Recent comments

  • Full Show 4/27/16: How Bernie is Transforming the Democratic Party   18 hours 28 min ago

    Cruz’s Throw

    {… a limerick …}

    Cruz, in his throes of woes,

    with a “Hail Mary” pass he goes, -

    - to raise the odds

    that the election gods

    will with Carly get him {re-arisen} re-arose.

    ====================================

  • Hillary Clinton 2016 - Say 'No' To More 'Hard Choices'   19 hours 32 min ago

    Saboteurs of Sanders Campaign Lead to Clinton National Security Think Tank

    April 1, 2016 by Barbara With

    There is mounting evidence that Hillary Clinton supporters have been sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign, and the trail leads to the Democratic National Committee and a “national security” think tank made up of current and former Clinton supporters, staff, and contributors.

    In a March 30, 2016 videocast on YouTube (below), “Debbie the Sane Progressive” interviewed Stephen Coyne, a grassroots volunteer for Sanders, about state-level campaign directives that Coyne says sabotaged Sanders’ GOTV and canvassing efforts in Western Massachusetts.

    Joe Caiazzo, Bernie Sanders Communications Director, and employee of Clinton Foundation’s Truman National Security Foundation.

    In December 2015, the Massachusetts Sanders campaign hired Democratic strategist Joe Caiazzo as State Communications and Political Director. Coyne claims Caiazzo canceled their events, provided out-of-date voter roles, denied them canvassing material, and gave them orders to not open a campaign office. All of this worked against the best interests of the Sanders campaign, Coyne says, and demoralized volunteers, who subsequently quit.

    This is not the first allegation of Clinton supporters infiltrating and sabotaging the Sanders campaign.

    Niko House, president of North Carolina College Students for Bernie Sanders and Carolina Students for Bernie Sanders at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, posted several of his own videos testifying to similar experiences in North Carolina.

    House claims that Statewide Director Aisha Dew cancelled events and meetings, effectively got rid of key volunteer organizers, and refused several key endorsements. Dew has openly posted photos of herself on her social media with Clinton supporter and DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schulz, and at a Clinton captains organizing meeting.

    Dew and Schultz, November 2015, posted on Facebook six months after Dew was hired by the Sanders campaign.

    Also in question is NGP-VAN, the vendor that controls the DNC voter database. In December 2015, an alleged “bug” in new software allowed the campaigns to briefly see each other’s voter files. Josh Uretsky, Sanders’ national data director, copied Clinton voter data from the DNC’s voter database and was immediately fired. The DNC, however, cut Sanders access to the database.

    Sanders accused the DNC of sabotaging his presidential bid, partly because Uertsky was originally recommended to Sanders by the DNC and NGP-VAN. Stu Trevelyan, CEO of NGP-VAN, worked in the 1992 Clinton-Gore “War Room” and then in the Clinton White House. On March 24, Sanders served the DNC with a lawsuit, but believes the issue ultimately will be “resolved amicably.”

    The presence of Caiazzo and Dew in the Sanders organization raises deeper questions about the Clinton campaign. Both are also employed by the Truman National Security Project, a quasi-liberal think tank populated by a gaggle of neo-conservatives who believe foreign policy should be “grounded in a strong military.”

    Joe Caiazzo lists the Truman National Security Project as an employer on his LinkedIn page. According to House, Aisha Dew is also listed as a “membership partner” on the Project’s website, although access to her page is password protected.

    The Truman National Security Project was founded by Rachel Kleinfeld, who served as CEO and President from its inception through 2013. Concurrently, she was personally appointed by Secretary of State Clinton in 2011 to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board, the advisory body to the U.S. Department of State, on which she served until 2014.

    According to Sourcewatch:

    The Truman National Security Project describes itself as being “dedicated to forging a Democratic foreign policy founded on strength and security, grounded in a strong military and active diplomacy, and committed to furthering the American ideals of freedom, dignity, and opportunity worldwide.”

    At its 2005 conference one of the panel discussions was on “what Democrats did wrong, Republicans did right, and neo-cons did better” and “the need to increase the size of the deployable military.”

    The organization’s mission is to “unite next-generation veteran, political, and policy leaders to develop and advance strong, smart, and principled solutions to the global challenges Americans now face.” Their members include “military, policy and political leaders at the national, state, and local level, many of whom have served their country in conflict zones around the world.”

    In a 2012 article on antiwar.com, called this group little more than a “re-election campaign that promises to keep the war machine humming no matter who is elected to office.” On closer inspection, Truman’s Board and Advisory Board are a who’s who of representatives from the billionaire class Sanders is consistently referencing: defense contractors, private security, venture capitalists, tech investors, multinational realtors, Big Pharma, and the lobbyists who connect them:

    Pierre Chao, Managing Partner, Renaissance Advisors, a lobbying firm that serves the aerospace, defense, space, intelligence and government services industries. John J. Kenkel, co-founder and managing partner, was also an analyst with The IBP Aerospace Group between 1998 and 2000, where he marketed defense and aerospace systems to former Soviet and Eastern European nations.

    Craig Hanson General Partner, Next World Capital, a venture capital firm investing in leading enterprise technology companies.

    Sally Painter, COO, BlueStar Strategies, which devises global government relations strategies for corporations and governments, and connects private sector services and products to governments. BlueStar CEO Karen Tramontano served as Bill Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and continues her work with the Clintons through the Global Fairness Initiative.

    John Freidenrich, co-founder and partner, Regis, a multi-billion dollar portfolio manager and investment adviser. Freidenrich is also on the board of directors of the Center for National Policy, whose former chair Leon Panetta, now CNP’s National Advisory Board Chair and former White House Chief of Staff, endorsed Clinton in January 2016.

    R. Hunter Biden Partner, Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC, an investment firm founded in 2009 by the son of Vice President Joe Biden and Christopher Heinz, son of the late Sen. H. John Heinz III and stepson of Sen. John Kerry. The Heinz-Biden alliance unites both sides of the aisle, as Biden is a Democrat and Heinz a Republican.

    Albright campaigning for Hillary Clinton, February 2016.

    Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, who once claimed the loss of 500,000 Iraqi children due to the US-imposed sanctions against Iraqi was “worth it.” Albright supported the NATO bombing of civilian targets in Serbia in 1999, after which her Albright Capital Management bid for the region’s telecommunications company PTK and attempted to create a monopoly that would have destroyed all her competition. With a net worth of approximately $10M, Albright is also co-investor with Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild and George Soros in a $350 million investment vehicle called Helios Towers Africa, which intends to buy or build thousands of mobile phone towers in Africa.

    Whether or not the DNC and Clinton herself can be directly tied to sabotaging Sanders, Dew and Caiazzo do appear to be double agents. But because of the nature of her network, Clinton would not have had to have done any coordination. The capabilities of these think tanks, with access to private security firms, former intelligence agents, tech experts, and virtually unlimited capital would, for example, allow them to hack voter roles and remove Sanders’ supporters’ party designations in Maricopa County, Arizona. They certainly have the expertise, tools, motive and party loyalty to do it.

    But Sanders is not afraid of suing. He successfully sued the State of Ohio when Secretary of State Jon Husted decided that, despite Ohio election law, 17-year-olds who would be 18 in time for the November election could not vote in the primaries. On top of his suit against the DNC for limiting his access to the database, Sanders is also mulling over whether to sue over the results of Maricopa County election. He is waiting until April 4th, when the Arizona Secretary of State officially certifies the results.

    Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is being sued for election fraud by a group of Sanders supporters called MA Sanders Voters and Volunteers Disenfranchised by Bill Clinton. The group filed suit in Boston Federal District Court on March 30th and claims Clinton is guilty of openly campaigning at polling stations, among other illegal activities.

