this information, emphasizing the fact that many of Clinton's contributions come from individuals, while campaign finance reporting rules make it appear she's getting money from the financial industry.

Guess what? There is a reason the rules make individual contributors "lump together" according to where they work. Because it prevents a particular form of deception. Let's say I'm Fred Bigbucks, CEO of Bigbucks Investments. I hold a campaign party at my house, invite all the people who work for me, and "suggest" they each write a check for $2600 to my favorite candidate. So the contribution records for my candidate show $2600 from John, $2600 from Sue, $2600 from Andy, $2600 from each of the 100 or so people attending my party. This is a form of "bundling," the practice of collecting individual contributions from a bunch of people and giving the aggregate amount to the campaign. Unless you knew they worked for me, you would never know those contributions were all related through my company. To prevent this sort of deception, campaign finance reporting procedures require information that allows the reader to figure out when 100 people who work for Bigbucks Investments all get together and pony up $1700 each.

What's the dif? Who cares? "Bundling" is responsible for almost half the campaign money that flows to major national candidates. If it wasn't reported as bundled, you would think it came from John, Sue, Andy, etc. and you would never know they all work for me, Mr. Bigbucks. You could find out, but you would have to do a lot of independent research, and the election would be long over by the time you established John, Sue, Andy and 100 other "individuals" all work at the same place.

Some Clinton supporters are circulating this information to refute the accusation she is "in the pocket" of large financial organizations. Well, the accusation may be unfair, but the denial is disingenuous. The fact is, Clinton has the support of big Wall Street firms, investors, traders, etc. This does not justify the claim that she is a shill, a stooge, a sock puppet, etc. for Wall Street, but it does illustrate a significant difference between Clinton and Sanders. To claim otherwise is deceptive. It's up to the voter to interpret this distinction between the two candidates. One reason I support Sanders is because his campaign finance reports show little connection to Wall Street, but I'm not ready to conclude Clinton will sell out the working class and middle class to benefit her Wall Street contributors. I support Sanders because I like Sanders, not because I hate Clinton.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08/11/you-know-that-meme-about-hillarys-vs-bernies-campaign-donors-its-a-lie/ via Addicting Info

I believe the polls except when I don't

I believe the polls showing Clinton with a big lead over Sanders on the D side, and I even accept the term "presumptive favorite." I do not believe the polls suggesting Trump will be the Republican nominee, and I do not expect the media to name him "presumptive favorite." Yes, double standard, but I figure the Trump surge is just the result of a crowded field and a need for some excitement. The Democrats are sincerely weighing two credible candidates against each other, while the Republicans don't really care which loser they get to vote for. Agree? Disagree? Why?

Pop-up ads are great

Lockheed Martin has one for the F-35 fighter. "When the future strikes, the enemy will never see it coming." That's for sure. You can't see what never arrives.

Clinton's Favorability numbers all over the news

I'm not even sure what "favorability" means. All the major news outlets this morning are blasting us with the drop in Clinton's favorability ratings, as if this were the sole qualification to be president. We need to stop thinking this way when we vote for candidates. "I like this guy" is what stuck us with GW Bush. If I wanted somebody to hang out with, I might pick Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, but I don't vote for pals and buddies. I vote for president. This "favorability" thing is too much like a popularity contest.

Colored glasses

There is a post suggesting we go take a look at the Clinton Foundation. As I was looking at all the good stuff they do, it occurred to me most people will reach one of two conclusions. Those who support Clinton will think, "Wow! Look at all this selfless, generous work they're doing to improve our society!" Others will conclude, "This is terrible! She's taking money from corporate interests and using it to buy political loyalty."

In fact, the truth probably lies somewhere in between, and many DUers would admit this if it were not primary election time. A couple people have taken time-outs. Others have posted comments about circular firing squads, etc. Intensity is a good thing when supporting the candidate of your choice, but it does tend to push many people toward places they would not be if they weren't invested in a candidate. I know it's useless to ask people to curb their enthusiasm right now, but there will be a day when this part is over, and we turn our attention to the general election. I hope we can promise ourselves that we will neither gloat excessively, nor trample sour grapes. Don't want to discourage anybody. Just thinking ahead a little bit.

Interesting ads appear here

I suppose ads are targeted to the individual, according to the various cookies left lying around, but I notice the ads I get when here on DU are exactly the opposite of what I would expect. The NRA has offered me a free knife, a free duffel bag and some other thing I can't remember if I join now. Ben Carson wants some money for his campaign. So does Scott Walker. I'm guessing it's because I read something about the NRA, Carson, Walker, etc. and google them for more information. The ad targeting software then associates me, DU and the subject of my inquiry. Does anyone know? Is that how it works? Just curious.

Liberals invade Texas

The US Army, known to be a bunch of gay liberal immigrant atheists, is invading Texas. Here is something I found. I think it's from the AP, but I don't know. Anyway, it's nice we have some diversity of thought and opinion in our country. I'm just not sure dissent has to be accompanied by weapons. I don't think this violates the "no conspiracy theory" prohibition. These guys seem to think there's a conspiracy, alright, but they need some extra time to come up with a theory. Edit: I guessed correctly. Some further digging reveals it's by Paul Webber of the Associated Press. And I snipped it to avoid copyright infringement problems.

BASTROP, Texas No citizens were rounded up and imprisoned at Wal-Mart. Tanks didn't rumble down city streets in a declaration of martial law.

Eric Johnston wore his handgun on his hip Wednesday, but didn't really believe soldiers participating in one of the largest U.S. military training exercises in history were coming to confiscate it.

Still, he was ready if Jade Helm 15 came to the worst.

"I would like to think that if the situation were to turn afoul, many more of our people would stand up and come to assist," said Johnston, a retired Arizona sheriff's deputy and the Texas organizer of a national group called Counter Jade Helm.


Bastrop Mayor Ken Kesselus has spent weeks trying to dampen impressions that his city of 8,000 people is a hive of "wackos and conspiracy theorists."

"The last few weeks I've had 22 calls. One was from a guy in South Texas who thinks (President Barack) Obama is a communist, a Muslim and evil person and wanted me to warn everybody to hold onto their guns," Kesselus said. "The other 21 calls were from press."

To play off Rilgin's idea...

It is becoming a problem that some people are using the group concept to float critical posts without risking any criticism. Some very uncomplimentary posts originate with the groups, then appear as a latest thread or greatest thread, due to the excessive K&R from within the group. In other words, some people are manipulating the system to hide in a safe place and throw bombs at the opponents. I think this is cowardly and dishonest. It may conform to the rules of the group, as the rules have evolved, but it does not reflect well on Democratic Underground.

My suggestion is that uncomplimentary posts about an opponent be subject to copying to GD: primaries. I am absolutely not suggesting any form of banning, blocking, etc. Instead, a jury could decide whether or not to make a copy of the post and put it on general discussion. The original poster could be contacted to see if he or she would agree to put a copy on GD, before it was done "by force."

I know the groups have evolved as safe, warm places where everyone can agree with each other. That's fine, but now they're being used as shields against criticism, where a few people like to hide and lob insults out into the larger audience. If they want to do so, they should be prepared to receive criticism of their efforts, within the general rules for DU conduct, of course.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »