Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 52,852
Number of posts: 52,852
- 2015 (763)
- 2014 (1806)
- 2013 (1511)
- 2012 (260)
- 2011 (3)
- December (3)
- Older Archives
Republicans Should Help Bernie Sanders to Weaken Hillary
by Myra Adams June 25, 2015 4:00 AM
...This is a call to action for every Republican anxious to win back the White House in 2016.
Bernie Sanders, the socialist U.S. senator from Vermont, is now surging in his quest to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. He is attracting media attention and large crowds, and is invigorated by a New Hampshire–primary poll showing him only 10 points behind frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
After a GOP power player sent me a piece from left-leaning Salon headlined “Hillary Clinton is going to lose: She doesn’t even see the frustrated progressive wave that will nominate Bernie Sanders,” my heart went pitter-patter, beginning to sense an opportunity.
But it was not until I saw a headline in The Hill warning that the “Sanders surge is becoming a bigger problem for Clinton,” accompanied by “It may be time for Hillary Clinton to take the challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders more seriously,” that I was truly motivated to join Team Bernie and rally my fellow Republicans to do the same.
So I sent Bernie a donation and visited his campaign store, where my favorite bumper sticker was Vote for Bernie... you know you wanna!
Now, I don’t really wanna, and neither do you. However, supporting Bernie in the early stages of his campaign is a noble cause that makes a great deal of political sense and emboldens me to announce Operation Chaos 2016...
In the article, she remarks on the former efforts to do the same thing every two years since 2008. Bernie does not want a rightwing GOP in the White House.
BSers must purge aggressive 'supporters' for the good of the nation. They may vote for him now, but will not in the general. I believe they are here to set us against each other. We should not fall for it. I don't care who wins the primary because I'm going to vote for the winner. I have always loved Bernie, don't want his ideals dismissed if he faulters or fails.
When we were training and organizing mobilizations against the Vietnam War, we had to be alert for those who trying to discredit our ideals and our cause. Usually these were the ones who were aggressive and spoiling for a fight. We called them agent provocateurs, and that is what they were.
This is what I see online with the language being used against a Democrat. Easy to attack all of the Democrats if one isn't one. They don't believe what they are saying, just grab whatever media meme is available and are unable to give replies that aren't abusive in nature, because they don't respect us or our causes.
The quality of supporters does affect voting patterns. I was never interested in Hillary back in 2007 and 2008, even though I knew she was the victim of rightwing propaganda for years. When the PUMAs began their routine, it left a bitter taste and distrust I had a hard time overcoming. This is how I now feel about BS. It is not his fault. We're being RF'd from many sides. This election is a crucial one. The Koch brothers say they must win it and are going all out to do so. We are in a dangerous place right now. This is who Bernie is really trying to stop from taking over completely.
I don't like baggers or people who act like them. I can't believe some of this type would not be in positions of power. I don't wish to be under anyone's thumb. I've had enough of that to last a lifetime.
Posted by freshwest | Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:26 AM (0 replies)
Posted by freshwest | Sun Aug 2, 2015, 11:44 PM (1 replies)
Posted by freshwest | Sun Aug 2, 2015, 11:21 PM (0 replies)
It's Truly Terrifying That Some Pilots Earn Near Minimum Wage
By Emily Cohn - 02/12/2014
The next time you're flying in an airplane consider this: The person operating the aircraft might not be making much more than the person who made the Egg McMuffin you ate for breakfast.
That's right. According to the Wall Street Journal, new airline pilots rank among the lowest-paid workers in the country, with some regional pilots earning as little as $15,000 per year.
That's horrifying for a number of obvious reasons. For one, $15,000 -- or even $22,400 a year, the starting salary for pilots at 14 regional airlines -- is lower than the federal poverty line for a family of four in the U.S.
It's also startling because of the extraordinary price of becoming a pilot in the first place. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, airline pilots usually need a bachelor's degree, a pilot's license, and certification that requires hundreds of hours of flight training. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the cost of training flights alone can set you back more than $100,000...
More at the link:
'Flying Cheap': Buckle up, indeed
By Hank Stuever - February 9, 2010
Anyone who regularly travels to the less glamorous American cities knows what happens after a layover in the hub: Your ticket may say Delta or United or Continental, but that's not exactly true now, is it? For the last leg, to, say, Wichita, you're flying Colgan, Pinnacle -- who? Hunh?
Buckle up and enjoy a renewed sense of doom from watching -- what else? -- the always grim but journalistically committed "Frontline." In Tuesday night's installment, "Flying Cheap," producer Rick Young and aviation correspondent Miles O'Brien examine the unsavory business practices and regulation-skirting circumstances that may have led to the crash a year ago of Continental Flight 3407 in Buffalo, which killed 50 people. The flying had been outsourced to Manassas-based Colgan Air. (Results of a National Transportation Safety Board investigation last week blamed pilot error in the crash.)
"Frontline" almost never fails to make its case, but it seems fairly easy to make here, through interviews with former pilots, Federal Aviation Administration investigators and grieving relatives of those who died on Flight 3407. Cockpit transcripts reveal two underpaid, unexperienced pilots yawning and complaining about their grueling commutes. They lost control of their plane just a month after the nation had been celebrating the cool, experienced reserve shown by Chesley Sullenberger, who successfully landed his disabled US Airways jetliner in the Hudson River with no casualties. The difference? A captain like Sully is expensive.
That cheap ticket you found online is the byproduct of deregulation in the extreme, which allows major carriers to transfer to smaller carriers the high-cost (and all liabilities) of what once might have been a costlier, premium flight. According to "Frontline," half of all domestic flights are now handled by smaller carriers, no matter what the brand-name logo on the plane's tail might suggest. And, as it happens, the last six fatal crashes in the United States involved commuter flights.
For these carriers to turn a profit, "Frontline" reports, rookie pilots are pushed into the captain's (or first officer's) seats, and poorly paid. Although this isn't exactly news, "Flying Cheap's" most fascinating moments are when the cameras accompany an unidentified group of pilots into their "crash pad" -- a two-bedroom, airport-proximate apartment in an unnamed Northeastern city where as many as a dozen pilots split the rent. Forced to commute cross-country and then fly, some earn as little as $16,000 a year to start...
More at the link:
I remember when airline travel was really good. At times, not so good. I've been on flights with a lot of room, others like sardine cans. I remember getting on a special with American Airlines in the summer. So many flights were lined up, that we were left on the tarmack which was over 100 degrees for almost two hours with no water, drinks or A/C. I never took a special again, as my kid nearly had a heat stroke. They have really cut expenses with de-regulation.
Posted by freshwest | Sun Aug 2, 2015, 10:46 PM (0 replies)
Posted by freshwest | Sun Aug 2, 2015, 12:51 PM (0 replies)
Republicans made a deal with space aliens?
Does that not remind you of one of those 'good ol' boys' GOP?
Why are they in such a hurry to get so rich by looting the planet?
For who or what are they doing it for if they are still invested in being here?
Posted by freshwest | Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:37 PM (1 replies)
Take America back! How very Glenn Beck of him!
From women, minorities and those nasty emigrants, yup, that's really a liberal position, gonna go over big with Democrats.
And as far as Bernie's position on organized labor (unions) and the middle class the unions created:
Senator Rand Paul Submits A National Right To Work Bill
The battle over Right To Work States just took a monumental leap as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduces a National Right to Work (for less) Act...
This is an ideological and blatantly anti-union piece of legislation. It has no benefit to our nation as a whole. It will reduce the collective bargaining rights of millions of union workers and it turn will reduce the pay and benefits of the other 200 million workers in the US.
The national race to bottom has begun, soon Rand Paul will probably try to repeal all collective bargaining in the country!
...Is it any surprise that the National Right To Work committee made a nice donation to the Rand Paul for Senate campaign. Does it surprise you that the National RTW Committee spent over $2.2 Million dollars ‘lobbying’ in Washington D.C.? I am not surprised considering that there were no less than five Right To Work for less bills submitted in the 112 Congress...
Obama had to veto the Keystone stunt that the Koch brothers have demanded since 2009, but Rand had it on the front burner:
Rand Paul: GOP Senate will pass Keystone, address 400 stalled bills
By Paul Bedard • 10/20/14
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has spent months on the road promoting Republican candidates in 32 states, said the GOP is poised to take control of the Senate in the November election and immediately approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, address corporate taxes and reform prison laws.
“I’d be surprised if we don’t win the majority,” he told Secrets. “I think the wind is at our back, the president is increasingly unpopular,” said Paul, adding that there are some Democrats who "would probably run the other way if came to their state.”
Paul, who is mulling a 2016 presidential bid, is so confident of picking up the needed six Senate seats that he has already met with fellow Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s minority leader, to discuss what the new majority would do starting in January.
“We pass legislation,” he said. “I’ve talked with Sen. McConnell about this, he’s intent on passing legislation.”
Isn't he just too precious for words?
Now onto his stance on choice, or rather no choice at all:
Sen. Rand Paul introduces ‘fetal personhood’ bill to outlaw abortion
By Eric W. Dolan - 17 Mar 2013
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Friday introduced so-called “fetal personhood” legislation that would completely outlaw abortion in the United States.
The Life at Conception Act would declare that human life began at conception, providing fertilized eggs with the same legal status as born persons.
“The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known – that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Paul said in a statement. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”
In a fundraising video for the National Pro-Life Alliance last year, the Republican senator explained that the bill would outlaw abortion without contradicting the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Citing the ruling, Paul claimed Congress had the power to define when human life began under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
“The Court then admitted that if the personhood of an unborn baby is established, the right to abort ‘collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Amendment,'” he said...
It has been rejected by several states, but Rand has tried to push it through since 2012. He keeps on bringing it up. The O'Keefing of the PP in and edited video is part of the continuing assault on women's rights. It's not wonder that Hucklebee is empowered to call for the army to arrest all women that have had abortions legally after they make it illegal. That's retroactive punishment. With a GOP White House, HoR and Senate, this must may come to pass and with the data base that doctors have on patients, they just might come to the door. Freedom and liberty, huh?
More like RWNJ terrorism. There is a reason as many as can are moving out of the USA in fear of these people. This is not Bernie's stance on this issue. So who will support Rand?
I suggest only forced birth white males who believe women have no right to control their bodies.
Oh, and his stance on same-sex marriage. Is that Bernie's stance?
Rand Paul: "Humans Will Marry Non Humans Without DOMA"
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) on Wednesday worried the defeat of the Defense of Marriage Act could lead to the legalization of human-animal marriages.
“I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this,” Paul said on Glenn Beck’s radio show Wednesday morning. “But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans? You know, I mean. So there really are — the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation?”
“Historically, we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it,” the Kentucky Republican continued. “Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I’m kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It’s having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.”
Paul had previously said he opposed DOMA, a federal law that prohibited same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and protections. However, he only opposed the law because it potentially gave the Supreme Court an opening to legalize same-sex marriages nationwide.
After the USSC found same sex marriage Constitutional, he fed red meat to RWNJs:
Rand Paul Questions Government's Role in Marriage After Supreme Court Decision
Jun 29, 2015
“...While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract,” the Kentucky senator said in a Time op-ed published Sunday titled “Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether.”
“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage,” he continued. “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party...”
“Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals,” he said. “This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.”
Paul's silence in the day following the Supreme Court decision drew attention. His approach stood in contrast to those of many competitors and “to his voluble response on Thursday, when the justices upheld a key part of the Affordable Care Act,” Politico wrote, and “fits the pattern” set when he initially remained quiet about 2012 nominee Mitt Romney's call to remove the Confederate flag from South Carolina state capitol grounds.
That's it, Rand. Take your little red marriage wagon and go home since the 14th Amendment allows Equal Protection Under the Law. Oh, that terrible, nasty US Constitution...
There are so many examples of how Libertarians are the exact opposite of Democrats and Bernie. Like oil and water...
Posted by freshwest | Sat Aug 1, 2015, 05:31 PM (0 replies)
Nerdy Wonka is keenly on point. TOD doesn't miss anything. Humility. Yes. How many, myself included,
have tried to write the experience as the same. It cannot be so. That's when it's time to not post and just listen. The rage, frustration, the language.
We are on the same planet, yet living alternative realities. Tread carefully, show Namaste:
"I bow to the God within you" or "The Spirit within me salutes the Spirit in you" - knowing we're all made from the same One Divine Consciousness.
Greeting the Dalai Lama at the February 5, 2015 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.
Posted by freshwest | Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:49 PM (2 replies)
Or support some local farmers?
Full disclosure: I'm not keen on importing food here. The USA could be a breadbasket nation (more than it may already seen as)
if people quit going with pretty, but unproductive lawns.
I feel certain that Venezuela's climate is good enough to raise its own food. Modernized ways of trade don't seem to work for so-called 'poor' countries. But then, VZ shouldn't be 'poor' and I'm not sure what the percentages of poverty are.
I don't care if anything down there is natioalized, IF IT WORKS.
If it doesn't work - WHY?