    After the latest “mistake” of leaving Sanders off the D.C. ballot because the D.C. Democratic Party forgot to send in his registration in time for the filing deadline, it is clear that someone inside the Democratic Party establishment does not want Sanders to win.

    With so much at stake for the billionaire class Sanders is running against, it’s easy to understand why Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein labeled this as a “dangerous moment” in American politics. Their gal Hillary is no match for the people-powered revolution Sanders has inspired, including record fundraising that will allow ample funds to move these lawsuits forward.

    As Stephen Coyne so aptly reminds us, “We need to understand, the Clinton enterprise will do anything to steal this election.”

    Also interesting is the comments section.

    Nicole Hales April 3, 2016 at 5:36 pm #

    I don’t know if this is significant, but it just seemed really odd to me so I wanted to bring it up here. In one of the Bernie Sanders Facebook groups, someone mentioned that it was strange that right after she donated money to Bernie’s campaign, she started getting emails at that email address asking for Donations for Hillary Clinton. BUT… she said that she never gave that particular email address out to anyone else, so it seemed really strange to her that she would be getting requests for money to fund Hillary’s campaign. ????

    Then, other people in the Facebook group started saying that the very same thing had happened to them… that they had donated to Bernie’s campaign and even though they didn’t give out their email addresses to anyone else– they also started getting emails requesting money to fund Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    This happened around the same time that I first read online somewhere that Bernie’s camp had supposedly hacked into some computer program and had stolen a list of Hillary’s voters- and that it was supposedly a really big deal. That was also around the same time that Hillary’s supporters started making nasty comments on Facebook about Bernie– referring to him as, “Bernie Sanders and his cyber-thugs”.

    Anyway, my point is that it really stuck out to me as being really obvious that there must be a connection between the two. I had JUST encountered people saying that they were getting strange emails from Hillary (or at least, on her behalf) asking for money….. but yet BERNIE was the one who was being accused of doing something wrong.

    Hillary seems to always be deflecting things and blaming other people for what it is that SHE does wrong. I observe her do it all the time. In fact, I’m not even sure if SHE’S aware that she is projecting her own stuff onto others, but whenever I hear her blaming someone else for something now– warning bells go off in me that say, “Yep…there it is. She’s guilty.” There are so many examples of this- I really should start writing them down. lol!

    Sooo, I’m just wondering…. has anyone looked into her campaign possibly stealing Bernie’s supporter’s private/personal email addresses and then using them to solicit money??

    I know you are aware of the many people who have had their voter status mysteriously changed in Arizona and elsewhere– that has resulted in voter suppression in record numbers, but is there maybe a direct link or connection between all of this that could be used to expose her (or those working on her behalf) of doing anything illegally?

    Also, I have heard that in certain states, Bernie supporters were intentionally being given the wrong information through emails regarding voting times and places– so they wouldn’t be able to vote.

    Isn’t blatant voter obstruction illegal?? Considering all of these different things, doesn’t it seem like it was actually Hillary Clinton who was the one who stole Bernie’s list of voters and then used his list in nefarious ways?? The more I think about it, the more it seems pretty obvious to me that this is what’s really going on. So, now the question is– what can we do about it??

    More on Hillary's cybertactics and attacks.

  • Hillary Clinton 2016 - Say 'No' To More 'Hard Choices'   19 hours 42 min ago
    Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

    That David Brock is a real sleazy cretin.

    And then he ended up working for Hillary Clinton. She'll do anything and say anything to get into power.

  • DNC Chair Bernie Sanders or Total Schism?   19 hours 56 min ago

    If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, we need to make him the Senate leader for the Democrats. He would have a lot of power in setting the agenda.

  • Working Link for: Bernie: Create a Tea Party of the Left Within the Democratic Party Now   20 hours 16 min ago

    (Duplicated from site with non-working link)

    turn_left_@_the...

