i thought this was a realization elections are rigged, per supreme court rule.

what warren says works, too

eom.

The best of both worlds

The guy that's playing footsie with Paul Ryan re: a health care "compromise"?

I'm sorry, but as progressive as Wyden has, and may still be, I don't trust him.

... how can that twerp Brown be tied with her right now... and in Massachussetts???

She has run a terrible campaign and she tried to game the system by passing herself off as something she's not.
You cannot claim to be Native American without solid proof if you plan to run for political office. Even the Cherokee nation is pushing back on her claim. So now it looks like she gamed the system for personal gain. Whether it's true or not that is the way it's played in the media. I can guarantee she will loose the race and it will be her fault and that of her handlers.

OK people on DU, what did this poster really mean by "loose the race"?

We're better than that. Typos? Everybody makes them, but "loose"??????? That's just basic spelling.

Big deal she will still lose the race

since I see it on RW boards and blogs ALL OF THE FUCKING TIME. They don't CARE that they can't spell because none of their idiot buddies can spell either. I expect more here.

you use it and so do many here. It is usually the last refuge of a "loosing" argument. HEHE

I really hope she runs.

She truly understands this 'game' and is not afraid to tell the truth about it....

I felt the same way about Obama 4 years ago. I have accepted that ALL politicians are more concerned with themselves and their corporate buddies than me. I certainly hope she proves me wrong.

Rigged. It resonates.

Such nightmarish memories I have of the 2000 & 2004 'elections'

Sorry, Ms. Warren, but "most Americans" don't even know the most basic things about their own government. Their understanding of the system we're living in is far more superficial than you imagine, which is one of the main reason's we're living in it! You simply can't judge "most Americans" based on the ones you've come into personal contact with.

for Warren. Do the people in Massachusetts realize what a jewel they have? I hope so.

Leonard Cohen

"Everybody Knows"


Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died...

Laura

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

By suppressing the vote, you eliminate the need of having to expend time and resources on each election as it comes up. It's more cost-effective, is all.

-- Mal

The promote their vision in social venues and businesses to ensure their followers will vote for them. They value the voting and want to make sure it goes their way.

Many Democrats fail to vote because of magical thinking. That it doesn't make a difference, when it does. They've given up on democratically run government when they leave the field to the GOP.

Anyone who thinks their standing down, while the Tea Party took state houses and the Congress in 2010 had no effect, needs to have their heads examined.

How that lying, bought and paid for, smarmy pile of Brown can even be close in the polls to Warren in MA blows my mind. Yup, the system is rigged.

and that's most of the country. Then they get a majority of legislatures in the House. Now, they get more press from the main stream media. Meanwhile, consolidation leads to less and less diversity on our airwaves, and hey, every state around me has voted these Republicans in, and I need a loan from the bank, or that promotion ...

The Koch brothers have also bought entire business departments at universities. The American people might not know this, but they know something's up. We know we can't get ahead no matter what we do. We know the game is rigged.

1) Ronald Reagan's administration fought to strike down the FCC's Fairness Doctrine.

Introduced in 1949, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.

- Rush Limbaugh = 600+ stations
- Sean Hannity = 500+ stations
- Glenn Beck = 400+ stations

Currently, there are fewer than 100 U.S. commercial radio stations carrying liberal talk programs.

NOTE: Republicans now control 75%+ of the talk radio market and Fox New serves as their re-election center.

2) Propaganda: repeat the lie enough until people begin to believe it.

The Lie: Democrats are the party of big government and big spending.

--

Truth:

Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (H. Bush, G. Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.

Summary:

Democrats believe in hard work that builds sweat equity, saving money to create a stable nest egg of wealth, and a system that safeguards everyone against unnecessary risk taking.

Republicans believe in trickling-down economics and a predatory form of disaster capitalism that enables greed and corruption to flourish, relies on leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers, gushes wealth to the top, and always eventually crashes a healthy economy.

That is why a college education results in better wages.

I was thinking of the Republican agenda of deregulation that gave us Enron (2001) and a Global Recession (2008).

NOTE: Stock brokers and banks coordinated their efforts to use a business model built entirely on the premise they can make more money speculating on commodities contracts than they can by actually producing a product at fair market value. Central to their strategy of turning tangible assets into speculative commodities is removing government oversight of trading practices and exploiting market deficiencies to allow the manipulation of prices and supply.

But, if you prefer you may read it as: "honest work" and "fair equity"

Either way you slice it, hard work is hard work!

"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" -- Thomas Edison

These were originally conceived to help producers know what prices they can expect to receive. Without reassurances they might be hesitant to invest what's needed to produce the good. And if speculation drives up prices, that also helps and encourages producers to work harder and faster.

Lastly if people revolt at the cost then the speculators lose out.

Alan Greenspan fought to create a completely deregulated black market on wall street. After the financial crisis, Greenspan finally admitted that his economic philosophy had been wrong.

"I found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I've been very distressed by that fact." -- Alan Greenspan, hearing on Capitol Hill in 2008

Brooksley Born not only predicted exactly what would happen, but she warned him; then she resigned her position as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in protest.

The Warning
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Brooksley Born was particularly concerned about swaps, financial instruments that are traded over the counter between banks, insurance companies or other funds or companies, and thus have no transparency except to the two counterparties and the counterparties' regulators, if any.

I do not understand how Glass Steagall prevents that.

And our banks have deleveraged considerably but we still have risks because of the counterparties. Moreover the problem is that 7 of the worlds 10 largest banks are European or so I've been told. In this financially interconnected world I don't see how our laws can contain the systematic risk that exists in the global world of finance.

I think our politicians are kidding themselves when they think we can insulate ourselves.

Heck why are we captive to the corrupt Greek government? Is anyone immune because they regulated their own banking system Properly?

Analysis - What Ought To Be Done Now?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/themes/ought.html

I think we have to close the regulatory gap. ... We need to take a lesson from the existing futures markets where exchange trading has been safe.
-- Brooksley Born Chair, CFTC (1996-1999)

I believe strongly that we need two complementary regimes. We need to regulate the dealers, these 20 or 30 large global financial firms that issue these derivatives. How should we regulate them? We should make sure there's a lot lower risk, and we do that by capital and having margin requirements. Capital means money put to the side in case of crisis and so forth.
-- Gary Gensler Chair, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (2009-present)

We need to reduce the number of different regulators that are accountable for addressing these issues. We need to empower a smaller number of regulators on a consistent basis to govern activities as a function of the risk they create, not as a function of what label they bear.
-- Blythe Masters CFO, JPMorgan; in 1997, she was part of a group at JPMorgan who created credit derivatives

college isn't for everyone.
We need good living jobs for people who have no interest in college. Besides, college loan debt is killing graduates anyway.

If there is no advantage to hiring an American over a Chinese person, a job that can be located anywhere will go to whoever does it better and cheaper.

And with the emerging middle class in China and India the opportunities may be better outside the US. We need to add value or we won't be the ones with the jobs.

Republican's sole focus is on destroying everything for which Democrats stand!

1) Republicans ensure the Supreme Court is stacked in their favor as often as possible!

-Then-

2) If a law or policy doesn't favor Republicans, they deem it unconstitutional or unfit.

in America, whereas in most other countries exit polling is practically an exact science? Diebold and ES&S, that's why. Americans don't vote, they just go and touch a screen...the machine votes. Our whole system of voting is an illusion.

I'd vote for her.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Democrats fight for middle class values, Republicans fight for the privileged few.

Democratic economic philosophy is based on sustainable middle class values.

Republican economic philosophy is based on purposefully flawed circular logical.

Democrats believe in honest work that builds fair equity, saving money to create a stable nest egg of wealth, and a system that safeguards everyone against unnecessary risk taking.

Republicans believe in trickling-down economics and a predatory form of disaster capitalism that enables greed and corruption to flourish, relies on leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers, gushes wealth to the top, and always eventually crashes a healthy economy.


Summary: The circular logic created by Republicans causes cycles of disaster capitalism.

In the beginning, the middle class is allowed to pursue the American dream, buy a home and create a nest egg. The strength of the middle class builds/grows the economy until the flaw, Republicans have built into the system, causes the economy to crash. The crash causes the middle class to suffer huge loses, wipes out the middle class and forces them to start all over again.

An individual may give a maximum of: $2500 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

A corporation may give a maximum of: infinity!!

(dripping with sarcasm)

--

The citizens united ruling allowing unlimited corporate donations is a model of cognitive dissonance conflicting with our original Democratic system of one person, one vote.

We the People, Not We the Corporations ...end corporate rule, legalize Democracy!

Sign the petition at: http://movetoamend.org/

Why do you need to make things up to argue your case?

