http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheryl-sandberg-hillary-clinton_us_57daf964e4b04a1497b3249f

In case you missed the hot, speculative news about the 2016 presidential race, The Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim reported that sources close to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump are saying that he’d be inclined to appoint “eccentric” tech billionaire (and Trump endorser) Peter Thiel to the Supreme Court, where he’ll have a greater opportunity to ensure that America’s plutocrats are no longer bothered by nosy journalists or would-be trust-busters.

But Hillary Clinton, she is not to be outdone! See, the former secretary of state knows tech billionaires, too (and not just disgraced ones), so if you want to get into a famous-friend-turned-potential-appointee fight, Clinton is ready to bring it. Here’s the skinny from Politico’s Morning Money newsletter:

TREASURY WATCH: SANDBERG RISING — Early speculation held that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg probably wouldn’t leave California to return to DC to serve as Treasury Secretary in a Clinton administration. That’s changed lately as MM hears more and more that she could return to be the first woman to lead Treasury. The left may not love her roots in the Bob Rubin wing of the Democratic Party but her star power and historic potential would probably blow away any opposition.
Naturally, this is all mere scuttlebutt, though it is plausible scuttlebutt for a host of reasons. As noted above, Sandberg has “roots” in the Democratic Party, and yes, it’s from the part of the Democratic Party that everyone’s rightly skeptical about. Prior to her Facebook career, Sandberg was enmeshed with the folks who appeared on the Time magazine cover that has aged the poorest. Specifically, she served as chief of staff to Larry Summers during his tenure as secretary of the treasury, where he served under Bill Clinton.

But it’s not merely her place in the Clinton family orbit that makes this rumor feel just right. Sandberg is almost the perfect embodiment of Clinton’s larger economic policy portfolio ― indeed, the economic policy portfolio of the Democrats writ large ― which was ably summed up by author Thomas Frank in a March interview with HuffPost: “At some point, [the Democrats] decided that they weren’t all that interested in the concerns of working people anymore.” Rather, Frank says, they became fixated on “the concerns of the professional class, people with advanced degrees, people at the very top of our economic society.”

On the stump, Clinton talks about the need to further diversify this professional class. Hey, let’s solve income inequality by ensuring that the corporate board of every military contractor in Washington’s suburban belt looks more like the United Colors of Benetton, guys! Installing Sandberg at the Treasury, and releasing all the “historic potential” that comes from being the first woman to head the agency, would be in keeping with that theme. That’s “Part One” of the plan, anyway. (”Part Three” is “everybody wins” and Part Two is a series of tastefully aligned question marks.)

Sandberg, of course, is best known for being the author of Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, her insanely popular manifesto of next-wave feminist aspiration, which encourages women in the workforce (the “knowledge sector” workforce, anyway) to embolden themselves on the job and deconstruct all of the psychological barriers that these women have supposedly erected around themselves in order to surmount the more structural, sexist barriers erected by others (white men).

The book, naturally, spawned the Lean In Foundation, which bills itself as “a nonprofit organization and online community dedicated to helping all women achieve their ambitions.” But while there is no shortage of positive testimonials available at the foundation’s website ― including one from Reese Witherspoon, who’s well-known to have only won a single Academy Award (and a Golden Globe and a BAFTA and a Screen Actors Guild Award) before Lean In came along ― it’s hard to actually quantify how well the Lean In brand is helping individual women in the workforce.

However, it is easy to discern how well Lean In is serving its corporate sponsors. And it’s not exactly taking a courageous role in smashing the patriarchy.

In a 2013 issue of The Baffler, journalist and author Susan Faludi undertook a deep examination of Lean In’s corporate partners in order to settle an argument: “Sandberg’s admirers would say that Lean In is using free-market beliefs to advance the cause of women’s equality. Her detractors would say (and have) that her organization is using the desire for women’s equality to advance the cause of the free market.”

Those detractors have a point!

As Faludi skillfully enumerates, Lean In’s corporate partners are legion and include big names, such as: “Chevron, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Comcast, Bank of America and Citibank, Coca-Cola and Pepsico, AT&T and Verizon, Ford and GM, Pfizer and Merck & Co., Costco and Walmart, and, of course, Google and Facebook.”

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:I mean think about it..If you boy from Fox News can prove that a respected organization like politifact is indeed bias and lies as well then it would be a major coop...But I'm sure he has his reason why he doesn't want to expose them..

I have no boys at Fox and I believe that all journalism is subjective not objective. That includes politifact and fox news and everyone else.

The point of showing that there are biased views that believe a subjective organization is biased ... the whole thing is silly. Whoever edits and controls each media has an ideological bias.

I read a "fact" that the Paper that runs politifact has never endorsed a Republican for president or Governor ... hmmmm.

Again, who owns what and what is their agenda / ideology? If you were objective which of course you aren't you would have done this fact checking. Saying that this their work and their reputation depends on it so therefore they must be objective is you just being lazy.

BEWARE THE MAN OF ONE STUDY (and yes, I am sure that it is subjective as well)

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/

Well that seems to be the game isn't it..Try to discredit those who question your facts or lack of it..Much like how you try to equate what Fox News does with CNN and Trump's lies with Hillary's lies..

the game is to get people to believe that what they are selling is fact and if you don't believe it, you are a bad, ignorant person, and of course un american or not a true knick fan.

I don't equate anything since subjectivity is not measurable. People who fall victim to the belief that there is objectivity in reporting maybe a bit more quantifiable.

No idea why you think I have a bias towards Trump, I don't. I am an objective jew who likes israel. Everyone in Israel btw, are objective. They just want do gooding to go on in the world.

Actually the game is to discredit all media so that nobody has be accountable for presenting facts, which allows people (Trump) to make up their own facts. If Trump tells a lie all he has to do is say the "mainstream media" and its automatically dismissed by his constituents no matter how true it is. There is difference between someone's point of view and facts. Saying Trump is lying about not supported the Iraq war prior to the invasion is a fact. Doesn't matter if CNN, MSNBC or Michael Moore says it, it is a fact. The source of the information doesn't change that it's true.

the point is that being that the MSM is far from objective, you can't take things that are claimed as fact based on the assumption of honesty and objectivity. Of course, we can use our own judgement to determine what (we believe) is true or not.

Do I believe that Trumps lies? I do. Is it because his pants are on fire? Of course not. Same goes for Hillary.

I find this an overly blanket statement

you are free to do that.

hey mreinman, you are very much watering down a thread that could be otherwise informative. If you don't really have anything to add, stick to the Knicks threads. Thanks.

I disagree ... you have posters who are stating things such as what politifact says is fact and you are not checking them.

this thread seems very one sided and you are very aggressively going after every dissenting opinion. Is that a fair and balanced approach?

I am not picking sides but if you will allow one side to just steamroll the other then that is unfair and as a mod, you should be enforcing a higher standard.

Respectfully,

This mentality of either you agree or get out seems very undemocratic and not open minded.

I am going to go after anything that is substantiated in an uninformed way, no doubt about it.

