Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Nov, 2019 07:10 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
It's more than "echoes". It's ******* nostalgia. It's fascinating that we're approaching the third decade of this century and the only energy in the Democratic Party comes from those pushing shopworn versions of class struggle which haven't changed much since the late nineteenth century, and trying to tap into the energy of the New Deal which died with Taft-Hartley. Doesn't anyone notice that times have changed — radically?


Bravo!
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 02:04 am
Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, talks to Rachel Maddow about the group’s call for Democratic presidential candidates to sign a pledge promising unity and a primary that is a real contest of ideas ending with all participants coming together to support the eventual nominee.


Published April 26, 2019

0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 02:13 am
Published November 4, 2019


Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 02:25 am

Tom Perez Sucks at His Job and 2 others liked

Joseph Saltarelli
@JoeJSaltarelli
·
14h
“You sit there, and you’re so stressed out that you start crying, and your own daughter offers her change jar to you.”😤
Health care crisis remains central issue on average American’s mind because our leaders have neglected to fix it over decades. And no, ObamaCare didn’t fix it.
Quote Tweet

Sarah Kliff
@sarahkliff
· Nov 8
A mom took her 4-year-old daughter to the Children's hospital in Wisconsin.

She ended up with a bill for $2,242. She couldn't afford it.

The hospital took her to court, garnished her paycheck, and she fell behind on her mortgage.

https://nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/hospitals-lawsuits-medical-debt.html
Show this thread
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 02:41 am
Liz’s mask is slipping. Her numbers are tanking and she’s lashing out at journalists who are asking pertinent questions.

Her entire story has been inflated by a corrupt media.

We see you, faker.
—————————
Bro From Long Ago
@SocialistLora
·
20h
Her folksy aw shucks mask slipped.
Quote Tweet

DSA Otherkin Caucus ❼
@QueenInYeIIow
· Nov 9
Elizabeth Warren berates Amy Goodman for asking her a reasonable question she refuses to answer, then ends the interview by replying to Goodman's "thank you" with a scoffed "yeah."

Her disdain for the left couldn't be more blatant.
—————————
Better vote Bernie!
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 05:22 am
One of the five or six most vitally important reasons why you should vote for Bernie Sanders. We need oligarchs to stop controlling what we are told is news.
__________________

https://www.cjr.org/opinion/bernie-sanders-media-silicon-valley.php

Op-Ed: Bernie Sanders on his plan for journalism
By Bernie Sanders
AUGUST 26, 2019
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.
WALTER CRONKITE ONCE SAID that “journalism is what we need to make democracy work.” He was absolutely right, which is why today’s assault on journalism by Wall Street, billionaire businessmen, Silicon Valley, and Donald Trump presents a crisis—and why we must take concrete action.

Real journalism is different from the gossip, punditry, and clickbait that dominates today’s news. Real journalism, in the words of Joseph Pulitzer, is the painstaking reporting that will “fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, [and] always fight demagogues.” Pulitzer said that journalism must always “oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.”

When we have had real journalism, we have seen crimes like Watergate exposed and confronted, leading to anti-corruption reforms. When we have lacked real journalism, we have seen crimes like mortgage fraud go unnoticed and unpunished, leading to a devastating financial crisis that destroyed millions of Americans’ lives.

Real journalism requires significant resources. One reason we do not have enough real journalism in America right now is because many outlets are being gutted by the same forces of greed that are pillaging our economy.

For example, two Silicon Valley corporations—Facebook and Google—control 60 percent of the entire digital advertising market. They have used monopolistic control to siphon off advertising revenues from news organizations. A recent study by the News Media Alliance, a trade organization, found that in 2018, as newspaper revenues declined, Google made $4.7 billion off reporting that Google did not pay for.

At the same time, corporate conglomerates and hedge fund vultures have bought and consolidated beleaguered local newspapers and slashed their newsrooms—all while giving executives big payouts. Gannett’s proposed merger with Gatehouse Media, for instance, will consolidate hundreds of publications under one mega-corporation’s control and slash $300 million worth of “synergies”—which is often corporate-speak for layoffs. Matt Pearce, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, notes that “the new Gannett/Gatehouse CEO is getting $4.5 million in bonuses and stock just for walking in the door.”

