It's understandable that the eulogies were somewhat exaggerated. The system must be preserved before anything else; even the truth.
The following piece comes from someone looking on the other side of Antonin Scalia.
Monday, February 22, 2016
ESTABLISHMENT RIGGED TO "SELECT" HILLARY
Bernie may well win the popular vote but lose the nomination to Hillary. How? What happened to the "one-person-one-vote" doctrine of the democratic process?
It seem the Establishment has built in safeguards created to prevent what the DNC chairperson called, "grassroots activists" from threatening what has long been cronyism exploited by big money interests who buy favors in return for cash.
Here's how it is playing out in the 2016 Democratic primaries;
Lobbyists are not only staffing and financing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they’re also tipping the nomination process in her favor by serving as so-called superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic primary by more than 22 percentage points and by doing so, earned 15 delegates to Clinton’s 9. So it came as a shock to many observers when Clinton, despite losing the second biggest rout in state history, walked away with the same number of delegates.
That’s because Clinton had the support of six New Hampshire unpledged delegates — better known as superdelegates — consisting of prominent elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee, who have the same power as the delegates chosen by voters. An Associated Press survey found that superdelegates nationally overwhelmingly supported Clinton.
There are 712 superdelegates in all, which is about 15 percent of the total delegates available and 30 percent of the total needed to win the nomination. If the nomination process is close, superdelegates may effectively pick the party’s presidential nominee, potentially overriding the will of voters.
The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:
Jeff Berman, well-known for his delegate-strategy work in the past, is being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to organize her delegate-counting effort while himself being a superdelegate. A “top lobbyist” at Bryan Cave LLP, Berman previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company Geo Group and as a lobbyist helping TransCanada build support for the Keystone XL.
Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheen’s firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshire’s Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
Joanne Dowdell, another New Hampshire superdelegate, is the senior vice president for global government affairs at News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News. Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators.
Superdelegates Jill Alper, Minyon Moore, and Maria Cardona are officials at Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Alper and Moore are Clinton advisers who have raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Dewey Square Group, as we’ve reported, was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage. The firm has previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.
Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos’ current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines.
Emily Giske, also a lobbyist in New York City, is registered to work on behalf of Airbnb, Yum Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell), Pfizer, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.
Although they make up only a small proportion of the superdelegates, the presence of lobbyists in such a potentially decisive role adds fuel to the critique that the Democratic Party is influenced by monied special interests.
In recent months, the DNC quietly repealed rules instituted by Barack Obama that banned lobbyists from donating to the party.
It seem the Establishment has built in safeguards created to prevent what the DNC chairperson called, "grassroots activists" from threatening what has long been cronyism exploited by big money interests who buy favors in return for cash.
Here's how it is playing out in the 2016 Democratic primaries;
Lobbyists are not only staffing and financing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they’re also tipping the nomination process in her favor by serving as so-called superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic primary by more than 22 percentage points and by doing so, earned 15 delegates to Clinton’s 9. So it came as a shock to many observers when Clinton, despite losing the second biggest rout in state history, walked away with the same number of delegates.
That’s because Clinton had the support of six New Hampshire unpledged delegates — better known as superdelegates — consisting of prominent elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee, who have the same power as the delegates chosen by voters. An Associated Press survey found that superdelegates nationally overwhelmingly supported Clinton.
There are 712 superdelegates in all, which is about 15 percent of the total delegates available and 30 percent of the total needed to win the nomination. If the nomination process is close, superdelegates may effectively pick the party’s presidential nominee, potentially overriding the will of voters.
The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:
Jeff Berman, well-known for his delegate-strategy work in the past, is being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to organize her delegate-counting effort while himself being a superdelegate. A “top lobbyist” at Bryan Cave LLP, Berman previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company Geo Group and as a lobbyist helping TransCanada build support for the Keystone XL.
Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheen’s firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshire’s Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
Joanne Dowdell, another New Hampshire superdelegate, is the senior vice president for global government affairs at News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News. Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators.
Superdelegates Jill Alper, Minyon Moore, and Maria Cardona are officials at Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Alper and Moore are Clinton advisers who have raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Dewey Square Group, as we’ve reported, was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage. The firm has previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.
Jennifer Cunningham is the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that provides a variety of services, including advertising and direct lobbying of public officials. In recent years, SKDKnickerbocker helped a coalition of corporate clients lobby the Obama administration on a tax cut for overseas earnings; lobbied for weakened rules governing for-profit colleges; and helped a food industry group undermine Michelle Obama’s nutrition guidelines for foods marketed to children. Recent records show that the firm is providing consulting work for Independence USA PAC, the Super PAC backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos’ current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines.
Emily Giske, also a lobbyist in New York City, is registered to work on behalf of Airbnb, Yum Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell), Pfizer, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.
Although they make up only a small proportion of the superdelegates, the presence of lobbyists in such a potentially decisive role adds fuel to the critique that the Democratic Party is influenced by monied special interests.
In recent months, the DNC quietly repealed rules instituted by Barack Obama that banned lobbyists from donating to the party.