Regarding the taxes thing, there is a very simple solution for you and anyone else that doesn't know these type of 101 questions: Google. Let it be your friend. It's almost akin to asking if there are real difference between Dems and Reps or if the President has to be born in the United States or if the Birtherism thing was bad for our country.

If you don't know enough about the process or what goes into an election and what our candidates need to be sharing with us and how they should be doing so, be more of a passive reader and poster in this thread.

Ok fair enough. I just went back to google and as usual, things are quite murky in this area especially with the number of years that each candidate has chosen to release:

Mitt Romney has insisted that he will only release two years of his personal income taxes. But while candidates running for president are not legally obligated to release their taxes, there is a long tradition of doing so, in addition to public financial disclosure laws candidates must follow.

As a Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter released just one year of returns for the year 1975, while sitting President Gerald Ford had released summaries of the previous 10 years, according to the Washington Post.

In 1980, former President Ronald Reagan released one year of records.

Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry released 20 years of tax returns when he ran against George W. Bush in 2004, however his independently wealthy wife Teresa Heinz Kerry only released a portion of her 2003 returns after mounting pressure.

Presidential candidates began releasing their returns consistently starting in the early 1970's according to Thorndike, and in 1978, all presidential and vice presidential candidates were required to release certain financial documents as a result of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which mandates all candidates running for office of President of the United States to file a Public Financial Disclosure Report with the Federal Election Commission.

I also did not know that Trump was under an Audit (which may in itself be new precedent).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/05/us/elections/presidential-tax-returns.html?_r=0

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/05/25/senate-bill-would-require-presidential-candidates-including-tax-to-release-tax-returns/#5b10693b7b3f

OK, so these are good questions as well as some good topics.

We are electing the most important official for the high office in our country and probably THE most influential person on the world. Let that sink in. The MOST INFLUENTIAL INDIVIDUAL PERSON IN THE WORLD.

The more information we have on that person, the better. No hiding anything purposely (and I am not talking about the disclosure of flu-like symptoms before a weekend outing). No blatant lies. No shades of bigotry, racism. You should have a long history of helping others. You should be well meaning. Like that. Those are low bars that someone should have in order to run for this position. The Republicans are a ****ed party and have pandered and catered to a lot of people within our country to keep their vote and have shaded their own essence and core towards a very slippery slow just to hold onto power (ie, they have tried to keep the white southern vote as well as gerrymandered voting districts and have introduced "voting fraud" laws that pop up all over the place that are only there to hold down participation in the democratic process by those that typically do NOT vote in their favor) and are now paying for that untoward behavior and the rest of America is being exposed to that; the chickens have come home to roost and Trump is their canidate.

Let me give you 1 very good example of why a president should make public at least give 1 years worth of taxes: We will know (from a business perspective in this particular case) who that person is tied/beholden to: shady individuals, debt to other countries (China, Russia, etc.), corporations that would undoubtedly tie him/her to them and be beholden to their best interests instead of Americas best interest (Think Dick Cheney and Halliburton and why we really went into Iraq). Trump doesn't want us to know these and other things.

Trump claims he is under audit. The IRS says there is nothing in the law that suggests he CAN'T release his taxes while being under audit. Quite frankly, we don't even know if Trump is even under audit, I personally suspect he is not and just making that up as an excuse that most will go with.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:I mean think about it..If you boy from Fox News can prove that a respected organization like politifact is indeed bias and lies as well then it would be a major coop...But I'm sure he has his reason why he doesn't want to expose them..

I have no boys at Fox and I believe that all journalism is subjective not objective. That includes politifact and fox news and everyone else.

The point of showing that there are biased views that believe a subjective organization is biased ... the whole thing is silly. Whoever edits and controls each media has an ideological bias.

I read a "fact" that the Paper that runs politifact has never endorsed a Republican for president or Governor ... hmmmm.

Again, who owns what and what is their agenda / ideology? If you were objective which of course you aren't you would have done this fact checking. Saying that this their work and their reputation depends on it so therefore they must be objective is you just being lazy.

BEWARE THE MAN OF ONE STUDY (and yes, I am sure that it is subjective as well)

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/

Well that seems to be the game isn't it..Try to discredit those who question your facts or lack of it..Much like how you try to equate what Fox News does with CNN and Trump's lies with Hillary's lies..

the game is to get people to believe that what they are selling is fact and if you don't believe it, you are a bad, ignorant person, and of course un american or not a true knick fan.

I don't equate anything since subjectivity is not measurable. People who fall victim to the belief that there is objectivity in reporting maybe a bit more quantifiable.

No idea why you think I have a bias towards Trump, I don't. I am an objective jew who likes israel. Everyone in Israel btw, are objective. They just want do gooding to go on in the world.

Actually the game is to discredit all media so that nobody has be accountable for presenting facts, which allows people (Trump) to make up their own facts. If Trump tells a lie all he has to do is say the "mainstream media" and its automatically dismissed by his constituents no matter how true it is. There is difference between someone's point of view and facts. Saying Trump is lying about not supported the Iraq war prior to the invasion is a fact. Doesn't matter if CNN, MSNBC or Michael Moore says it, it is a fact. The source of the information doesn't change that it's true.

the point is that being that the MSM is far from objective, you can't take things that are claimed as fact based on the assumption of honesty and objectivity. Of course, we can use our own judgement to determine what (we believe) is true or not.

Do I believe that Trumps lies? I do. Is it because his pants are on fire? Of course not. Same goes for Hillary.

I find this an overly blanket statement

you are free to do that.

hey mreinman, you are very much watering down a thread that could be otherwise informative. If you don't really have anything to add, stick to the Knicks threads. Thanks.

I disagree ... you have posters who are stating things such as what politifact says is fact and you are not checking them.

this thread seems very one sided and you are very aggressively going after every dissenting opinion. Is that a fair and balanced approach?

I am not picking sides but if you will allow one side to just steamroll the other then that is unfair and as a mod, you should be enforcing a higher standard.

Respectfully,

This mentality of either you agree or get out seems very undemocratic and not open minded.

I am going to go after anything that is substantiated in an uninformed way, no doubt about it.

Regarding the taxes thing, there is a very simple solution for you and anyone else that doesn't know these type of 101 questions: Google. Let it be your friend. It's almost akin to asking if there are real difference between Dems and Reps or if the President has to be born in the United States or if the Birtherism thing was bad for our country.

If you don't know enough about the process or what goes into an election and what our candidates need to be sharing with us and how they should be doing so, be more of a passive reader and poster in this thread.

Ok fair enough. I just went back to google and as usual, things are quite murky in this area especially with the number of years that each candidate has chosen to release:

Mitt Romney has insisted that he will only release two years of his personal income taxes. But while candidates running for president are not legally obligated to release their taxes, there is a long tradition of doing so, in addition to public financial disclosure laws candidates must follow.

As a Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter released just one year of returns for the year 1975, while sitting President Gerald Ford had released summaries of the previous 10 years, according to the Washington Post.

In 1980, former President Ronald Reagan released one year of records.

Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry released 20 years of tax returns when he ran against George W. Bush in 2004, however his independently wealthy wife Teresa Heinz Kerry only released a portion of her 2003 returns after mounting pressure.