Sign up for CJR's daily email

The result of these trends has been the decimation of journalism. Over the past 15 years, more than 1,400 communities across the country have lost newspapers, which are the outlets local television, radio, and digital news sites rely on for reporting. Since 2008, we have seen newsrooms lose 28,000 employees—and in the past year alone, 3,200 people in the media industry have been laid off. Today, for every working journalist, there are six people now working in public relations, often pushing a corporate line.

At precisely the moment when we need more reporters covering the healthcare crisis, the climate emergency, and economic inequality, we have television pundits paid tens of millions of dollars to pontificate about frivolous political gossip, as local news outlets are eviscerated.

The negative effects are predictable: according to a working paper by researchers at Notre Dame and the University of Illinois, when newsrooms are hollowed out, overall costs to taxpayers rise, because there are fewer reporters scrutinizing government transactions. A study published by Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, a non-partisan forum, found that, despite millions of Americans struggling to survive, budget-strapped “newsrooms have not turned their attention to poverty.”

To be sure, when we see the Miami Herald exposé on Jeffrey Epstein or the Charleston Gazette-Mail’s courageous reporting on the opioid crisis, we know that good reporters are still overcoming the odds and managing to produce essential journalism that scrutinizes power, exposes wrongdoing, and challenges the status quo. But we know that those success stories are too often the exception and not the norm.

We also know that Donald Trump is making things far worse. He is a pathological liar who has spent his presidency trying to demonize journalists when they dare to debunk his lies. Worse, he has called the media the “enemy of the people” in a deliberate attempt to destroy the very idea of a free press.

Trump’s authoritarian bullying of the media is totally unacceptable and it must be denounced and rejected. But let us be clear: that alone will not solve the journalism crisis. Moreover, a further expansion of oligarchic business models in the media industry could make matters worse.

Today, after decades of consolidation and deregulation, just a small handful of companies control almost everything you watch, read, and download. Given that reality, we should not want even more of the free press to be put under the control of a handful of corporations and “benevolent” billionaires who can use their media empires to punish their critics and shield themselves from scrutiny.

After all, TV networks that rely on $4.5 billion a year of pharmaceutical ads may be thrilled to sugarcoat our current dysfunctional health care system—but they will never provide a consistently fair hearing for something like Medicare for All, even though polls show that a majority of Americans support such a proposal.

Corporate media organizations sponsored by fossil fuel industry ads may gladly provide a platform for guests who insist that our current oligarchic economy is just great, but as studies show, the same outlets often downplay or omit coverage of the climate crisis that those advertisers are helping create.

And news outlets owned by Disney and Jeff Bezos may happily tout Disney films and Bezos’s plans for space exploration, but we cannot count on them to consistently and aggressively cover workers’ fight for better wages at Disney- or Bezos-controlled companies. In fact, in one instance, we saw that The Washington Post, which Bezos owns, tried to punish a reporter because he spoke out for better wages at the newspaper.

We need to rebuild and protect a diverse and truly independent press so that real journalists can do the critical jobs that they love, and that a functioning democracy requires.



WHEN I AM PRESIDENT, MY ADMINISTRATION will put in place policies that will reform the media industry and better protect independent journalism at both the local and national levels.

For example, we will reverse the Trump administration’s attempts to make corporate media mergers even more likely in the future. We are not going to rubber stamp proposals like the new plan to merge CBS and Viacom into a $30 billion colossus.

I have long opposed media consolidation, and was one of only 16 members of the US House to oppose the disastrous 1996 Telecommunications Act, which accelerated consolidation. In my administration, we are going to institute an immediate moratorium on approving mergers of major media corporations until we can better understand the true effect these transactions have on our democracy.

In the spirit of existing federal laws, we will start requiring major media corporations to disclose whether or not their corporate transactions and merger proposals will involve significant journalism layoffs.