You know more anbout VZ than anyone else spewing about it here at DU. Is VZ over populated or urbanized to the extent they cannot grow their own? Did they grow too fast and didn't have the infrastructure to sustain things?
An example of Scandinavian Socialism. called the Nordic Model, which WORKS, shows it is a combination of capitalism, free markets, social safety nets and unversal features.
I first thought that VZ was trying to follow this model. So I was in favor of it. Perhaps some DUers think ALL socialist systems are the same, so VZ really is GREAT.
But they are only held back by nasty American Imperialism and their leaders can never be at fault because they are oppressed by the USA. I say they have the wrong kind of management to run a successful socialist society. For one thing, abortion is illegal. This is not a liberal thing and does not respect the right of women - half he population, to control this and those steps that are used prior to it.
AFAIK, they may not even allow birth control, although they have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in SA . This takes peopel from the workforce and IMO, dumbs down the population. Not that being a wife and mother requre that - but you have no option in controlling that aspect of life, why chase getting and education or job?
Here is what I posted a while back, excuse the length, but I feel Maduro supporters think this is what he's trying to do, so they believe they're defending this:
The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state.
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state (relative to other developed countries) which is aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights, as well as for stabilizing the economy, alongside a commitment to free trade. The Nordic model is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.
The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large public sector (roughly 30% of the work force). In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies" while also looking for ways to temper capitalism’s harsher effects, and declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world." The Nordic combination of extensive public provision of welfare and a culture of individualism has been described by Lars Trägårdh, of Ersta Sköndal University College, as "statist individualism." Some economists have referred to the Nordic economic model as a form of "cuddly" capitalism, with low levels of inequality, generous welfare states and reduced concentration of top incomes, and contrast it with the more "cut-throat" capitalism of the United States, which has high levels of inequality and a larger concentration of top incomes.
The Nordic model, however, is not a single identical set of policies and rules in every country; each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbors. While Sweden's neoliberal reforms have reduced the role of the public sector over the last decades, and saw the fastest growth in inequality of any OECD economy, Sweden's income inequality still remains lower than most other countries'.
"The Nordic Model - Embracing globalization and sharing risks" characterizes the system as follows:
* An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.
* Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.
* Public pension plans.
* Low barriers to free trade. This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.
* Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.
* Low levels of corruption. In Transparency International's 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 12 least corrupt of 176 evaluated countries, and Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway all ranked within top 5.
* High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2010, labour union density was 69.9% in Finland, 68.3% in Sweden, and 54.8% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 12.9% in Mexico and 11.3% in the United States. The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.
* A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law. Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible. The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms. At the same time, reforms and favourable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark's Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996 (see flexicurity).
* Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending. One key reason for public spending is the large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programmes is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
* Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.
* Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011), and Finland (43.3%), compared to non-Nordic countries like Germany (34.7%), Canada (33.5%), and Ireland (30.5%).
* The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.
* The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation's 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.
The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare policies of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labor market policies.
While there are differences among different Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society, and maximizing public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through taxation.
Despite the common values, the Nordic countries take different approaches to the practical administration of the welfare state. Denmark features a high degree of private sector provision of public services and welfare, alongside an assimilation immigration policy. Iceland's welfare model is based on a "welfare-to-work" (see: workfare) model, while part of Finland's welfare state includes the voluntary sector playing a significant role in providing care for the elderly. Norway relies most extensively on public provision of welfare...
Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" economics which features a blend of capitalist and socialist visions. According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies intended to improve capitalism as opposed to a system to replace capitalism. Kenworthy advocates for the U.S. to make a gradual transition to an economic system similar to those of the Nordic countries. United States Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described democratic socialist, has been a strong proponent of the Nordic system. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has noted that there is higher social mobility in the Scandinavian countries than in the United States, and argues that Scandinavia is now the land of opportunity that the United States once was.
According to Naomi Klein, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sought to move the USSR in a similar direction to the Nordic system, combining free markets with a social safety net — but still retaining public ownership of key sectors — ingredients that he believed would transform the USSR into "a socialist beacon for all mankind."
If you have the time (and I know we all get sidetracked) to be so as to answer my first questions and then read and analyze the Nordic Model and tell how Maduro is or is not working for that model, which is similar to what the USA used in a time of prosperity and social unity.
And I agree, no one should be cheering the failure of things in VZ is there is no solution to replace it. Good luck to VZ. TIA.
Posted by freshwest | Fri Jul 31, 2015, 01:17 AM (0 replies)