Presidential candidates began releasing their returns consistently starting in the early 1970's according to Thorndike, and in 1978, all presidential and vice presidential candidates were required to release certain financial documents as a result of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which mandates all candidates running for office of President of the United States to file a Public Financial Disclosure Report with the Federal Election Commission.

I also did not know that Trump was under an Audit (which may in itself be new precedent).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/05/us/elections/presidential-tax-returns.html?_r=0

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/05/25/senate-bill-would-require-presidential-candidates-including-tax-to-release-tax-returns/#5b10693b7b3f

OK, so these are good questions as well as some good topics.

We are electing the most important official for the high office in our country and probably THE most influential person on the world. Let that sink in. The MOST INFLUENTIAL INDIVIDUAL PERSON IN THE WORLD.

The more information we have on that person, the better. No hiding anything purposely (and I am not talking about the disclosure of flu-like symptoms before a weekend outing). No blatant lies. No shades of bigotry, racism. You should have a long history of helping others. You should be well meaning. Like that. Those are low bars that someone should have in order to run for this position. The Republicans are a ****ed party and have pandered and catered to a lot of people within our country and have shaded their own essence and core towards a very slippery slow just to hold onto power (ie, they have tried to keep the white southern vote as well as gerrymandered voting districts and have introduced "voting fraud" laws that pop up all over the place that are only there to hold down participation in the democratic process by those that typically do NOT vote in their favor) and are now paying for that untoward behavior and the rest of America is being exposed to that; the chickens have come home to roost and Trump is their canidate.

Let me give you 1 very good example of why a president should make public at least give 1 years worth of taxes: We will know (from a business perspective in this particular case) who that person is tied/beholden to: shady individuals, debt to other countries (China, Russia, etc.), corporations that would undoubtedly tie him/her to them and be beholden to their best interests instead of Americas best interest (Think Dick Cheney and Halliburton and why we really went into Iraq). Trump doesn't want us to know these and other things.

Trump claims he is under audit. The IRS says there is nothing in the law that suggests he CAN'T release his taxes while being under audit. Quite frankly, we don't even know if Trump is even under audit, I personally suspect he is not and just making that up as an excuse that most will go with.

I think that every candidate needs disclose anything that may be a conflict of interest. Then there is the political question of what is the right move and what is good for the country. That is still a right and if they do or don't release then they must deal with the political outcome. You think it should be a law and the legislation should pass? Perhaps but that is what our legal process will handle.

We can't force a candidate to show all their medical records.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/health/presidential-candidate-health-disclosure/

We can't force them to show tax returns.

I think it would be great if we can get this info but it needs to follow the process in place.

Candidates do need to divulge any criminal/federal offenses (or maybe not):

Posting this because its funny (I know that is not what she meant)

“Earlier today, I announced that as president, I will take steps to ban the box, so former presidents won’t have to declare their criminal history at the very start of the hiring process,” she said. “That way, they’ll have a chance to be seen as more than just someone who’s done time.”

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/04/best-gaffe-ever-hillary-clinton-says-former-presidents-shouldnt-have-to-disclose-criminal-history/

The only thing that I can recall in regards to an arrest of a president prior to taking office was GWB's DUI.

Question: If Hillary or any candidate has MS or PD or ALS or anything serious like these (or worse), should they have to divulge?

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Wouldnt surprise me if it happens. Neither candidate is big on helping the poor and middle class to anything but empty promises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheryl-sandberg-hillary-clinton_us_57daf964e4b04a1497b3249f

In case you missed the hot, speculative news about the 2016 presidential race, The Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim reported that sources close to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump are saying that he’d be inclined to appoint “eccentric” tech billionaire (and Trump endorser) Peter Thiel to the Supreme Court, where he’ll have a greater opportunity to ensure that America’s plutocrats are no longer bothered by nosy journalists or would-be trust-busters.

But Hillary Clinton, she is not to be outdone! See, the former secretary of state knows tech billionaires, too (and not just disgraced ones), so if you want to get into a famous-friend-turned-potential-appointee fight, Clinton is ready to bring it. Here’s the skinny from Politico’s Morning Money newsletter:

TREASURY WATCH: SANDBERG RISING — Early speculation held that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg probably wouldn’t leave California to return to DC to serve as Treasury Secretary in a Clinton administration. That’s changed lately as MM hears more and more that she could return to be the first woman to lead Treasury. The left may not love her roots in the Bob Rubin wing of the Democratic Party but her star power and historic potential would probably blow away any opposition.
Naturally, this is all mere scuttlebutt, though it is plausible scuttlebutt for a host of reasons. As noted above, Sandberg has “roots” in the Democratic Party, and yes, it’s from the part of the Democratic Party that everyone’s rightly skeptical about. Prior to her Facebook career, Sandberg was enmeshed with the folks who appeared on the Time magazine cover that has aged the poorest. Specifically, she served as chief of staff to Larry Summers during his tenure as secretary of the treasury, where he served under Bill Clinton.

But it’s not merely her place in the Clinton family orbit that makes this rumor feel just right. Sandberg is almost the perfect embodiment of Clinton’s larger economic policy portfolio ― indeed, the economic policy portfolio of the Democrats writ large ― which was ably summed up by author Thomas Frank in a March interview with HuffPost: “At some point, [the Democrats] decided that they weren’t all that interested in the concerns of working people anymore.” Rather, Frank says, they became fixated on “the concerns of the professional class, people with advanced degrees, people at the very top of our economic society.”

On the stump, Clinton talks about the need to further diversify this professional class. Hey, let’s solve income inequality by ensuring that the corporate board of every military contractor in Washington’s suburban belt looks more like the United Colors of Benetton, guys! Installing Sandberg at the Treasury, and releasing all the “historic potential” that comes from being the first woman to head the agency, would be in keeping with that theme. That’s “Part One” of the plan, anyway. (”Part Three” is “everybody wins” and Part Two is a series of tastefully aligned question marks.)

Sandberg, of course, is best known for being the author of Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, her insanely popular manifesto of next-wave feminist aspiration, which encourages women in the workforce (the “knowledge sector” workforce, anyway) to embolden themselves on the job and deconstruct all of the psychological barriers that these women have supposedly erected around themselves in order to surmount the more structural, sexist barriers erected by others (white men).

The book, naturally, spawned the Lean In Foundation, which bills itself as “a nonprofit organization and online community dedicated to helping all women achieve their ambitions.” But while there is no shortage of positive testimonials available at the foundation’s website ― including one from Reese Witherspoon, who’s well-known to have only won a single Academy Award (and a Golden Globe and a BAFTA and a Screen Actors Guild Award) before Lean In came along ― it’s hard to actually quantify how well the Lean In brand is helping individual women in the workforce.

However, it is easy to discern how well Lean In is serving its corporate sponsors. And it’s not exactly taking a courageous role in smashing the patriarchy.