We will also require that, before any future mergers can take place, employees must be given the opportunity to purchase media outlets through employee stock-ownership plans—an innovative business model that was first pioneered in the newspaper industry.

And we will prevent media-related merger and deregulation decisions at federal agencies that adversely affect people of color and women. As the non-profit watchdog group Free Press has noted, “Women and people of color are woefully underrepresented among broadcast-license holders.” The group points out that this is because when the Federal Communications Commission has approved mergers it has failed “to consider how such concentration affects ownership opportunities for women and people of color.”

When our administration appoints new, progressive leadership at the FCC, we will reverse the Trump administration’s moves, which have gutted longstanding media ownership rules. What Trump has done allows cross-ownership of newspapers and television or radio stations; he has also given the green light to owning multiple stations in the same market. The harm may be great: “In theory,” says Free Press, “these changes would allow a single broadcaster to own both your local newspaper and your top-two local broadcast stations, plus operate a handful of other stations through sharing agreements—turning your community into a one-newsroom town.”

In a Bernie Sanders administration, we will do the opposite: we will reinstate and strengthen media ownership rules, and we will limit the number of stations that large broadcasting corporations can own in each market and nationwide. We will also direct federal agencies to study the impact of consolidation in print, television, and digital media to determine whether further antitrust action is necessary.

Additionally, we will pass my Workplace Democracy Plan, which will boost media workers’ laudable efforts to form unions and collectively bargain with their employers. I have publicly supported journalists’ efforts to unionize. Unions not only fight for media workers’ wages and benefits, they can also better protect reporters from corporate policies that aim to prevent journalists from scrutinizing media owners and their advertisers.

Finally, when it comes to Silicon Valley, I will appoint an Attorney General as well as Federal Trade Commission officials who more stringently enforce antitrust laws against tech giants like Facebook and Google, to prevent them from using their enormous market power to cannibalize, bilk, and defund news organizations. Their monopoly power has particularly harmed small, independent news outlets that do not have the corporate infrastructure to fight back.

We must also explore new ways to empower media organizations to collectively bargain with these tech monopolies, and we should consider taxing targeted ads and using the revenue to fund nonprofit civic-minded media. That will be part of an overall effort to substantially increase funding for programs that support public media’s news-gathering operations at the local level—in much the same way many other countries already fund independent public media.

Our constitution’s First Amendment explicitly protects the free press because the founders understood how important journalism is to a democracy. More than two centuries after the constitution was signed, we cannot sit by and allow corporations, billionaires, and demagogues to destroy the Fourth Estate, nor can we allow them to replace serious reporting with infotainment and propaganda.

We must take action—and if we do, I know we can be successful. We can and will restore the media that Joseph Pulitzer and Walter Cronkite envisioned, and that America so desperately needs.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 08:13 am
@hightor,
Quote:
In my opinion, her status as the "heir apparent" during the entire eight years of the Obama administration really hurt the Democratic field.
No question. And yes, Obama's charisma still makes others look rather pale in comparison.

Quote:
I think the DNC must share some of the blame here for not having an active program to identify new political figures and push them into prominence.
My first inclination was to agree on this but I've really put in very little study of the DNC and what they are actually up to. I can't, for example, say with any confidence that the committee is or is not mainly concerned with maintaining existing arrangements of power. I just don't know. But it does seem obvious to me that the Dem brain trust has failed for some decades now in matching (or even sufficiently responding to) the infrastructure that the right has developed. Trying to understand why that has happened is no small project.

Quote:
It's more than "echoes". It's ******* nostalgia. It's fascinating that we're approaching the third decade of this century and the only energy in the Democratic Party comes from those pushing shopworn versions of class struggle which haven't changed much since the late nineteenth century, and trying to tap into the energy of the New Deal which died with Taft-Hartley. Doesn't anyone notice that times have changed — radically?

I'd hoped there might be more people with a new message, a promise of some new political strategies and something a little different than the tired choice between the greying left and the ossified right.

