Progressives (Liberals)

This gets sort of dicey, though. Does that mean that Sheldon Adelson is immune from criticism because someone might interpret it as anti-semitic? It doesn't make sense to expect "safe zones" to be erected around minority groups which prohibit others from recognizing and publicizing the existence of individual trolls and ogres within those communities. In fact, it's awful, and it's the kind of thing that inspires more hatred. No one likes to see enclaves of privilege protected from the rigors of political debate — hell, it's un-American!

You know the difference between political debate and depicting Adelson or Sanders as greedy, wealthy, miserly Jews.

Adelson is criticized for unduly influencing elections and candidates—a criticism that could easily be leveled against anyone of any religion or ethnic background.

It’s not having the money—it’s how you got it, what you do with it, and if you contribute your fair share from it. I feel like you know this.

Here I'm inclined to agree with Hightor. It's all too easy today to depict the criticism of nearly anyone as an attack on whatever group he/she is deemed to be identified with. Adelson made his fortune in the Las Vegas Hotel and Entertainment business, and is a well known philanthropist, and contributor to political campaigns. So are many similar Hollywood figures in the Hollywood Entertainment business, though most are less identified with philanthropy than political contributions. I suspect the ethnic identity matter is used mostly to criticize those with opposing political views.

I didn’t think anyone here would agree with me about the pervasive antisemitism in Politico’s attack against Bernie. No surprises here.

Well I haven't read Politico's criticism. However, the rivalries among the so called "protected" groups seeking control of the party agenda among Democrats is very intense, and as dedicated practitioners of these group values it is indeed plausible that Bernie was attacked based on membership in an unfavored group (or perhaps more likely) the lack of identity with the most favored groups. Narrow minded zealots are like that.

That seems unlike you — to come forth with an opinion without even seeing/reading the content being discussed.

We've probably discussed this to death but I'm glad you brought it to our attention. It's important to know people are saying. So I wanted to ask you if Politico regularly gets accused of anti-semitism, whether it's perceived as editorial policy, or whether individual reporters are responsible? Does Kruse have a history of alleged anti-semitism? Is he a chronic Sanders critic? I don't read enough pages on Politic or pieces by Kruse to know where he stands. (He did write a scathing critique of O'Rourke if that earns him any points.) My concern here is that if he's thought of as someone who is simply "out to get" Sanders, the it wouldn't surprise me if the charges of anti-semitism were more like knee-jerk defensiveness on the part of Sanders supporters rather than real concern within the Jewish community. Have any of the Jewish organizations which are quick to pounce on anti-semitic behavior joined in the criticism?

It's true, I don't know the details of Politico's criticism of Sanders. However, I am well aware of the evident resentments towards Sanders among the twenty or so aspiring Democrat candidates - all Bernie imitators - , and all so far unable to get past him in the polls.

(Wry smile). This may seem shocking, but I don’t formulate my opinions based on others’.

Actually, although Bernie’s Jewish, and aside from that, I support safety and human rights for Jewish people in general, I’m pretty critical of Israel and AIPAC.

AIPAC is corrupt as far as I’m concerned, so their opinion is meaningless to me. They attacked Ilhan Omar for an honest critique of Israel, and they’re conspicuously silent in the face of actual anti-Semitism against Bernie because he is vociferously critical of Israeli policies against Palestinians.

So, for plenty of reasons, I make my own judgements.

AOC and Warren teaming up on Mnuchin:

https://youtu.be/81qwEiwJbXE

I read the piece in Politico and another piece in CNBC just out about put out 4 hours ago. I think are both talking about some people thinking Bernie Sanders can't be a millionaire and criticize other millionaires. I don't see any anti-Semitism about it. Just like I didn't see anything anti-Semite about Omar's remarks regarding the Jewish lobby. I do wonder why the Jewish organizations were so vehement about Omar's remark and so far, I don't think, haven't said the same about the pieces in the news which talks about Bernie Sanders millions and fugal habits. None of which are sins in of themselves except he did used to act as though politicians who made money off of their positions in government were somehow unworthy. I think the latter is the point of the pieces mentioned.