In a 2013 issue of The Baffler, journalist and author Susan Faludi undertook a deep examination of Lean In’s corporate partners in order to settle an argument: “Sandberg’s admirers would say that Lean In is using free-market beliefs to advance the cause of women’s equality. Her detractors would say (and have) that her organization is using the desire for women’s equality to advance the cause of the free market.”

Those detractors have a point!

As Faludi skillfully enumerates, Lean In’s corporate partners are legion and include big names, such as: “Chevron, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Comcast, Bank of America and Citibank, Coca-Cola and Pepsico, AT&T and Verizon, Ford and GM, Pfizer and Merck & Co., Costco and Walmart, and, of course, Google and Facebook.”

Republicans talk about "helping" but fail to spell out how. Democrats are more willing to dole out support which is a bandaid for a vicious cycle.
Thus, other than pull up the economy which helps everyone, including the "rich", what is this mystical "Help" that we all speak of?
Republicans in red states with vicious Tea Party cuts and exhausted by "Handouts" seemingly does not have the patience to "Help". Minorities are fatiqued by failed hype that a black president would be a hero and yet here we are in 2016 with more racial violence seen in years.

Vote for Johnson is a vote from Hilary and to trump.
We need to kick the can down the road with Hilary. If we one term her, so be it, but the orange man is scary.

Not sure where you are going with "support". The biggest problem with those programs is that they cant help the 45 million Americans living in poverty to rise above it. Not the way this economy works for a select few. For many a "band aid" is all they have despite their best efforts to change that.

When you give people good paying jobs, jobs that people can more than barely survive on, Americans don't have to use these programs as much. Crime goes down, people are healthier on average, less drug and alcohol abuse. More money flows into the economy. Good things happen. But if you look at wages since the 70s, its pretty much a flat line, while a very very small pct of the population taking most of the gains. Thats why Trump is so popular, he also points to convenient scapegoats. Immigrants, minorities.

This quote from "Three days of the Condor", great NY film, reminds me of Trump supporters. People who lost almost everything in the great recession and never fully recovered.

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Trying to get the working class involved in the economy is a more complex issue than is being reported especially after the horrific recession we just experienced..But just like Trump uses immigrants and minorities as scapegoats, so does the Bernie Sander class use Wall Street as a scapegoat..

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Wouldnt surprise me if it happens. Neither candidate is big on helping the poor and middle class to anything but empty promises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheryl-sandberg-hillary-clinton_us_57daf964e4b04a1497b3249f

In case you missed the hot, speculative news about the 2016 presidential race, The Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim reported that sources close to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump are saying that he’d be inclined to appoint “eccentric” tech billionaire (and Trump endorser) Peter Thiel to the Supreme Court, where he’ll have a greater opportunity to ensure that America’s plutocrats are no longer bothered by nosy journalists or would-be trust-busters.

But Hillary Clinton, she is not to be outdone! See, the former secretary of state knows tech billionaires, too (and not just disgraced ones), so if you want to get into a famous-friend-turned-potential-appointee fight, Clinton is ready to bring it. Here’s the skinny from Politico’s Morning Money newsletter:

TREASURY WATCH: SANDBERG RISING — Early speculation held that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg probably wouldn’t leave California to return to DC to serve as Treasury Secretary in a Clinton administration. That’s changed lately as MM hears more and more that she could return to be the first woman to lead Treasury. The left may not love her roots in the Bob Rubin wing of the Democratic Party but her star power and historic potential would probably blow away any opposition.
Naturally, this is all mere scuttlebutt, though it is plausible scuttlebutt for a host of reasons. As noted above, Sandberg has “roots” in the Democratic Party, and yes, it’s from the part of the Democratic Party that everyone’s rightly skeptical about. Prior to her Facebook career, Sandberg was enmeshed with the folks who appeared on the Time magazine cover that has aged the poorest. Specifically, she served as chief of staff to Larry Summers during his tenure as secretary of the treasury, where he served under Bill Clinton.

But it’s not merely her place in the Clinton family orbit that makes this rumor feel just right. Sandberg is almost the perfect embodiment of Clinton’s larger economic policy portfolio ― indeed, the economic policy portfolio of the Democrats writ large ― which was ably summed up by author Thomas Frank in a March interview with HuffPost: “At some point, [the Democrats] decided that they weren’t all that interested in the concerns of working people anymore.” Rather, Frank says, they became fixated on “the concerns of the professional class, people with advanced degrees, people at the very top of our economic society.”

On the stump, Clinton talks about the need to further diversify this professional class. Hey, let’s solve income inequality by ensuring that the corporate board of every military contractor in Washington’s suburban belt looks more like the United Colors of Benetton, guys! Installing Sandberg at the Treasury, and releasing all the “historic potential” that comes from being the first woman to head the agency, would be in keeping with that theme. That’s “Part One” of the plan, anyway. (”Part Three” is “everybody wins” and Part Two is a series of tastefully aligned question marks.)

Sandberg, of course, is best known for being the author of Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, her insanely popular manifesto of next-wave feminist aspiration, which encourages women in the workforce (the “knowledge sector” workforce, anyway) to embolden themselves on the job and deconstruct all of the psychological barriers that these women have supposedly erected around themselves in order to surmount the more structural, sexist barriers erected by others (white men).

The book, naturally, spawned the Lean In Foundation, which bills itself as “a nonprofit organization and online community dedicated to helping all women achieve their ambitions.” But while there is no shortage of positive testimonials available at the foundation’s website ― including one from Reese Witherspoon, who’s well-known to have only won a single Academy Award (and a Golden Globe and a BAFTA and a Screen Actors Guild Award) before Lean In came along ― it’s hard to actually quantify how well the Lean In brand is helping individual women in the workforce.

However, it is easy to discern how well Lean In is serving its corporate sponsors. And it’s not exactly taking a courageous role in smashing the patriarchy.

In a 2013 issue of The Baffler, journalist and author Susan Faludi undertook a deep examination of Lean In’s corporate partners in order to settle an argument: “Sandberg’s admirers would say that Lean In is using free-market beliefs to advance the cause of women’s equality. Her detractors would say (and have) that her organization is using the desire for women’s equality to advance the cause of the free market.”

Those detractors have a point!

As Faludi skillfully enumerates, Lean In’s corporate partners are legion and include big names, such as: “Chevron, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Comcast, Bank of America and Citibank, Coca-Cola and Pepsico, AT&T and Verizon, Ford and GM, Pfizer and Merck & Co., Costco and Walmart, and, of course, Google and Facebook.”

Republicans talk about "helping" but fail to spell out how. Democrats are more willing to dole out support which is a bandaid for a vicious cycle.
Thus, other than pull up the economy which helps everyone, including the "rich", what is this mystical "Help" that we all speak of?
Republicans in red states with vicious Tea Party cuts and exhausted by "Handouts" seemingly does not have the patience to "Help". Minorities are fatiqued by failed hype that a black president would be a hero and yet here we are in 2016 with more racial violence seen in years.

Vote for Johnson is a vote from Hilary and to trump.
We need to kick the can down the road with Hilary. If we one term her, so be it, but the orange man is scary.

Not sure where you are going with "support". The biggest problem with those programs is that they cant help the 45 million Americans living in poverty to rise above it. Not the way this economy works for a select few. For many a "band aid" is all they have despite their best efforts to change that.

