I never talked about the nomination, only about liberals pointing out that Sanders would stand a much better shot at winning against Trump.

Yet Sanders not winning the Democratic nomination is sort of the point. The DNC and the talking heads had their mind set on a candidate from amongst their midst, and put their combined weight behind her. They went with a candidate who was vulnerable on just about every angle to attacks from Trump, due to her being a continuation of previous policies. That's not picking the candidate who stands the highest chance of winning the Presidential Election, that's picking someone who represents their own interests. Which is fair enough. But then don't blame the purist liberals for pointing out the dangers of this strategy.

Thing is, we know the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign. Even more details of this are coming in bit by bit through discovery during the class-action lawsuit filed against the DNC. To call the Hillary Victory Fund a money-laundering operation for the Clinton campaign might even be too kind by now.

We also know that they actively pushed for Trump to be the nominee, thinking the election would be a cakewalk then. Brilliant strategists, the lot of them.

And the same people are running „the Resistence“ now, doubling down on what they did before. How is that for learning a lesson. Instead, they play the blame game. And Maher, in this clip, jumped in and blamed „purist liberals“. Not the DNC, not Clinton for running a campaign based on platitudes, clichés, and everything except policy substance.

If you want to blame the purist liberals for anything, blame them for not having campaigned hard enough, for not having put enough pressure to either get their candidate nominated or to get Clinton to at least pretend to be willing to do something about the suffering of the lower class. Blame the liberals for being content with a few improvements in social policies while swallowing economic policies that cause a continuous degredation of the standard of living of the lower class.

Still, purist liberals kept saying that the antidote against right-wing populism is left-wing populism. Sanders was not vulnerable on policy issues. In fact, this 187 year old bloke with bad posture is nigh untouchable on policy issues. When even Trump voters in West Virginia admit that a guy from the Northeast is a better advocate of theirs than local Republicans, you know his policies are not open to attack from right-wing populists.

As for purity vs pragmatism: pragmatism is a label for the policies that led to the current state of affairs. It's the policies that led to large-scale devastation across the country. It's not pragmatic to vote for more of the same if it means a continuation of policies that led you into despair. Purity is the label talking heads apply to a principled stance when they don't agree with it, plain and simple. Both labels allow them to distract from discussions about policy substance.

This one deserves more attention than it currently gets, I'd say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11447805/Eurozone-faces-first-regional-bankruptcy-as-debt-debacle-stalks-Austrias-Carinthia.html

Short version: Austrian bank ignores due diligence, does shitload of risky business in Balkans/Eastern Europe, business goes sour, trouble gets magnified by several events, bad bank is created, bad bank is now insolvent, new bail-in rules apply -- murder and mayhem everywhere.

The bank itself has a rather fascinating history of corruption within both Austria and Germany. In fact, it was taken over by a public bank from Bavaria under extremely dubious circumstances, and separated again a few years back under equally dubious circumstances. A whole lot of money laundering for our conservative party went through that bank, I can tell you that much.

Good source of entertainment, that one.

Listen again...she is crystal clear over and over again that she is asking for an "expert opinion" from these guys who are supposed to be the experts in our government on money laundering.

They don't need to have the "authority" to shut down a bank to provide an "expert opinion" do they? Why won't they answer? It's not a trick question...they fully investigated this bank and apparently gave them the maximum fines that they were allowed to...so why dance around the question? How could they not have an opinion?

Question: "what's the difference between ^that^ and money laundering?"

Answer: money laundering is illegal.

Soooooo, both sides receive massive amounts of money from the rich and powerful but one of those sides is moral and the other not... because, why?

Why do you think welfare was created by a bunch of rich, racist white guys? Could it have been, instead of goodness, a corporate money laundering scheme? I mean it goes straight from the most poor of souls--barely keeping them afloat. Not to mention limiting them-- and straight to businesses.

I would say Walmart is very happy with this program and the people it helps are barely scraping by. I would also add that those rich people also put into place our justice system, which further makes the poor dejected…

Or better—--look at corn subsides… Goes straight to big corn, puts small famers out of business. But does it help the poor? You bet your fucking ass it “helps!” More than welfare any day of the week. It reduces the price of all food by leaps and bounds. That’s millions of restaurants too. But is it for you and I? Even though it benefits us? Fuck no… It means more money for the fat cat.


>> ^raverman:
The problem is that the two branches of Civil Liberty and Small Government are opposing objectives because Bureaucratic corruption aside, the government plays a role in representing and protecting the liberty of the people.
The left likes Civil Liberty, but doesn't believe the massive base of working class individuals can protect themselves from the rich and powerful barons and corporate warlords that develop in the power vacuum without central government.
The right likes the idea of small government purely because it gives more power to the rich and powerful barons and corporate warlords. They manipulate the concept of 'civil liberty' that individuals do not need the government to limit the control of the rich.. while unspoken is interpretation that this is fend for yourself or die trying world.
The Left won't accept giving up control will give more civil protection, but the right can give lip service to civil liberties and ignore it as 'aspirational' when need be.

Please. Can we stop referring to this shit as "the war on drugs"? There is no war on drugs. Instead there's a drive to keep the alcohol industry profitable, to keep the private prison industry growing. The banks make billions on drug money laundering. And let's not forget that it's a very convenient means of detaining, arresting and imprisoning poor people.