On the whole impeachment, politically ya'll are right. However, on the merits there is more than enough to impeach whether the Senate removes Trump from office or not. For one thing, we would be in position to get the documents the house committees have been trying to get and foremost, it is the right thing to do regardless of politics. Trump and Barr (Henry the VIII and Cromwell) are in processs of tearing up the intelligence community and risking the lives of operatives and informants and risking Russia and other hostile country knowing the secret ways the intelligence community gathers their intelligence. The only way to stop Trump is by impeachment and exposing everything he has done since becoming President. Even if it don't stop him, at least there will be information out there for all those supporting the President to at least have it in the back of their minds. Regardless of how all the chips go down, it is the right thing to do. To me that is the bottom line. I have read and even agree with all the agreements not to (except the one of Trump has done nothing wrong) however, I still feel it is the right and true action we should take even if it makes us go down in flames.

OK by me, and, I suspect, Trump as well.

The House of Representatives can vote to impeach a president for any reason it desires, and the Senate can vote to convict or not also for any reason it desires

However I believe you have failed to consider the now, long overdue, but recently initiated investigation of the role of Obama appointees in the Justice Dept. and Intelligence community in the various Trump investigations that have so occupied the country , but produced nothing legally actionable.

.

I doubt it is ok by Trump. He can't stand any opposition or just plain disagreement in any shape or form. On the other hand, for those running his campaign, yes, it would probably be ok with them.

Making money ‘off’ your congressional job


=


taking bribes from corporations and millionaires/billionaires who profit from the votes you cast to enrich them, which many times also makes life more difficult for regular Americans


It is great to earn your paycheck as a public servant.
It is great to earn an honest living and become a millionaire.
It is good for you if you inherit millions.

It is bad if you are a public servant who has ‘somehow’ become a multimillionaire by doing nothing but serving in Congress (because you are taking bribes and screwing over our country.)

Look at this way. Say (I don't believe it) Bernie just saw a way to get ahead of his debts and pay his water bills and used his voice to con his believers, he could write books and the more he convinced the more books people would buy. The more people he convinced the more speeches he would be paid to speak. Didn't you once accuse the Clintons of such behavior? The venue wouldn't matter if the motives were the same.

Here's how Bernie Sanders made his millions — and why it matters in the 2020 election

According to the above, most of their income is mutual fund and annuity. Perhaps that is why people wanted to see his taxes.

Nether of us knows for sure what Trump thinks about the matter. However it is fairly safe to assume that Trump is well aware of (1) the strong sentiment for impeachment among the left wing contingent of Democrat representatives in the House, and (2) the reluctance on the part of the (perhaps) larger contingent of Democrat representatives concerned about its effect on their next election; and finally (3) Speaker Pelosi's efforts to span the gulf below her by focusing on Trump's supposed guilt while resisting efforts to impeach him.

Finally it is likely that Trump is also well aware of the likely findings in the forthcoming Justice Dept. IG investigation and the focus of its recently initiated criminal investigations; as well as, the contents of materials & documents likely to be soon declassified and released.

Recent statements by Trump suggest he is goading Pelosi to act on the impeachment matter. I believe it is likely he is counting on her unwillingness to do so, based on both Democrat political expectations for the forthcoming election and, as well, on new information likely to be released. In this area it is very interesting to note recent statements by Comey, Lynch, Brennen and Clapper : they appear to be getting nervous and are turning on each other.

Bernie doesn’t charge people to speak. If he did, I wouldn’t be excited about his candidacy.

So he has given no paid speeches in all his years of politics? You know that for sure? In any event his income and financial situation has improved with his success as a politician. I see nothing wrong with it as long as he still supports a progressive agenda and he does.