Again, you are 100% wrong.
I am quite aware of what’s up in politics this year.
And there’s this: your = belonging to you
*you're* = contraction of *you are.*Yes, I know her (well, I know of her). She’s very capable and well respected.
That sounds great, but the issue that will dog Hillary is Bill’s involvement as a fund raiser for them. It’s one thing for a first spouse to go out and advocate for little kids reading, or eating vegetables. It’s quite another when they are cashing multi-million dollar checks that pay into the family foundation. I’m not knocking the foundation, I’m just saying that ethically speaking this is very new ground.
I understand that Congress allows its members to have foundations, PACs, and other fund-raising organizations. That reeks of corruption too, but congress is a debating body. An individual congress person doesn’t have much power other than their vote and the ability to introduce legislation for consideration. The President, on the other hand, can dispatch the most powerful armies, fleets, and aircraft the world has ever seen with a phone call, and oversees a massive global intelligence network that has powers too.
It may sound like I’m being unreasonable to expect the President to adhere to a much higher ethical standard but it really isn’t. George W. Bush used all that power unethically with the Iraq war. The only thing his administration did competently in that whole fiasco was to secure the mining rights for his 0.01% buddies in the oil industry. I know this isn’t new for American presidents - we did a lot of gunboat diplomacy early in the 20th Century, the West used to belong to Indian nations, etc - but it really needs to stop.
Obama has thankfully not followed in Bush’s footsteps, but he didn’t reset the ethical bar by prosecuting Bush administration folks for violating the war crimes act either. I wish he had because the standard is still set very low. I have friends in the military. If either Trump or Clinton take office I fear that they will be deployed for “muscular foreign policy” initiatives that don’t make us safer but do make their 0.1% friends richer. Tulsi Gabbard thinks the same way, which is why we both support Sanders.
So yes, I think Bill should step down and put the Clinton Foundation into a blind trust. I’m sure there are people who believe that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” does not apply when the Clintons are involved, but I’m not one of them.
1 Like
I understand the concerns. I think things along what you describe to minimize any perceptions of conflicts of interest, or actual conflicts, would be recommended if Clinton is elected.
Maybe Shalala’s appointment was the first step in that process.
Yes I can see your political prowess. I voice my view as a member of your party and you attack me personally quite a canvasser you make. Change is in the Air and it will take a few cycles. We will be looking at a new DNC, because the young not only need it but will demand it and if you don’t bend you will break. That was my point but if went over your head.
1 Like
This was helpful
1 Like
Yeah, it’s so odd as though they are willfully ignoring the actual words and projecting some sort of spin based on their own cynical motives. But at least, the GOP is worse about how it manipulates dissenting opinions, right?
1 Like
Having now seen the complete remarks, I think it’s important to note that the article is inherently misleading. Immediately following the two halves of a single quote that TPM offered, Sanders continued to say that both Democratic candidates would of course do everything possible to make sure the Republicans don’t win the White House, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. So really, when taken in full context, it seems very much like Sander’s remarks were actually far more in line with the ‘look, I can’t order anyone to vote in a particular way, but of course I’m going to pitch in’ approach that I outlined.
And TPM, quite frankly, should be utterly ashamed of removing the part of the response to Hayes’ question that completely reversed the intent of the answer.To take this quote out of context in such a way as to reverse the Senator’s intent is at the very least an example of inherent bias that TPM is making no effort to acknowledge and work to minimize, and at most outright journalistic malfeasance on the order of Fox News.
Mr. Marshall, if you read these comments (and I know that expecting you to actually follow up on the comments on a story more than 24h old is unlikely), I urge you to curb this disturbing trend in both your reporters and your editorial panel. While the writer bears the responsibility of accurate reporting, the editors on this piece either failed their due diligence, or potentially removed the relevant conclusion to the quote.
1 Like
I was thinking this morning how do you get a true believer to open their eyes to what has happened to the DNC. Please take a look at these links. I quoted bits of them below in case you did not feel the need to read them.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/19/3770542/bernie-hillary-dnc-fundraising/
"So do Sanders’ accusations hold water?”
“This is the type of mega, mega joint
fundraising committee that we all feared would come into existence if
McCutcheon were ruled the wrong way, which it was,” said Craig
Holman with Public Citizen. “It makes maximum use of the loose
rules governing joint fundraising. They’re using big checks to set
up a small donor fundraising campaign and turning over the small
donors to the Hillary campaign while keeping the large ones for the
party. It is permissible, but it’s offensive, and it should be
illegal.”
Both Holman and Larry Noble with the
Campaign Legal Center emphasized that it’s extremely unusual and
possibly unprecedented for a party to raise so much money for a
candidate before the general election. "
Now as far as these super-delegates, two quotes and a link
“They can also influence the Primaries by endorsing a candidate even before the Primary Elections take place.
"Super delegates exist
really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t
have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots
activists” Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the
Democratic National Committee (CNN)
Read more at
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/03/20/do-super-delegates-violate-our-constitutional-rights
Now with all your years of political experience did you not find it just a little strange that with all the Democratic Politicians out there only two people stepped forward to run. One fighting the rigged system and one part of the insider group.
Mind you I will vote for Hillary but the party has left me and my need for a democratic process behind. Fortunately for the DNC the prospect of Trump winning the election and putting Judge Judy on the Supreme Court is a little too much for many to buck the system.
1 Like
The 2008 election seemed real. This election seems scripted, and by a playwright who isn’t very good. We have the evil villain, the princess, the comic relief. All it needs is costumes and it would fit nicely into pro-wrestling, whose contests are so realistic. Democracy is dead, all we’re getting now is bread and circuses, and Republicans resent us getting the bread.
1 Like
I like how it starts by calling Krugman a New York Times columnist.
1 Like
That’s our Bernie. Always pissing on the parade. You lost, Bernie. Get over it and be a team player for once in your life.
1 Like
We’re lucky to have Krugman, that he just keeps working and stands up to it all. An example, like Obama, of how to be.
What a loss for clueless newbies to see him poisoned by the Bros. Et tu, Taibbi. It breaks my heart.
1 Like
Fuck Krugman. Selling his soul for Clinton appointment as econ advisor. Pompous ass.
Siglitz and Bill Black unafraid to call out Obama or Hillary.
Krugman has long said he has no desire or need for office. But you didn’t know that.
Nader says it all.
The answer is definitively NO super delegates do not violate our constitutional rights. There really is no question here. It’s not even a remotely close call.
Health & Human Services / Food & Drug Admin
1 Like
You can send comments using the link under the main TPM banner box.
That was not the point, it is about the power that they have, if you read the thread.
It’s interesting – in 2008 we heard endless commentary about how it was Clinton’s responsibility to bring voters over to Obama – which she worked hard to do – and this cycle it is, again, not just Bernie’s who is saying she has total responsibility to heal the division in the party, but the same media that said it was the loser’s job – her job – to do it last time. The double standard is still firmly in place.
Of course, if you watched how he was really campaigning (rather than just repeating back his claims that he doesn’t and wouldn’t campaign dirty) – with McCarthyite guilt by association, dishonest character assassination and the not at all subtle insinuation that both Clinton and the entire party is corrupt – you knew he had no intention of doing anything to help the Democratic candidate once he lost. The Democrats will be lucky if he doesn’t actively work to undermine the party and Clinton. By his and his surrogates actions so far, it doesn’t look like they will be that lucky.
As for him bringing young people into the party? He’s peddled nothing but cynicism and paranoia and lies – and he’s already claiming he lost because the game was rigged. If they believe in this old fraud, and believe the lies he tells, why would those young supporters EVER vote for a Democrat?
1 Like