This is going to be SO popular with money launderers.

Yeah, this is going to get crazy. Money laundering through non-existent organization to pretend its not Exxon bankrolling Tom 'Fuck-the-Environment' Conservative.


Wow, she really draws this stuff out. Couldn't edit the writing down a little tighter?...

This guy is a very good speaker. His gestures are.. He strikes me as a lie. A living lie.

I'm going to Godwin this now, there are other good speakers, and one that he reminds me of is Hitler.

US, plutocratic actions on Haiti, if true are deplorable.

Accusations of widespread human rights abuses

Human Rights Watch accused the Haitian police force under President Aristide, and his political supporters, of attacks on opposition rallies. They also said that the emergence of armed rebel groups seeking to overthrow Aristide reflected "the failure of the country’s democratic institutions and procedures."[27]

The OAS/UN International Civilian Mission in Haiti, known as MICIVIH (its French acronym) found that the human-rights situation in Haiti improved dramatically following Aristide's return to power in 1994. [28] Amnesty International reported that Haiti was "descending into a severe humanitarian and human rights crisis" after Aristide's departure in 2004.[29]
[edit] Accusations of drug trafficking

Drug trafficking was allegedly a major source of money. Canadian police arrested Oriel Jean, Aristide's security chief and one of the most trusted friends, for money laundering.[30] Beaudoin Ketant, a notorious international drug trafficker, Aristide's close partner, and his daughter's godfather, confessed that Aristide "turned the country into a narco-country. It's a one-man show. You either pay (Aristide) or you die." Aristide denied the allegation, and the U.S. has not charged him directly with involvment in the drug trade.[31]
[edit] Accusations of corruption

Haitian investigators claimed to have discovered extensive embezzlement and money laundering by Aristide's administration, in which millions of dollars of public funds were allegedly lost to sophisticated financial transactions.[32] Aristide has forcefully denied these accusations. [33] The Haitian government filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit in the U.S. in Miami, Florida, in November of 2005, alleging that Aristide and his associates took hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from the long distance company IDT, and that IDT diverted into a secret offshore bank account controlled by Aristide payments that should have gone to the Haitian company Teleco. The lawsuit was suspended by the Haitian government on June 30, 2006. [34][35]
[edit] Accusations of embezzlement of telecom revenues

According to a report by Christopher Caldwell in the July 1994 American Spectator, Aristide stole Haiti's telecom revenues while in the United States. Caldwell claims that, between 1991 and 1994, Aristide ordered that the proceeds from Haiti's international phone traffic, handled by the Latin American division of AT&T, be moved to a numbered offshore bank account in Panama.[36]

Some officials have been indicted by an US court.[37] The companies which made deals with Aristide included IDT, Fusion Telecommunications, and Skytel; critics claim the two first companies had political links. AT&T reportedly declined to wire money to "Mont Salem".[38][39][40][41]

Your video, Vatican bank accused of money laundering, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Another thing about this stimulus: why do we have to have this money washed by the money launderers in Washington? Why don't we let the people who are producing it keep it and stimulate the economy themselves? Why does it have to go to Washington for these bigwigs to sit around and ponder who's going to get it? Do you know in the Obama stimulus package $4.19 billion is going to ACORN, Obama's community organizing group? Would somebody tell me what the stimulus is in that? Oh, it's not called ACORN, it's called neighborhood stabilization programs. Now, would somebody explain to me what in the name of Sam Hill $4.19 billion to a voter fraud organization has to do with stimulus? I'll tell you what's going on here, ladies and gentlemen, we are funding Obama and the Democrat Party's army on the street. We are funding the forces of the Democrat Party's reelection.

These libraries are money laundering fronts.

I will admit that the clause in the law relating to the Internet had an old-person "what in the hell is all this internets?" vibe to it. However, not all law enforcement measures are presumptively bad as people who break things and hurt different people do, in fact, still exist. But I have worked on that side of the fence and I do claim a bias.

And I will also note that the internet was the second or third best method of drug cartel money laundering (depending on where you slot black market peso exchange) until the federal ML laws were tightened a few years ago and PayPal and similar transfer systems were squeezed and scrunched a little bit by the Feds.

Currently, if you really wish to launder illicit funds, I recommend a hawala.

It's just a start at bargaining. You set a high number and work your way down to 35. And after that, you work your way down to Filipino.

And to answer your question, Lucky, the plans go all the way to the top. Senators, CEO's, money laundering, Swiss bank accounts, and a fake mustache for a clever disguise.

Like the immigration debate, you can bring so many factors into the 9/11 Truth issue that it verges on jabberwocky after awhile.

I want to take up farhad's criminal negligence point. I disagree with it, but it is such a fascinating and still unsettled intra-governmental debate.

Do we want a government where the Intelligence and Criminal Enforcement agencies are freely sharing information? If you take it too far, you have the Stasi or any other 20th Century communist police state apparatus you can name.

There is no question that DOJ, FBI, and the CIA are unprepared to deal with the Arab world. I have so many funny (sad) stories about efforts to "thwart" terrorist money laundering alone. There is also no question that the US Government undervalued or failed to assess properly this threat. I don't know that it is negligence, though; it is more a refusal to adapt to realities of positioning in the post-Cold War period.