advertisement


The Future Of The Democratic Party.

Joe Hutch said:
Her grammar's OK. But her beef, that she has what many would regard as 'extremist' views and that she finds it difficult to find a platform for them, seems a bit whiney. What she actually wants is for someone to host her rants, and those of others with extreme views, free of charge. Maybe Facebook is, in some way, 'throttling' her feeds. Maybe people have just got bored reading the same old stuff from her. Who knows? But there's certainly no legal or moral requirement for Facebook or anyone else to provide her with a platform.
Click to expand...
Caitlin: A Little About Me:

https://steemit.com/caitlinjohnstone/@caitlinjohnstone/a-little-about-me

P.S., I can't think of a journalist/blogger whatever that I agree with more. She seems to see things exactly as I do.
 
The Republicans are looking to roll back some of the regulations on the banks put in place after the 2008 crash. These regulations aim to prevent another situation whereby the public might have to bail them out. This is good for nobody bar the bankers.

Guess who's supporting them? A bunch of Democrats including Tim Kaine.

The Republicans need at least 10 Democrats or the proposed bill could never get off the ground, and these Democrats have come to their aid.

 
Disappointing but, by implication, a large majority of Democrats oppose such measures.

I agree with the core point that the Democrats need to get a clue and offer a genuine progressive alternative to voters.

I'm not holding my breath though. Channel 4 News tonight featured an interview with Joe Kennedy and suggested he might be in the running to be the Democrats' next presidential candidate. He was so boring I almost nodded off.

Not a good sign.
 
They only needed 10, Drood. 12 stepped up.

Chuck Schumer could have ordered them not to and unless they disobeyed him the bill would be dead in the water. He didn't, which implies that he's happy with the situation.

Don't forget that Obama filled his cabinet with a bunch of people recommended by the banks, and Trump has surrounded himself with them too.

The whole thing is a joke, IMO.
 
I know (I counted). Schumer makes 13, if we accept your interpretation.

47 Democrats in the Senate.

Therefore about 27% voted with the Republicans. 73% didn't.

So the Democrats are shite but not as universally shite as the Rebublicans.

Not on this specific issue, anyway.
 
droodzilla said:
I know (I counted). Schumer makes 13, if we accept your interpretation.

47 Democrats in the Senate.

Therefore about 27% voted with the Republicans. 73% didn't.

So the Democrats are shite but not as universally shite as the Rebublicans.

Not on this specific issue, anyway.
Click to expand...
Drood, there was no need for a bunch of Democrats to put themselves forward and support a very unpopular motion. Only ten were necessary and 12 stepped up.

This doesn't prove that those Dems who didn't openly support it are against it, although I guess they could be.

Schumer didn't try to stop them, so does that not suggest he was supportive of it?
 
Nice one Bernie!

Sanders won't endorse Feinstein

Feinstein, throughout her career, has been viewed as more centrist than many of her Democratic colleagues.

She has been a strong proponent of giving intelligence agencies wide-ranging authority to conduct surveillance against suspected terrorists.

She voted, for example, to reauthorize the warrantless spying program as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and to confirm former Republican Sen. Dan Coats (Ind.) as the director of national intelligence.

Sanders voted "no" on both questions.

An analysis by FiveThirtyEight, a publication that specializes in political statistics, found in October that Feinstein had voted in support of Trump’s agenda 31 percent of the time, a higher percentage than a lawmaker from such a liberal state would be expected to.

Her record has caused friction with more liberal Democrats.

California Rep. Ro Khanna (D) called on her to “move on” last year and criticized her for not being a stronger advocate for privacy or backing universal Medicare.
 
This is the most worrying thing I've read in a long time. From The World Socialist Website:

The CIA Democrats

This is the first part of a three-part article.

An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.

Continued


 
With so much going on I doubt many people even noticed:

Push for Volcker rule reforms gains momentum

After achieving bipartisan support by the House Committee on Financial Services, H.R. 4790, the Volker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act moved onto the House Rules Committee. It held an initial hearing on April 13. The bill was enacted by the full House by a 300-104 vote on Friday; 78 Democrats voted in favor along with a majority of Republicans.

If passed by the Senate (and signed by President Trump), the bill would amend Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which enacted the Volcker rule, to streamline the regulatory authority over the rule by granting the Federal Reserve the exclusive rulemaking authority and providing for sole examination and enforcement authority by an entity’s primary federal regulator.
 
maxflinn said:
With so much going on I doubt many people even noticed:

Push for Volcker rule reforms gains momentum

After achieving bipartisan support by the House Committee on Financial Services, H.R. 4790, the Volker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act moved onto the House Rules Committee. It held an initial hearing on April 13. The bill was enacted by the full House by a 300-104 vote on Friday; 78 Democrats voted in favor along with a majority of Republicans.

If passed by the Senate (and signed by President Trump), the bill would amend Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which enacted the Volcker rule, to streamline the regulatory authority over the rule by granting the Federal Reserve the exclusive rulemaking authority and providing for sole examination and enforcement authority by an entity’s primary federal regulator.
Click to expand...

I've read it a few times now and you'll have to help me out: is that a good thing or bad thing?
 
Seeker_UK said:
I've read it a few times now and you'll have to help me out: is that a good thing or bad thing?
Click to expand...

Well, I can't say I fully understand the implications in terms of how it might effect finance etc, but it appears to be an act that would remove certain safeguards designed to stop banks from potentially reckless behaviour.
 
droodzilla said:
Yes, I think that's correct. The safeguards were introduced by Obama following the 2008 crash.
Click to expand...
Are they anything like the safeguards that were put in place after the first "Wall Street Crash" that were removed by oh-I-can't-remember-who allowing/encouraging it all to happen again. (And again?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top