When you give people good paying jobs, jobs that people can more than barely survive on, Americans don't have to use these programs as much. Crime goes down, people are healthier on average, less drug and alcohol abuse. More money flows into the economy. Good things happen. But if you look at wages since the 70s, its pretty much a flat line, while a very very small pct of the population taking most of the gains. Thats why Trump is so popular, he also points to convenient scapegoats. Immigrants, minorities.

This quote from "Three days of the Condor", great NY film, reminds me of Trump supporters. People who lost almost everything in the great recession and never fully recovered.

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Trying to get the working class involved in the economy is a more complex issue than is being reported especially after the horrific recession we just experienced..But just like Trump uses immigrants and minorities as scapegoats, so does the Bernie Sander class use Wall Street as a scapegoat..

Sanders was right. Wall street led the deregulation of the financial services industry in the 90s, installed a revolving door with govt, and turned Wall Street into a casino. There was massive fraud that led to the great recession, and no one went to jail for it because the Attorney General was a former corporate lawyer who once represented these firms. Guess what he did after he left? You guessed it, went right back to Wall Street.

I have nothing against Wall Street when it isnt run like a casino. When its used to create jobs, industry, widely shared prosperity, Im all for it. When most of the decisions are made purely for the benefit of corporate America's largest shareholders, Im against it.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:I mean think about it..If you boy from Fox News can prove that a respected organization like politifact is indeed bias and lies as well then it would be a major coop...But I'm sure he has his reason why he doesn't want to expose them..

I have no boys at Fox and I believe that all journalism is subjective not objective. That includes politifact and fox news and everyone else.

The point of showing that there are biased views that believe a subjective organization is biased ... the whole thing is silly. Whoever edits and controls each media has an ideological bias.

I read a "fact" that the Paper that runs politifact has never endorsed a Republican for president or Governor ... hmmmm.

Again, who owns what and what is their agenda / ideology? If you were objective which of course you aren't you would have done this fact checking. Saying that this their work and their reputation depends on it so therefore they must be objective is you just being lazy.

BEWARE THE MAN OF ONE STUDY (and yes, I am sure that it is subjective as well)

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/

Well that seems to be the game isn't it..Try to discredit those who question your facts or lack of it..Much like how you try to equate what Fox News does with CNN and Trump's lies with Hillary's lies..

the game is to get people to believe that what they are selling is fact and if you don't believe it, you are a bad, ignorant person, and of course un american or not a true knick fan.

I don't equate anything since subjectivity is not measurable. People who fall victim to the belief that there is objectivity in reporting maybe a bit more quantifiable.

No idea why you think I have a bias towards Trump, I don't. I am an objective jew who likes israel. Everyone in Israel btw, are objective. They just want do gooding to go on in the world.

Actually the game is to discredit all media so that nobody has be accountable for presenting facts, which allows people (Trump) to make up their own facts. If Trump tells a lie all he has to do is say the "mainstream media" and its automatically dismissed by his constituents no matter how true it is. There is difference between someone's point of view and facts. Saying Trump is lying about not supported the Iraq war prior to the invasion is a fact. Doesn't matter if CNN, MSNBC or Michael Moore says it, it is a fact. The source of the information doesn't change that it's true.

the point is that being that the MSM is far from objective, you can't take things that are claimed as fact based on the assumption of honesty and objectivity. Of course, we can use our own judgement to determine what (we believe) is true or not.

Do I believe that Trumps lies? I do. Is it because his pants are on fire? Of course not. Same goes for Hillary.

I find this an overly blanket statement

you are free to do that.

hey mreinman, you are very much watering down a thread that could be otherwise informative. If you don't really have anything to add, stick to the Knicks threads. Thanks.

I disagree ... you have posters who are stating things such as what politifact says is fact and you are not checking them.

this thread seems very one sided and you are very aggressively going after every dissenting opinion. Is that a fair and balanced approach?

I am not picking sides but if you will allow one side to just steamroll the other then that is unfair and as a mod, you should be enforcing a higher standard.

Respectfully,

This mentality of either you agree or get out seems very undemocratic and not open minded.

I am going to go after anything that is substantiated in an uninformed way, no doubt about it.

Regarding the taxes thing, there is a very simple solution for you and anyone else that doesn't know these type of 101 questions: Google. Let it be your friend. It's almost akin to asking if there are real difference between Dems and Reps or if the President has to be born in the United States or if the Birtherism thing was bad for our country.

If you don't know enough about the process or what goes into an election and what our candidates need to be sharing with us and how they should be doing so, be more of a passive reader and poster in this thread.

Ok fair enough. I just went back to google and as usual, things are quite murky in this area especially with the number of years that each candidate has chosen to release:

Mitt Romney has insisted that he will only release two years of his personal income taxes. But while candidates running for president are not legally obligated to release their taxes, there is a long tradition of doing so, in addition to public financial disclosure laws candidates must follow.

As a Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter released just one year of returns for the year 1975, while sitting President Gerald Ford had released summaries of the previous 10 years, according to the Washington Post.

In 1980, former President Ronald Reagan released one year of records.

Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry released 20 years of tax returns when he ran against George W. Bush in 2004, however his independently wealthy wife Teresa Heinz Kerry only released a portion of her 2003 returns after mounting pressure.

Presidential candidates began releasing their returns consistently starting in the early 1970's according to Thorndike, and in 1978, all presidential and vice presidential candidates were required to release certain financial documents as a result of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which mandates all candidates running for office of President of the United States to file a Public Financial Disclosure Report with the Federal Election Commission.

I also did not know that Trump was under an Audit (which may in itself be new precedent).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/05/us/elections/presidential-tax-returns.html?_r=0

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/05/25/senate-bill-would-require-presidential-candidates-including-tax-to-release-tax-returns/#5b10693b7b3f

OK, so these are good questions as well as some good topics.

We are electing the most important official for the high office in our country and probably THE most influential person on the world. Let that sink in. The MOST INFLUENTIAL INDIVIDUAL PERSON IN THE WORLD.

The more information we have on that person, the better. No hiding anything purposely (and I am not talking about the disclosure of flu-like symptoms before a weekend outing). No blatant lies. No shades of bigotry, racism. You should have a long history of helping others. You should be well meaning. Like that. Those are low bars that someone should have in order to run for this position. The Republicans are a ****ed party and have pandered and catered to a lot of people within our country and have shaded their own essence and core towards a very slippery slow just to hold onto power (ie, they have tried to keep the white southern vote as well as gerrymandered voting districts and have introduced "voting fraud" laws that pop up all over the place that are only there to hold down participation in the democratic process by those that typically do NOT vote in their favor) and are now paying for that untoward behavior and the rest of America is being exposed to that; the chickens have come home to roost and Trump is their canidate.

Let me give you 1 very good example of why a president should make public at least give 1 years worth of taxes: We will know (from a business perspective in this particular case) who that person is tied/beholden to: shady individuals, debt to other countries (China, Russia, etc.), corporations that would undoubtedly tie him/her to them and be beholden to their best interests instead of Americas best interest (Think Dick Cheney and Halliburton and why we really went into Iraq). Trump doesn't want us to know these and other things.

