New York’s primary has rarely been more than a footnote in presidential history. But on Tuesday that all changed. Donald Trump won his home state by a substantial margin, while Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders, son of Brooklyn.

A prediction: The minute the results are final, Republican stalwarts will crank up the volume on calls for Gov. John Kasich to leave the race. He should ignore them. Mr. Sanders also has no reason to give up his fight.

Voters are keeping these also-ran candidates going. When Mr. Sanders loses in a state, he raises more money, not less. Voters consistently choose Mr. Kasich as the Republican most likely to beat Mrs. Clinton. This refusal to anoint a front-runner in either party appears in poll after poll, as dispirited voters declare that they simply don’t like Mr. Trump, Mr. Cruz or Mrs. Clinton. This should be a wake-up call to leaders of both parties. They are missing something big about their own members’ priorities, and their mood. A spirited nominating season might teach them what voters actually want from their president. So far, voters are saying they aren’t willing to settle for a party favorite, and don’t want to be cheated out of a choice.

THREAD TITLE: Clinton Calls Out Debate Moderators For Ignoring Women’s Health [View all]

Response to Little Star (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:29 PM

Star Member noretreatnosurrender (1,648 posts)

My Response:

51. She Did It to get applause because she was losing the crowd at that point. Once again she used us for her own political benefit. Not impressed.

Automated Message: You have been blocked from a group

Mail Message
You have been blocked from posting in the History of Feminism group by boston bean. If you believe this is an error, you may contact boston bean for more information.

FOR YEARS, THE Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United was depicted by Democrats as the root of all political evil. But now, the core argument embraced by the Court’s conservatives to justify their ruling has taken center stage in the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — because Clinton supporters, to defend the huge amount of corporate cash on which their candidate is relying, frequently invoke that very same reasoning.

Indeed, the Clinton argument actually goes well beyond the Court’s conservatives: In Citizens United, the right-wing justices merely denied the corrupting effect of independent expenditures (i.e., ones not coordinated with the campaign). But Clinton supporters in 2016 are denying the corrupting effect of direct campaign donations by large banks and corporations and, even worse, huge speaking fees paid to an individual politician shortly before and after that person holds massive political power.

Another critical aspect of the right-wing majority argument in Citizens United was that actual corruption requires proof of a “quid pro quo” arrangement: meaning that the politician is paid to vote a certain way (which is, basically, bribery). Prior precedent, said the Citizens United majority, “was limited to quid pro quo corruption,” quoting a prior case as holding that “the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.”

Does that sound familiar? It should. That, too, has become a core Clinton-supporting argument: Look, if you can’t prove that Hillary changed her vote in exchange for Goldman Sachs speaking fees or JPMorgan Chase donations (and just by the way, Elizabeth Warren believes she can prove that), then you can’t prove that these donations are corrupting. After all, argue Clinton supporters (echoing the Citizens United majority), “the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.”

Privacy advocates, however, have expressed concern about these sorts of automated judgments.

“When you have private companies deciding which algorithms get you a so-called threat score, or make you a person of interest, there’s obviously room for targeting people based on viewpoints or even unlawfully targeting people based on race or religion,” said Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

She added that there is a dangerous trend toward government relying on tech companies to “build massive dossiers on people” using “nothing but constitutionally protected speech.”

MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt came up dry on Tuesday as she tried to prove supporters at a Bernie Sanders rally were not registered Democrats. Reporting from outside a Sanders rally in Syracuse, Hunt noted that the massive crowd was lining up five hours in advance to see the candidate.

“Here’s my question for you guys,” Hunt said, addressing the Sanders supporters on live TV. “And this is going to be Bernie Sanders’ main problem here in New York — are y’all registered Democrats?”

“Yes,” the group replied.

As Hunt moved down the line, the answer again and again was “yes.”

“Anyone not registered?” Hunt pleaded.

“I am registered!” one man volunteered.

“Alright, there you go,” Hunt sighed. “I spent some time talking to people yesterday at another rally, and a lot of them are all set to go. But there is this issue with independent voters. If you didn’t change your voter registration earlier this year, you’re out of luck if you want to change it now and vote for Bernie Sanders.”

On Monday, MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald warned that “New York’s closed primary could be Bernie Sanders’ Achilles’ heel.”

But the way such consolidated settlements are structured means Goldman will not pay the full $5 billion price tag touted by Schneiderman.

The so-called “vampire squid” of the banking industry, which manages $861 billion in assets, will be able to write off $1.8 billion worth of consumer relief actions that Goldman must take under the settlement, for example. The same goes for $875 million in payments to settle related cases brought by Schneiderman, his Illinois counterpart Lisa Madigan, the National Credit Union Administration, and federally-backed housing lenders in Chicago and Seattle.

Less than half of the total sticker price — $2.385 billion — is structured as a civil penalty, which is generally not deductible. The settlement papers do prohibit Goldman from seeking FDIC reimbursement for any of the deal’s costs, but that language does not rule out simple deductions.

Schneiderman’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to questions about the Goldman settlement.

WHAT

In April 2016, more than 200 organizations representing a diverse array of movements and hundreds of thousands of people are coming together to demand a democracy that works for all of us – a nation where our votes are not denied and money doesn’t buy access and power. Join us as we converge upon Washington, D.C. for an array of actions, including demonstrations, teach-ins, direct action trainings, music, a Rally for Democracy, and pressing for a Congress of Conscience through non-violent direct action and advocacy. Together we will build a nation that is truly of, by and for the people.
WHY

American democracy is premised on the fundamental tenet, “one person, one vote,” but since the very beginning, we’ve had to fight for every voice to be heard and every vote to be counted.

Today, we’re fighting for change on many fronts – for action on climate change, racial justice, workers’ rights and fair pay, safe food and water, health care, peace, immigration reform and improvements in education. But an array of barriers are keeping regular Americans shut out of the political process, from restrictive voting laws suppressing the voting rights of people of color, seniors, students, and low-income Americans, to a campaign finance landscape that allows big money to increasingly shape elections and the policy-making process.

I was a political appointee in the second Clinton administration. It was an honor and privilege to serve our country in such a senior position, and I forever will be thankful and loyal to President Bill Clinton.

I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2008, as well as during the beginning of 2015, but I no longer can be her supporter. Why? Integrity, money, electability and Sen. Bernie Sanders. This has been a quite difficult decision for me, but it is the right decision, and one that I hope others make as well.

"I don't like her, I don't trust her, but I got to vote for her," is what I hear from my good friends and fellow Clinton voters. Until now, I felt I had to vote for her because of my loyalty to her husband and to the "establishment" that I was a part of during my service in our nation's capital, but given that I champion integrity to my students, I cannot do what my fellow voters may do.

“This was something that I know happens, and I know it happened to people in this room. It’s not hearsay. It happened to someone in my own office. One of my employees was registered as a particular party, went to go vote, and I don’t want to divulge his personal details, but it happened to him.”