    I disagree. Michael Lerner has got it right. Taking over the establishment Democratic party is the better strategy.

    First, name one successful independent party candidate ever elected in a national election.

    Second, this is clearly a case where you need to: “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.”

    Third, consider the now clearly demonstrated weaknesses of the Democratic party that invite such a takeover. Currently control of the Democratic party is built on big money contributions to party power brokers who then use that money to buy loyalty up and down the line by dispensing it out to help finance campaigns. Witness Hillary's seemingly strange criticism of Bernie for not funding other Democrats with the money he collected. In her establishment Democratic world, all the big money she collects or controls through Super PACs, is used to directly support her election and buy the loyalty of other establishment Dems, a neat and tidy self-serving system. In direct contrast, Bernie's contributions are from millions of individual highly-engaged voters, and their support is explicitly based on the issues he presents that are exactly opposed to the current big money influencers that establishment Dems have traditionally relied on to help broker their political power.

    And that is why Bernie's Progressive Revolution should take place inside the Democratic Party. He has demonstrated that you can command HUUUGE dollars to support campaigns built on policies that directly contradict the oligarch's goals. That proves the old rules in the establishment Democratic party are no longer the only way to do things at exactly the same time large numbers of new Democratic voters can be brought into the party based on these new Progressive issues. Combining the power of this new Independent, disillusioned Democratic, and even some Republican voter block, with Bernie's demonstrated financial independence from oligarchs, means there is a direct path to transforming the old Democratic Party into the new Progressive Democratic Party. Besides it will be a complete blast to watch the money puppets squirm as their power evaporates.

    I have made three major presumptions:

    One, Bernie (or Elizabeth) will unequivocally take on leadership of the day to day operations of the new Progressive Democratic Party. The current establishment Democrats will have a fit of course, but all they have to do is be good politicians and change themselves into true Progressives.

    Two, lots and lots of us voters will continue to bankroll the takeover whenever Bernie asks for help. I for one will welcome the opportunity to help as much as I can to drive these greedy SOBs out of our government.

    Three, lots and lots of the new voter block will stay engaged through the November election and thereafter. Given the contributions and enthusiasm to date, I think they will, if their is clear leadership they trust (Bernie, Presumption One).

    And all this brings us exactly back to Michael Lerner's truly excellent paper that started this discussion:

    Bernie: Create a Tea Party of the Left Within the Democratic Party Now

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/bernie-create-a-tea-party_b_9782006.html

    (note the original link to this in louisehartmann's post above does not seem to work for me - this link does)

  • DNC Chair Bernie Sanders or Total Schism?   20 hours 18 min ago

    Apart from any ridiculous notion that a Hillary nomination may lead us to violent revolution if Bernie supporters aren't appeased (oh the things kids will say) the idea of petitioning for Bernie to head the DNC is clever. BTW, Bernie has said that he'll remain a Democrat following the primary; a smart move as he'll come out of the primary a very powerful and influential Democrat if not the nominee

  • I will not support the LESSORS of either of the two evils -not again   20 hours 50 min ago

    It's Lessers, not "...Lessors..."

  • Volunteer military   21 hours 21 min ago
    Quote gumball:

    Got it, to save money we should force people into service and if they do not want to we throw them in jail. How much would it cost to prosecute and jail these folks?

    Do you not realize that there was an active draft through the mid 70's? If there is another major war there will be another draft. I am saying that we propably should have not stopped it. A voluntary service does not work. It creates a pauper army. It creates a miltary that wants war. It creates a very expensive military that needs highly paid contractors to support it. In the case of Bush/Cheney it creates war for profit.

  • Sam Bee   21 hours 27 min ago

    Her new show is great. I also like the Larry Wilmore's show and John Oliver's. The Daily Show did a great job at finding new talent.

  • Volunteer military   21 hours 29 min ago
    Quote gumball:

    I get that we need a military but the fact is we do not need 20+ million people in the military.