Trump claims he is under audit. The IRS says there is nothing in the law that suggests he CAN'T release his taxes while being under audit. Quite frankly, we don't even know if Trump is even under audit, I personally suspect he is not and just making that up as an excuse that most will go with.

Exactly. Here's what happened when his campaign was asked about him releasing the IRS audit letter. The look of shock and confusion and response of "I'm sorry" was hilarious.

Trump neophytes duck and deflect into some "Hilary" statement. If Trump is not being Truthful, then point to something of doubt with Hilary.
I guess when your a homer, you don't see this.
Do I love Hilary? Nope.
but I deplore the orange man.

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Wouldnt surprise me if it happens. Neither candidate is big on helping the poor and middle class to anything but empty promises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheryl-sandberg-hillary-clinton_us_57daf964e4b04a1497b3249f

In case you missed the hot, speculative news about the 2016 presidential race, The Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim reported that sources close to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump are saying that he’d be inclined to appoint “eccentric” tech billionaire (and Trump endorser) Peter Thiel to the Supreme Court, where he’ll have a greater opportunity to ensure that America’s plutocrats are no longer bothered by nosy journalists or would-be trust-busters.

But Hillary Clinton, she is not to be outdone! See, the former secretary of state knows tech billionaires, too (and not just disgraced ones), so if you want to get into a famous-friend-turned-potential-appointee fight, Clinton is ready to bring it. Here’s the skinny from Politico’s Morning Money newsletter:

TREASURY WATCH: SANDBERG RISING — Early speculation held that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg probably wouldn’t leave California to return to DC to serve as Treasury Secretary in a Clinton administration. That’s changed lately as MM hears more and more that she could return to be the first woman to lead Treasury. The left may not love her roots in the Bob Rubin wing of the Democratic Party but her star power and historic potential would probably blow away any opposition.
Naturally, this is all mere scuttlebutt, though it is plausible scuttlebutt for a host of reasons. As noted above, Sandberg has “roots” in the Democratic Party, and yes, it’s from the part of the Democratic Party that everyone’s rightly skeptical about. Prior to her Facebook career, Sandberg was enmeshed with the folks who appeared on the Time magazine cover that has aged the poorest. Specifically, she served as chief of staff to Larry Summers during his tenure as secretary of the treasury, where he served under Bill Clinton.

But it’s not merely her place in the Clinton family orbit that makes this rumor feel just right. Sandberg is almost the perfect embodiment of Clinton’s larger economic policy portfolio ― indeed, the economic policy portfolio of the Democrats writ large ― which was ably summed up by author Thomas Frank in a March interview with HuffPost: “At some point, [the Democrats] decided that they weren’t all that interested in the concerns of working people anymore.” Rather, Frank says, they became fixated on “the concerns of the professional class, people with advanced degrees, people at the very top of our economic society.”

On the stump, Clinton talks about the need to further diversify this professional class. Hey, let’s solve income inequality by ensuring that the corporate board of every military contractor in Washington’s suburban belt looks more like the United Colors of Benetton, guys! Installing Sandberg at the Treasury, and releasing all the “historic potential” that comes from being the first woman to head the agency, would be in keeping with that theme. That’s “Part One” of the plan, anyway. (”Part Three” is “everybody wins” and Part Two is a series of tastefully aligned question marks.)

Sandberg, of course, is best known for being the author of Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, her insanely popular manifesto of next-wave feminist aspiration, which encourages women in the workforce (the “knowledge sector” workforce, anyway) to embolden themselves on the job and deconstruct all of the psychological barriers that these women have supposedly erected around themselves in order to surmount the more structural, sexist barriers erected by others (white men).

The book, naturally, spawned the Lean In Foundation, which bills itself as “a nonprofit organization and online community dedicated to helping all women achieve their ambitions.” But while there is no shortage of positive testimonials available at the foundation’s website ― including one from Reese Witherspoon, who’s well-known to have only won a single Academy Award (and a Golden Globe and a BAFTA and a Screen Actors Guild Award) before Lean In came along ― it’s hard to actually quantify how well the Lean In brand is helping individual women in the workforce.

However, it is easy to discern how well Lean In is serving its corporate sponsors. And it’s not exactly taking a courageous role in smashing the patriarchy.

In a 2013 issue of The Baffler, journalist and author Susan Faludi undertook a deep examination of Lean In’s corporate partners in order to settle an argument: “Sandberg’s admirers would say that Lean In is using free-market beliefs to advance the cause of women’s equality. Her detractors would say (and have) that her organization is using the desire for women’s equality to advance the cause of the free market.”

Those detractors have a point!

As Faludi skillfully enumerates, Lean In’s corporate partners are legion and include big names, such as: “Chevron, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Comcast, Bank of America and Citibank, Coca-Cola and Pepsico, AT&T and Verizon, Ford and GM, Pfizer and Merck & Co., Costco and Walmart, and, of course, Google and Facebook.”

Republicans talk about "helping" but fail to spell out how. Democrats are more willing to dole out support which is a bandaid for a vicious cycle.
Thus, other than pull up the economy which helps everyone, including the "rich", what is this mystical "Help" that we all speak of?
Republicans in red states with vicious Tea Party cuts and exhausted by "Handouts" seemingly does not have the patience to "Help". Minorities are fatiqued by failed hype that a black president would be a hero and yet here we are in 2016 with more racial violence seen in years.

Vote for Johnson is a vote from Hilary and to trump.
We need to kick the can down the road with Hilary. If we one term her, so be it, but the orange man is scary.

Not sure where you are going with "support". The biggest problem with those programs is that they cant help the 45 million Americans living in poverty to rise above it. Not the way this economy works for a select few. For many a "band aid" is all they have despite their best efforts to change that.

When you give people good paying jobs, jobs that people can more than barely survive on, Americans don't have to use these programs as much. Crime goes down, people are healthier on average, less drug and alcohol abuse. More money flows into the economy. Good things happen. But if you look at wages since the 70s, its pretty much a flat line, while a very very small pct of the population taking most of the gains. Thats why Trump is so popular, he also points to convenient scapegoats. Immigrants, minorities.

This quote from "Three days of the Condor", great NY film, reminds me of Trump supporters. People who lost almost everything in the great recession and never fully recovered.

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Trying to get the working class involved in the economy is a more complex issue than is being reported especially after the horrific recession we just experienced..But just like Trump uses immigrants and minorities as scapegoats, so does the Bernie Sander class use Wall Street as a scapegoat..

Sanders was right. Wall street led the deregulation of the financial services industry in the 90s, installed a revolving door with govt, and turned Wall Street into a casino. There was massive fraud that led to the great recession, and no one went to jail for it because the Attorney General was a former corporate lawyer who once represented these firms. Guess what he did after he left? You guessed it, went right back to Wall Street.

I have nothing against Wall Street when it isnt run like a casino. When its used to create jobs, industry, widely shared prosperity, Im all for it. When most of the decisions are made purely for the benefit of corporate America's largest shareholders, Im against it.