Times have changed. And clearly our generation is as reluctant to cede influence as prior generations. But I see the attempted appeal to an FDR style populist sentiment more positively than you see it. Surely the depression and other related social factors primed Americans to move in that direction and equally surely we're not presently in that situation. But I think egalitarian values remain a fundamental aspect of the human psyche and of American political thought and aspirations.

I'm trying to understand your thoughts on what alternate paths might be taken which will stir passions. That is a necessity.

Edit: pardon anything incoherent above. I'm suffering a thankfully rare medical condition this morning. I'm hung over.

Of course, the one key issue that ought to be pumped up by every candidate is climate. Not only is it of critical importance but the passions are already in play and perhaps that is mainly so with young people - precisely who we need to have organized and engaged.

hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 09:09 am
@blatham,
Quote:
I'm trying to understand your thoughts on what alternate paths might be taken which will stir passions.

There's the rub, right? And will we recognize those paths or respond positively to those who would guide us in that direction? Obviously, if the unifying message eschews egalitarian values it will be about as "progressive" as a MAGA rally. One thing I do believe, however, is there must be recognition of the climate crisis and its ramifications. There are aspects of this slowly unfolding disaster which might inspire a constructive and universally appealing response based on restorative economics and cross-border cooperation. Knowing what I do of the human species, these opportunities put us on a knife edge and there's really no reason to assume we'll choose the path I'd prefer — and good reason to assume the worst. The opportunities for demagoguery on an unprecedented scale represent too much of a temptation.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 09:34 am
@hightor,
Quote:
The opportunities for demagoguery on an unprecedented scale represent too much of a temptation.
Yeah. Watching the news coverage of the Ukraine affair, it dawned on me that as political chaos spreads, it won't just be the authoritarian types with radical and oppressive political ideas who rise to the top. The crooks are going to feast as well.

0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 10:46 am
@Real Music,
I am more interested in the match-up's between any democrat candidate and Trump in the swing states which matter in the electoral vote. Do you have stats on that?
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 10:52 am
@Lash,
I base my vote on, mainly he is a democrat so I know he is not going to have social conservative notions on governing. I am easy to please that way. However, what impressed me with Eric Holder was his zeal in trying to reduce the prison population with folks who are in prison for light drug offenses or the like. Also, he has been working a lot with voting rights and redistricting which matters a whole heck of a lot. But as far as I know he is not running so he has not made a list of where he stands on the issues you mentioned. I imagine he stands pretty mainstream democrat which is fine with me.

My liking the notion of the idea of his running only really clarifies my dissatisfaction with the way our democrat election is going thus far. I am worried no matter who ends up winning (I really don't have a favorite I can seem to stick with, so I'll be happy with any of them) will have a very tough time in the swing states. I know you posted favorable stats for your guy Bernie, but...
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 10:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You clearly like being snide for it's own sake. It must be sad to be you always so grumpy all the time.

Anyway, when I sad evolve in connection with Buttigieg, I was speaking to of even democrats might not quite ready to accept a gay couple in the WH even if they won't say it out loud. So we have a ways to go. I could be wrong. shrugs if I am. I guess I wish he could gain some more traction as he aligns more with my own more moderate (never thought of myself as moderate before) democrat notions.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 11:56 am
@revelette3,
You are wrong...as usual.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 11:56 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:

I base my vote on, mainly he is a democrat so I know he is not going to have social conservative notions on governing. I am easy to please that way.


You’re easier to fool that way.

We have about four seriously conservative people running under the auspices if D.

Because you’re also of that vein, you just don’t know what you don’t know. You think because Buttigieg is gay that he’s socially liberal. You are wrong.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 12:09 pm
@revelette3,
Quote:
Climate change: Thinks climate change is a national security threat. Supports the Paris climate accord.

Buttigieg considers climate change a national security threat and a “longterm” problem that will especially impact younger Americans and future generations. He supports every U.S. house becoming “net zero” consumer of energy, and is in favor of the government subsidizing solar panels. Buttigieg was one of 407 U.S. mayors who signed a pact to adhere to the Paris climate accord after President Donald Trump pulled out of the international agreement 2017. He also supports the “Green New Deal” proposals on climate and energy being floated by progressive House Democrats.