    Agreed. Come up with a solution to that. Our one hope, Bernie is losing. Republicans would double that. Let's hear your solution.

  • I will not support the LESSORS of either of the two evils -not again   21 hours 53 min ago
    Quote Zenzoe:

    Anti-Hillary folks continually make claims of being the only true progressives. But when I look at their gripes, I’m hard-pressed to distinguish them from libertarians such as Rand Paul, since all they seem to be concerned about are the same foreign and trade policies Rand Paul objects to. Like Paul, the anti-Hillary people express outrage over Clinton’s Iraq war support and the trade policies of the Clintons, Bush and Obama. I see no attempt whatsoever by them to object to Rand Paul’s social-policy attitudes, which are far from being progressive in any sense of the word.

    So, I’d love to know how anti-Hillary “progressives” should be seen as anything better than libertarians, which, in my book, does not qualify them as being true progressives at all.

    To be a progressive, you need to be progressive beyond foreign policy and the economy, including advocating strongly for progressive social issues and policy. And if you cannot see just how scary, damaging and anti-progressive Trump and the Republican Party will be, COMPARED TO HILLARY CLINTON, then sorry, but I cannot view you as a progressive. You just don’t qualify.

    Why don't you be honest and just admit you are voting for Hillary because she's a woman. I know you are not voting for Hillary because she's progressive. Why? Because she said she was guilty of being a moderate. We also have an issues with her support for DOMA, the bankruptcy bill and Graham Leach Bliley to mention a few. We support Bernie because he is for universal health care and free college. Hillary is against both. I could go on, but I doubt the facts will sway you.

  • the Bernaissance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   22 hours 2 min ago
  • I will not support the LESSORS of either of the two evils -not again   22 hours 4 min ago

    I'm a progressive. Paul's so far off the edge of the page I don't even think about him; it's not that I don't understand him and the ridiculousness of Lib positions. It's that I don't even entertain him or his agenda in any serious way. He may have gravitas, for those who think like him, but that's it. For most progressives, it goes without saying that we reject him; it's fairly well tacitly understood, just as it's understood that we wouldn't entertain the candidate of the American Nazi Party.

    I see Trump for who and what he is and I reject him out of hand, as do most progressives. Hillary Clinton is preferable to Trump, but only because she would mostly do no harm, just sit on the whole tableau as Obama has done. Kind of like Eisenhower's policy of "benign neglect" of the economy and society.

    But doing no harm is not progressive; it's not moving forward. That's the rub. How many caretakers do we have to choose because they're less evil than the Right's endless parade of poison dwarves? When does the cycle of Hobson's Choices end? Ever? And how long do we have to be content with doing that? How long should we be reasonably expected to be content with choosing between static harmlessness and objectively active evil? Maintaining the status quo forever based on Hobson's Choices simply maintains stasis for the exploiters of the rigged economy so that they never have to worry about meaningful reform. Is an endless cycle of that all right?

    And while I have no issue or argument with you on one particular point, Zenzoe, I'd really love to see you and anybody else who either supports Hillary or legitimately points out the differences between Hillary and Trump stop calling Hillary a progressive. She calls herself one whenever she thinks it'll help her with Bernie's supporters, BUT, she is NOT a progressive. She is a center-right, business, machine Democrat, an apparachik of the upper middle classes who feel deprived by the rich above them, and she has very little of any genuine "common touch" empathy or identity with the lower middle class and the poor, working or otherwise. She's lived in the Beltway too long to have any connection with average Americans.

    She wouldn't do as much harm as Trump, but she'd run her cabinet and the executive branch of the government as though she were running a high school student council. She wears her smugness and patronizing attitudes on her sleeves. She's a political hack. Once she's in the White House, as she'll probably be, people shouldn't expect any more out of her than they got out of her old man -- because they won't get it. She's an empty pantsuit.