Friday, February 19, 2016
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ HAS HER "ROMNEY" MOMENT
We have all heard Mitt Romeny on tape, writing off 47% of the Electorate and branding them losers. What he said was vicious and volatile but expected from a Republican pander to people who paid $50,000.00 to listen to that garbage
It's not something one would expect from a Democrat,let alone the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.
Because of this system, the Washington Post points out, Sanders could technically win the primary election, earning a majority of the 1,670 delegates determined by actual voting, but still lose the Democratic Party’s nomination, if Clinton gets most of the party’s 712 unelected unpledged delegates.
Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.
It's not something one would expect from a Democrat,let alone the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.
The topic was "super delegates" and the question DWS was asked in a CNN interview was;
“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.Her response was remarkably both candid and alarming;
“Unpledged 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 grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.
Grassroots activists? Is that DNC code for Bernie Sanders?
Grassroots activists? Is that DNC code for Bernie Sanders?
Because of this system, the Washington Post points out, Sanders could technically win the primary election, earning a majority of the 1,670 delegates determined by actual voting, but still lose the Democratic Party’s nomination, if Clinton gets most of the party’s 712 unelected unpledged delegates.
Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.
Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists” - Salon.com
Fortunately for voters there is one "grass roots" candidate the DNC Establishment is not going to be able to stop; Bernie Sanders
Sanders supporters demand that superdelegates follow 'the will of voters'
Fortunately for voters there is one "grass roots" candidate the DNC Establishment is not going to be able to stop; Bernie Sanders
Sanders supporters demand that superdelegates follow 'the will of voters'
Thursday, February 18, 2016
DNC CONFIRMS SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST "GRASS ROOTS" CANDIDATES
You have to say one thing about the Democratic Party Establishment; they have got "big balls" even if the chairperson is a woman.
The hot potato was "super delegates"
Because of this system, the Washington Post points out, Sanders could technically win the primary election, earning a majority of the 1,670 delegates determined by actual voting, but still lose the Democratic Party’s nomination, if Clinton gets most of the party’s 712 unelected unpledged delegates.
Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.
“Unpledged 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 grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.
Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists” - Salon.com
Fortunately for voters there is one "grass roots" candidate the DNC Establishment is not going to be able to stop; Bernie Sanders
Sanders supporters demand that superdelegates follow 'the will of voters'
The hot potato was "super delegates"
Because of this system, the Washington Post points out, Sanders could technically win the primary election, earning a majority of the 1,670 delegates determined by actual voting, but still lose the Democratic Party’s nomination, if Clinton gets most of the party’s 712 unelected unpledged delegates.
Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.
The question asked of the chairperson in a CNN interview was;
“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.Her answer was;
“Unpledged 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 grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.
Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists” - Salon.com
Fortunately for voters there is one "grass roots" candidate the DNC Establishment is not going to be able to stop; Bernie Sanders
Sanders supporters demand that superdelegates follow 'the will of voters'
FRANCIS; PEOPLE THAT WANT A WALL (70% REPUBLICANS) ARE NOT CHRISTIAN
The question was about Trump, but the answer applies to the majority of Republican (70%) who want the wall.
As far as voters are concerned – and not just Republicans - Donald Trump has a winning formula for fighting illegal immigration.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters agree with the GOP presidential hopeful that the United States should build a wall along the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration. Seventeen percent (17%) of GOP voters disagree, while 13% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Ninety-two percent (92%) of Republicans agree that the United States should deport all illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony in this country. Only four percent (4%) disagree.
Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border; 37% disagree, and 12% are not sure. Eighty percent (80%) support the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11% are opposed.
As far as voters are concerned – and not just Republicans - Donald Trump has a winning formula for fighting illegal immigration.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters agree with the GOP presidential hopeful that the United States should build a wall along the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration. Seventeen percent (17%) of GOP voters disagree, while 13% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Ninety-two percent (92%) of Republicans agree that the United States should deport all illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony in this country. Only four percent (4%) disagree.
Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border; 37% disagree, and 12% are not sure. Eighty percent (80%) support the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11% are opposed.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
ARE YOU A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR ?
I think the question is moot. The real choice is between the Establishment or the Anti-Establishment candidates. In 2016 it boils down to two candidates; Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump both who's ideology is diametrically the opposite, but both of which represents an alternative to a political Establishment that offers little or no choice on how we are governed.
The establishment holds all the power and panders to those who hire them to exert it. It's no wonder that so many Americans don't vote. They have no one who will represent them to vote for. What we are witnessing in 2016 is about to change all that.
Remember the age-old question, what do all those with power want? More power. As such, two monopolies have dominated American politics for over 150 years-the Democratic Party, founded in 1828, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854. Together, they form a political cartel, or an association of political parties with the purpose of maintaining concentrated power and restricting or repressing competition. Throughout the past century its loosely managed agreements, often wholly unofficial, but embedded deep within its standard operation, have been the quasi-coordinated production, distribution, and enforcement of a set of normalized choices which reflect only the range of needs of private corporate power.