The economic problems of today have a lot, lot, more to do other things than Wall Street deregulation...Housing prices were artificially high becuase the Sanders class pushed the idea that everyone should own a home..Wall Street decided to package these mortgages as securities and trade it..There is enough blame to go around..But demonizing people because they make money is silly..

Cmon Holfresh, not demonizing people who make money, I like making money. Im demonizing how some people make their money. Who packaged all those toxic mortgages and sold them on unsuspecting customers? As for blaming Sanders again, it was George W Bush who made home ownership the centerpiece of his presidency, and guess who was advising him? What industry? Surprised you dont remember that.

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Wouldnt surprise me if it happens. Neither candidate is big on helping the poor and middle class to anything but empty promises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheryl-sandberg-hillary-clinton_us_57daf964e4b04a1497b3249f

In case you missed the hot, speculative news about the 2016 presidential race, The Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim reported that sources close to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump are saying that he’d be inclined to appoint “eccentric” tech billionaire (and Trump endorser) Peter Thiel to the Supreme Court, where he’ll have a greater opportunity to ensure that America’s plutocrats are no longer bothered by nosy journalists or would-be trust-busters.

But Hillary Clinton, she is not to be outdone! See, the former secretary of state knows tech billionaires, too (and not just disgraced ones), so if you want to get into a famous-friend-turned-potential-appointee fight, Clinton is ready to bring it. Here’s the skinny from Politico’s Morning Money newsletter:

TREASURY WATCH: SANDBERG RISING — Early speculation held that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg probably wouldn’t leave California to return to DC to serve as Treasury Secretary in a Clinton administration. That’s changed lately as MM hears more and more that she could return to be the first woman to lead Treasury. The left may not love her roots in the Bob Rubin wing of the Democratic Party but her star power and historic potential would probably blow away any opposition.
Naturally, this is all mere scuttlebutt, though it is plausible scuttlebutt for a host of reasons. As noted above, Sandberg has “roots” in the Democratic Party, and yes, it’s from the part of the Democratic Party that everyone’s rightly skeptical about. Prior to her Facebook career, Sandberg was enmeshed with the folks who appeared on the Time magazine cover that has aged the poorest. Specifically, she served as chief of staff to Larry Summers during his tenure as secretary of the treasury, where he served under Bill Clinton.

But it’s not merely her place in the Clinton family orbit that makes this rumor feel just right. Sandberg is almost the perfect embodiment of Clinton’s larger economic policy portfolio ― indeed, the economic policy portfolio of the Democrats writ large ― which was ably summed up by author Thomas Frank in a March interview with HuffPost: “At some point, [the Democrats] decided that they weren’t all that interested in the concerns of working people anymore.” Rather, Frank says, they became fixated on “the concerns of the professional class, people with advanced degrees, people at the very top of our economic society.”

On the stump, Clinton talks about the need to further diversify this professional class. Hey, let’s solve income inequality by ensuring that the corporate board of every military contractor in Washington’s suburban belt looks more like the United Colors of Benetton, guys! Installing Sandberg at the Treasury, and releasing all the “historic potential” that comes from being the first woman to head the agency, would be in keeping with that theme. That’s “Part One” of the plan, anyway. (”Part Three” is “everybody wins” and Part Two is a series of tastefully aligned question marks.)

Sandberg, of course, is best known for being the author of Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, her insanely popular manifesto of next-wave feminist aspiration, which encourages women in the workforce (the “knowledge sector” workforce, anyway) to embolden themselves on the job and deconstruct all of the psychological barriers that these women have supposedly erected around themselves in order to surmount the more structural, sexist barriers erected by others (white men).

The book, naturally, spawned the Lean In Foundation, which bills itself as “a nonprofit organization and online community dedicated to helping all women achieve their ambitions.” But while there is no shortage of positive testimonials available at the foundation’s website ― including one from Reese Witherspoon, who’s well-known to have only won a single Academy Award (and a Golden Globe and a BAFTA and a Screen Actors Guild Award) before Lean In came along ― it’s hard to actually quantify how well the Lean In brand is helping individual women in the workforce.

However, it is easy to discern how well Lean In is serving its corporate sponsors. And it’s not exactly taking a courageous role in smashing the patriarchy.

In a 2013 issue of The Baffler, journalist and author Susan Faludi undertook a deep examination of Lean In’s corporate partners in order to settle an argument: “Sandberg’s admirers would say that Lean In is using free-market beliefs to advance the cause of women’s equality. Her detractors would say (and have) that her organization is using the desire for women’s equality to advance the cause of the free market.”

Those detractors have a point!

As Faludi skillfully enumerates, Lean In’s corporate partners are legion and include big names, such as: “Chevron, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Comcast, Bank of America and Citibank, Coca-Cola and Pepsico, AT&T and Verizon, Ford and GM, Pfizer and Merck & Co., Costco and Walmart, and, of course, Google and Facebook.”

Republicans talk about "helping" but fail to spell out how. Democrats are more willing to dole out support which is a bandaid for a vicious cycle.
Thus, other than pull up the economy which helps everyone, including the "rich", what is this mystical "Help" that we all speak of?
Republicans in red states with vicious Tea Party cuts and exhausted by "Handouts" seemingly does not have the patience to "Help". Minorities are fatiqued by failed hype that a black president would be a hero and yet here we are in 2016 with more racial violence seen in years.

Vote for Johnson is a vote from Hilary and to trump.
We need to kick the can down the road with Hilary. If we one term her, so be it, but the orange man is scary.

Not sure where you are going with "support". The biggest problem with those programs is that they cant help the 45 million Americans living in poverty to rise above it. Not the way this economy works for a select few. For many a "band aid" is all they have despite their best efforts to change that.

When you give people good paying jobs, jobs that people can more than barely survive on, Americans don't have to use these programs as much. Crime goes down, people are healthier on average, less drug and alcohol abuse. More money flows into the economy. Good things happen. But if you look at wages since the 70s, its pretty much a flat line, while a very very small pct of the population taking most of the gains. Thats why Trump is so popular, he also points to convenient scapegoats. Immigrants, minorities.

This quote from "Three days of the Condor", great NY film, reminds me of Trump supporters. People who lost almost everything in the great recession and never fully recovered.

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Trying to get the working class involved in the economy is a more complex issue than is being reported especially after the horrific recession we just experienced..But just like Trump uses immigrants and minorities as scapegoats, so does the Bernie Sander class use Wall Street as a scapegoat..

Sanders was right. Wall street led the deregulation of the financial services industry in the 90s, installed a revolving door with govt, and turned Wall Street into a casino. There was massive fraud that led to the great recession, and no one went to jail for it because the Attorney General was a former corporate lawyer who once represented these firms. Guess what he did after he left? You guessed it, went right back to Wall Street.

I have nothing against Wall Street when it isnt run like a casino. When its used to create jobs, industry, widely shared prosperity, Im all for it. When most of the decisions are made purely for the benefit of corporate America's largest shareholders, Im against it.