  • Sad but necessary meme: Bernie FOREVER But Hillary in November   22 hours 15 min ago

    re: " •• But Hillary in November" _

    NOT a blue snowball's chance in hell.

    #BernieOrBust 2016

  • Bernie’s R.I. Win is a Rebirth for the Democratic Party   22 hours 25 min ago

    Now that Bernie is a national figure, now that Bernie has the money,

    now that Bernie has energetic support, now is the time to form a third party

    that will endure for many elections.

    ct

  • Most Annoying Candidate   22 hours 26 min ago

    Instant-RunOff•••,

    The short YouTube video above - Hillary's Body Language (3:20 - see above link @ #2) - is EXCELLENT! Give it a look if you haven't done so already.

    #BernieOrBust 2016

  • I will not support the LESSORS of either of the two evils -not again   22 hours 36 min ago

    I'd decide only after learning which two evils are offered and seeing the terms of the lease.

  • Working Link for: Bernie: Create a Tea Party of the Left Within the Democratic Party Now   22 hours 45 min ago

    It would be far more advantageous for any such group to start fresh and make a clean break from the Democratic Party and its archane rules, tainted reputation and elite inbred power structure. My suggestion on what to name our independent group is :

    *The Progressive Values Party* - - the PVP.

    Go rogue or stay home.

    #BernieOrBust 2016

  • I will not support the LESSORS of either of the two evils -not again   22 hours 52 min ago

    Amen, marriot79!

  • Obama Launching Two More Wars — Remove Him Now or Face Global War   22 hours 59 min ago

    Video:

    Obama Reveals Why Terror Victims Can’t Sue Saudi Arabia

    Published on Apr 24, 2016

    President Obama doesn’t think terror victims suing Saudi Arabia is a good idea. He contends that it opens up a can of worms, where victims of US military actions could then sue the US government. John Iadarola, Wes Clark Jr., and Elliot Hill (The Lip TV), hosts of The Young Turks discuss.

  • The Trolls are Laughing Their Butts Off. Stop Your Tantrums Over Hillary.   23 hours 2 min ago

    Just how exactly does voting for Jill Stein for President and Democrats for Congress and Senate help give the Republicans control of the House and the Senate?

    https://philebersole.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/trumpsclintonsgettyimages-843167781438806851.jpg

  • Most Annoying Candidate   23 hours 18 min ago

    Carly Fiorina is VERY annoying. Just when I thought the race was rid of her, Cruz picks her for a running mate. She's a lying, careerist opportunist who'd say anything to achieve her ends, just like Hillary Clinton.

    When she was in the GOP debates, Trump brought up that if she'd been on "The Apprentice," he'd have fired her for the economic carnage she caused as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. She tried to say that her sacking was political. One of the HP directors responded that if she could show him and the world how the company's negative profit and loss statements achieved on her watch were political, he'd put in with her. Touche and amen.

    Too bad she wasn't scraped off the shoe after all...

  • Sad but necessary meme: Bernie FOREVER But Hillary in November   23 hours 19 min ago

    Agreed. Nader didn't cost the Democrats anything. He had every right to run. I'm so sick of hearing/reading this argument. The Democrats refuse to talk about Republican election theft, and they refuse to fight all the way when it happens (i.e. John Kerry in 2004). When an election is stolen, it isn't just the candidate who loses. In fact, the biggest casualties are the voters and the country. But few candidates give any thought to anyone but themselves. I think Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders are the rare exception to that, and if Bernie isn't the candidate, then I hope it's a record year for the Green Party.

  • I will not support the LESSORS of either of the two evils -not again   23 hours 29 min ago
    Quote Zenzoe:

    Anti-Hillary folks continually make claims of being the only true progressives. But when I look at their gripes, I’m hard-pressed to distinguish them from libertarians such as Rand Paul, since all they seem to be concerned about are the same foreign and trade policies Rand Paul objects to. Like Paul, the anti-Hillary people express outrage over Clinton’s Iraq war support and the trade policies of the Clintons, Bush and Obama. I see no attempt whatsoever by them to object to Rand Paul’s social-policy attitudes, which are far from being progressive in any sense of the word.