Essentially, to solidify and gain greater control, the two parties staked out a set of positions within a predetermined and standardized framework which express the basic ideas of the status quo. This way any "new" solutions about what might be possible tend toward ideas which pose no serious danger to the framework itself, which produce reforms only capable of gutting radical resistance while leaving the underlying problems intact. Any outliers are assimilated or positioned to enhance the strength of current institutions. In other words, all ideas must first be filtered through the umbrella of the Democrat-Republican cartel, which dictates the pedigree of ideas both old and new, and therefore severely limiting any competition from threatening its hegemony. (see; How the United States' Two Major Parties Helped Destroy Democracy)
Whether you realize it or not there is very little space between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to "rigging" the system. Both of these Establishment parties use the same tricks and strategies to secure the special interests of those that hire them.
Thanks to both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Main Street Americans are wising up and it shows when both sides are much more apt to support the "Anti-Establishment" under dogs.
Sanders and Trump only took on the label of Republican and Democrat because it's the only way to play in a rigged system.
It's surprising that Establishment Republicans are only now noticing that their people are flocking to Trump. Even when he bad mouths their standard bearers and get's booed off the stage he still remains the #1 choice.
It's no surprise that Bernie is burning the Democratic Establishment as bad as he is given how poorly they do in representing people who vote Democrat. Even though Hillary Clinton may be qualified to run for president she is sorely unqualified when it comes to representing voters vs special interests who's money she has no problem taking.
What's different about 2016 is that Americans have a real choice; be they on the left or right of the political stage. Many Americans who stayed at home in previous are out in force for the first time and they are having an impact on the Establishment that will reverberate for may years regardless who the winner is in November 2016.
The establishment holds all the power and panders to those who hire them to exert it. It's no wonder that so many Americans don't vote. They have no one who will represent them to vote for. What we are witnessing in 2016 is about to change all that.
Remember the age-old question, what do all those with power want? More power. As such, two monopolies have dominated American politics for over 150 years-the Democratic Party, founded in 1828, and the Republican Party, founded in 1854. Together, they form a political cartel, or an association of political parties with the purpose of maintaining concentrated power and restricting or repressing competition. Throughout the past century its loosely managed agreements, often wholly unofficial, but embedded deep within its standard operation, have been the quasi-coordinated production, distribution, and enforcement of a set of normalized choices which reflect only the range of needs of private corporate power.
Essentially, to solidify and gain greater control, the two parties staked out a set of positions within a predetermined and standardized framework which express the basic ideas of the status quo. This way any "new" solutions about what might be possible tend toward ideas which pose no serious danger to the framework itself, which produce reforms only capable of gutting radical resistance while leaving the underlying problems intact. Any outliers are assimilated or positioned to enhance the strength of current institutions. In other words, all ideas must first be filtered through the umbrella of the Democrat-Republican cartel, which dictates the pedigree of ideas both old and new, and therefore severely limiting any competition from threatening its hegemony. (see; How the United States' Two Major Parties Helped Destroy Democracy)
Whether you realize it or not there is very little space between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to "rigging" the system. Both of these Establishment parties use the same tricks and strategies to secure the special interests of those that hire them.
Thanks to both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Main Street Americans are wising up and it shows when both sides are much more apt to support the "Anti-Establishment" under dogs.
Sanders and Trump only took on the label of Republican and Democrat because it's the only way to play in a rigged system.
It's surprising that Establishment Republicans are only now noticing that their people are flocking to Trump. Even when he bad mouths their standard bearers and get's booed off the stage he still remains the #1 choice.
It's no surprise that Bernie is burning the Democratic Establishment as bad as he is given how poorly they do in representing people who vote Democrat. Even though Hillary Clinton may be qualified to run for president she is sorely unqualified when it comes to representing voters vs special interests who's money she has no problem taking.
What's different about 2016 is that Americans have a real choice; be they on the left or right of the political stage. Many Americans who stayed at home in previous are out in force for the first time and they are having an impact on the Establishment that will reverberate for may years regardless who the winner is in November 2016.
NEED A PHOTO ID? GO TO VOTER.ID.GOV
Sorry. There's no such link; just trying to make a point and suggest that maybe there should be a site that anyone who wants to vote could go to and get a photo ID with little or no fuss or muss.
It's really simple. Much like filing an income tax return, or applying for a credit card. All that would be required is having a social security or tax id number, and access to a cell phone camera and the internet. Oh! and the government creating a site to which you could log on to fill out a short form, submit your SS# and photo and voila! You get your ID in an email or your mail box.
Now why didn't Republicans (or Democrats) think of that?
Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states. - The Washington Post
It's really simple. Much like filing an income tax return, or applying for a credit card. All that would be required is having a social security or tax id number, and access to a cell phone camera and the internet. Oh! and the government creating a site to which you could log on to fill out a short form, submit your SS# and photo and voila! You get your ID in an email or your mail box.
Now why didn't Republicans (or Democrats) think of that?
Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states. - The Washington Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)