If you had bothered to report the FACTS about Citizens United, one of many things you'd have to disclose is the following:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0121/Supreme-Court-Campaign-finance-limits-violate-free-speech/(page)/2

But hey, never let the truth get in the way of a righteous rant.

Of all my posts, the one you pick apart, on the 3rd line down, reads: (dripping with sarcasm)

The citizens united ruling allowing unlimited corporate donations is a model of cognitive dissonance conflicting with our original Democratic system of one person, one vote.

Oh, what? Was that ALSO dripping with sarcasm? Right. It was very clear what you meant, and it was silly and uninformed. You can just admit that and move on, or you can continue with failed (and lame and transparent) attempts to rehabilitate a losing argument.

Last edited Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:29 AM - Edit history (2)

501(c)(4) organizations can be used to legally launder anonymous donations to a Super PAC.


CBS News
----------

Colbert gets a Super PAC; So what are they? - CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20075941.html

"Super PACs are the byproduct of the 2010 Supreme Court decision commonly known as "Citizens United," which granted corporations, unions and individuals the right to donate unlimited funds to outside groups to campaign for or against candidates."

CSMonitor
----------

In time for Election 2012, a Stephen Colbert super PAC. What is that? - CSMonitor.com

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2011/0701/In-time-for-Election-2012-a-Stephen-Colbert-super-PAC.-What-is-that

"Super PACs are a new breed created after several 2010 Supreme Court decisions that struck down some restrictions. They’re "super" because there is no limit to how much money they can receive from an individual, corporation, or union."

"They’re limited in that they can’t give money directly to candidates to help in elections. However, they can spend unlimited amounts advocating for or against political candidates on their own."

The way you now understand it is in direct contradiction to what you originally posted. Thanks for finally educating yourself, but next time you might try doing that before you spread blatant misinformation. There's already too much nonsense being spread around this site about the CU decision... We certainly don't need more.

Two people not afraid to speak truth to power.

But why? In America?

...if you're a mega multi-millionaire with a Swiss bank account, tax shelters in the Bahamas, paying 13.9% on capital gains and receiving unlimited corporate donations to run for president.

I'm feeling so patriotic. Please, stand and recite the pledge with me:

I pledge allegiance to the logo of the corporate states of America, and to the stockholders for which they stand: one nation under greed, conquered and divided, by the privileged few.

in 2000. Never have I seen so many "lucky", undeserving candidates win over candidates who should have won.

Wisconsin is the most obvious example of this since Bush, with the Prosser & Walker elections. After all the damage he's done to the state, his poll numbers were always ahead of Tom Barrett?

Now I'm to believe that after Ted Kennedy's decades of very capable representation as senator of Massachusetts, Scott Brown, who works against his citizenry, is getting poll numbers that are threatenening to Elizabeth Warren, who oozes the same integrity & allegiance to the most vulnerable?

I'm not there in the room when all of these poll numbers are gathered, or when the votes are tallied. But with what we're seeing with the up-is-down Republican party & their blatant lust for power, I'm calling b.s.


/clarity

Sounds like a cleaner version of Carlin saying "they don't give a fuck about you. they don't care. because they own you!"

Warren has an astounding ability to put clearly the core of complicated, generation-long processes. I am not sure very many Americans understand the degree to which they are, right now, the victims of a carefully coordinated and well thought out class war, but if she continues talking like this, maybe they will get the point.

Has anyone noticed if she is being ignored by the mainstream media in Massachusetts? This is not the kind of message the MSM would normally be comfortable with.

The USSC decided bribery was "free speech."

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

"We may have lost a battle, but we will not lose the war." -- Charles De Gaulle (paraphrased)

"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

In 2010, the Disclose Act died in the Senate after a Republican filibuster. Today, there is a new version of the Disclose Act winding its way through Congress.

John McCain (R-AZ) has been in favor of campaign finance reform for some time now, and he was not at all happy with the Citizens United ruling. He has teamed up with Democrats to craft a new version of the bill.

John McCain: The Maverick Returns? | Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/john-mccain-citizens-united-super-pac-disclose

but feel free to rant and wail without facts as much as you wish.

in the Senate after she is elected.

Warren in 2016.

Maybe he just talks to his constituents?

Last edited Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Elizabeth Warren has a huge job ahead of her. I hope she is successful. I would like to/will contribute to her effort.

stupid of me to hope for so much, eh?