    So, I’d love to know how anti-Hillary “progressives” should be seen as anything better than libertarians, which, in my book, does not qualify them as being true progressives at all.

    To be a progressive, you need to be progressive beyond foreign policy and the economy, including advocating strongly for progressive social issues and policy. And if you cannot see just how scary, damaging and anti-progressive Trump and the Republican Party will be, COMPARED TO HILLARY CLINTON, then sorry, but I cannot view you as a progressive. You just don’t qualify.

    Congratulations, you've created a straw man argument. Just because progressives and libertarians agree on some issues does not mean they're one and the same. So there's really no reason to respond to your nonsensical characterization that we're Rand Paul supporters. You're either being disingenuous or you truly don't understand the point we're making.

    And who said we don't care about social issues or that Hillary has a monopoly on such things? What has she really done to advance social causes in the last 20 years? What about Bill's presidency? For example, were African Americans and the working-class better off with "ending welfare as we know it", NAFTA, and the crime bill? What has Obama done? Being "better than" a Republican doesn't suddenly elevate you to the level of being "good". It doesn't mean you're honest or you have good judgment or you're not corruptible. This isn't an either/or equation.

    That was a nice try, but give it a rest already. If anything, you're hurting your cause. We're all adults here, and we're fully cognizant about the choices we make. We're not some clueless child who's coloring outside of the lines of our coloring book and need some know-it-all parental figure to come and correct us. That's essentially the message you're sending, and it's certainly the message the Democratic Party and the DNC has been perpetuating. Thanks, but no thanks.

  • I will not support the LESSORS of either of the two evils -not again   23 hours 30 min ago
    Quote Karolina:

    If Killery is honestly focused on any progressive social issues or policies at all, why are the Kock Brothers, Wall Street, and our large predatory neocon population planning to vote for her if Trump runs against her?

    Trump would keep us out of World War III with Russia and China, as Bernie would, but the Kocks, the Wall Streeters, and the Neocons want nothing more than chaos, thermonuclear pain, and massive amounts of death to be our future. Very non-progressive, those guys.

    That’s Hillaryous! You think the Koch’s were serious!

    Quote sanders.senate.gov:
    In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.

    Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.

    • We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”

    • We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

    • We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”

    • “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”

    • We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”

    • We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”

    • “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”

    • We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

    • “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”

    • We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.

    • “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

    • We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”

    • “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”

    • We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

    • We support abolition of the Department of Energy.

    • “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”

    • “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”

    • We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”

    • “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”

    • We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.

    • “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”

    • We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”

    • We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”

    • We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

    • We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

    • “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

      [Zenzoe bolded the most prominent things there that Hillary would never support]

    Add to that their climate change denial! Really! Knowing all of that, you seriously think the Kochs would choose Hillary over T-Rump (Tyrannosaurus Rump), who also denies climate change and is the poster boy for the 1%?

    It’s so obvious, Karolina— it’s called divide and conquer. They want to weaken Democratic support for Clinton, and it's the oldest trick in the book!

    But you fell for it.

    Oye.

Latest Headlines

Who rejected United States-North Korea peace talks?

There were conflicting reports on Sunday regarding a recent proposal for United States-North Korea peace talks which was allegedly made before North Korea"s recent nuclear test

U.K. Pound Falls As Markets Get Brexit Jitters

Bloomberg said on Monday the pound had sustained its biggest fall against the dollar in 11 months

Clinton: I'll defend Israel but push for 'two-state solution

Hillary Clinton believes both Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "missed the mark" with their approach to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict

Will Millennials Be The Lost Generation?

The expectation for many Americans has always been that one generation will do better than those who came before them. But, that may not be the case when it comes to millennials.