Economy/trade: Supports labor. Thinks NAFTA resulted in significant jobs losses.

The Democrat thinks NAFTA caused irreplaceable job losses across the industrial Midwest. He is a strong supporter of labor and union groups, and says Democrats must work harder to advocate for working people and help them achieve economic stability.

Guns: Supports universal background checks.

As the mayor of South Bend, Buttigieg is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group that advocates for gun control legislation at the state and federal level. He also supports universal background checks, and opposed allowing guns in schools and so-called “Stand Your Ground” self-defense gun laws.

Foreign policy: Supports pulling troops out of Afghanistan.

Buttigieg says his experience serving as a Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan helped shaped his views on American policy in the Middle East. Like other 2020 Democratic candidates, he has criticized Trump for conducting foreign policy by tweet. Buttigieg supports pulling troops out of Afghanistan, but has criticized Trump’s plans to withdraw from Syria. He has also said Iran poses the greatest threat to Israel in the Middle East.

Health care: Supports single-payer system.

Buttigieg says he’s “all for” a single-payer health care system. But he has said he wouldn’t immediately jump to single-payer from the current system. Instead, Buttigieg would first implement an all-payer rate setting — a system that would not eliminate private insurance companies.

Immigration: Supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Buttigieg supports the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, and would like to see Congress pass a law creating pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. He also opposes the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies, and was involved in a high-profile case in Granger, Indiana, which resulted in the deportation of an undocumented immigrant who had lived in the U.S for 17 years.

He also vehemently opposes sending American troops to the southern border, calling the move “a waste of their time.” The South Bend mayor says American foreign policy dictates troops should only be deployed if all other modes of diplomacy fail, and the U.S. should return to that policy.

Social issues: Supports a federal non-discrimination amendment.

Buttigieg favors passing the Federal Equality Act, an amendment to existing civil rights legislation that would give federal non-discrimination protections to LBGTQ people. He opposes the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military. He also supports gender reassignment surgery for transgender people in prison.

pbs

And HERE'S a more extensive survey of his positions which didn't lend itself to re-posting.

As you can clearly see, he's a Republican, possibly even a Fascist — clearly the most reactionary candidate the country has seen in some time.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 12:16 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
As usual you said nothing. Anybody can say, "you are wrong." Wrong in what way and can you prove I am wrong about what? Wrong that you are grumpy? Pretty self evident. Wrong in that one of the issue which may be holding Buttigieg back is his open same sex marriage?
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 12:28 pm
@hightor,
Oh, well, hightor, unless a politician (for lack of an imagination for a better word) ascribes to the narrow definition "far left progressives" outline step by step, they are not really democrats, but establishment democrats who have been republican lights all along holding our country to the right all these thirty years or so. It has nothing to do with the conservative machine and their dedication to pushing their agenda in every single avenue possible in order to implement it. No, it is the establishment democrats who have doggedly pushing for civil rights, equal pay for equal work and all the other social issues democrats have been perusing all these years who have secretly been pushing the republican agenda. This must be the year of the conspiracists run amuck.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 01:36 pm
HuffPost

Verified account

@HuffPost
2h2 hours ago
More
Amy Klobuchar thinks that if Pete Buttigieg were a woman, his experience as mayor wouldn't qualify him for the presidential race.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 01:48 pm
@Brand X,
Quote:
Amy Klobuchar thinks that if Pete Buttigieg were a woman

Maybe Pete is the woman a couple of days a week.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 01:48 pm
@Brand X,
Yeah, and if Trump were a woman do you think she'd be president?

I'm not sure if the Huff Post item is supposed to be anti-Buttigieg or anti-Klobuchar. Thing is, the only qualification to run is to be a citizen who's lived here for fourteen years and to be 35 or older, so he'd still be qualified if he'd never held office.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 10:00:27