The economic problems of today have a lot, lot, more to do other things than Wall Street deregulation...Housing prices were artificially high becuase the Sanders class pushed the idea that everyone should own a home..Wall Street decided to package these mortgages as securities and trade it..There is enough blame to go around..But demonizing people because they make money is silly..

Cmon Holfresh, not demonizing people who make money, I like making money. Im demonizing how some people make their money. Who packaged all those toxic mortgages and sold them on unsuspecting customers? As for blaming Sanders again, it was George W Bush who made home ownership the centerpiece of his presidency, and guess who was advising him? What industry? Surprised you dont remember that.

Regardless of who made mortgages the centerpieces of their Presidency, Clinton did his part too in changing the Community Reinvestment Act to push mortgages to folks who couldn't afford it..But that said, mortgages as a small part of Wall Street, wage stagnation existed before the housing crisis..The economy is changing and industry is changing because of automation..Microsoft and Apple functionality as it relates to employees and let's say middle managers, workers is very different than the Fords, Railroads, other factories etc..It's a different world..Instead of assigning blame to those who has made the adjustment to the new economy, lets elect leaders who are talking about figuring ways of helping the rest of the population to make the pivot because automation will change life as we know it in the next decade..Breaking up the banks isn't bringing back the middle manager..

Yes but not breaking up banks will bring on the next bubble and the next. We need to get the economy back to being based on production not fancy jargon and accounting tricks manufactured to hide risks and rake in the profits. The economy is now entirely based on finance and leverage and it's no longer based on production. Big banks is a symptom of this but the disease is in the nature of growth and the wealth being created.

mreinman wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Wouldnt surprise me if it happens. Neither candidate is big on helping the poor and middle class to anything but empty promises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheryl-sandberg-hillary-clinton_us_57daf964e4b04a1497b3249f

In case you missed the hot, speculative news about the 2016 presidential race, The Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim reported that sources close to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump are saying that he’d be inclined to appoint “eccentric” tech billionaire (and Trump endorser) Peter Thiel to the Supreme Court, where he’ll have a greater opportunity to ensure that America’s plutocrats are no longer bothered by nosy journalists or would-be trust-busters.

But Hillary Clinton, she is not to be outdone! See, the former secretary of state knows tech billionaires, too (and not just disgraced ones), so if you want to get into a famous-friend-turned-potential-appointee fight, Clinton is ready to bring it. Here’s the skinny from Politico’s Morning Money newsletter:

TREASURY WATCH: SANDBERG RISING — Early speculation held that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg probably wouldn’t leave California to return to DC to serve as Treasury Secretary in a Clinton administration. That’s changed lately as MM hears more and more that she could return to be the first woman to lead Treasury. The left may not love her roots in the Bob Rubin wing of the Democratic Party but her star power and historic potential would probably blow away any opposition.
Naturally, this is all mere scuttlebutt, though it is plausible scuttlebutt for a host of reasons. As noted above, Sandberg has “roots” in the Democratic Party, and yes, it’s from the part of the Democratic Party that everyone’s rightly skeptical about. Prior to her Facebook career, Sandberg was enmeshed with the folks who appeared on the Time magazine cover that has aged the poorest. Specifically, she served as chief of staff to Larry Summers during his tenure as secretary of the treasury, where he served under Bill Clinton.

But it’s not merely her place in the Clinton family orbit that makes this rumor feel just right. Sandberg is almost the perfect embodiment of Clinton’s larger economic policy portfolio ― indeed, the economic policy portfolio of the Democrats writ large ― which was ably summed up by author Thomas Frank in a March interview with HuffPost: “At some point, [the Democrats] decided that they weren’t all that interested in the concerns of working people anymore.” Rather, Frank says, they became fixated on “the concerns of the professional class, people with advanced degrees, people at the very top of our economic society.”

On the stump, Clinton talks about the need to further diversify this professional class. Hey, let’s solve income inequality by ensuring that the corporate board of every military contractor in Washington’s suburban belt looks more like the United Colors of Benetton, guys! Installing Sandberg at the Treasury, and releasing all the “historic potential” that comes from being the first woman to head the agency, would be in keeping with that theme. That’s “Part One” of the plan, anyway. (”Part Three” is “everybody wins” and Part Two is a series of tastefully aligned question marks.)

Sandberg, of course, is best known for being the author of Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, her insanely popular manifesto of next-wave feminist aspiration, which encourages women in the workforce (the “knowledge sector” workforce, anyway) to embolden themselves on the job and deconstruct all of the psychological barriers that these women have supposedly erected around themselves in order to surmount the more structural, sexist barriers erected by others (white men).

The book, naturally, spawned the Lean In Foundation, which bills itself as “a nonprofit organization and online community dedicated to helping all women achieve their ambitions.” But while there is no shortage of positive testimonials available at the foundation’s website ― including one from Reese Witherspoon, who’s well-known to have only won a single Academy Award (and a Golden Globe and a BAFTA and a Screen Actors Guild Award) before Lean In came along ― it’s hard to actually quantify how well the Lean In brand is helping individual women in the workforce.

However, it is easy to discern how well Lean In is serving its corporate sponsors. And it’s not exactly taking a courageous role in smashing the patriarchy.

In a 2013 issue of The Baffler, journalist and author Susan Faludi undertook a deep examination of Lean In’s corporate partners in order to settle an argument: “Sandberg’s admirers would say that Lean In is using free-market beliefs to advance the cause of women’s equality. Her detractors would say (and have) that her organization is using the desire for women’s equality to advance the cause of the free market.”

Those detractors have a point!

As Faludi skillfully enumerates, Lean In’s corporate partners are legion and include big names, such as: “Chevron, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Comcast, Bank of America and Citibank, Coca-Cola and Pepsico, AT&T and Verizon, Ford and GM, Pfizer and Merck & Co., Costco and Walmart, and, of course, Google and Facebook.”

Republicans talk about "helping" but fail to spell out how. Democrats are more willing to dole out support which is a bandaid for a vicious cycle.
Thus, other than pull up the economy which helps everyone, including the "rich", what is this mystical "Help" that we all speak of?
Republicans in red states with vicious Tea Party cuts and exhausted by "Handouts" seemingly does not have the patience to "Help". Minorities are fatiqued by failed hype that a black president would be a hero and yet here we are in 2016 with more racial violence seen in years.

Vote for Johnson is a vote from Hilary and to trump.
We need to kick the can down the road with Hilary. If we one term her, so be it, but the orange man is scary.

Not sure where you are going with "support". The biggest problem with those programs is that they cant help the 45 million Americans living in poverty to rise above it. Not the way this economy works for a select few. For many a "band aid" is all they have despite their best efforts to change that.

When you give people good paying jobs, jobs that people can more than barely survive on, Americans don't have to use these programs as much. Crime goes down, people are healthier on average, less drug and alcohol abuse. More money flows into the economy. Good things happen. But if you look at wages since the 70s, its pretty much a flat line, while a very very small pct of the population taking most of the gains. Thats why Trump is so popular, he also points to convenient scapegoats. Immigrants, minorities.

This quote from "Three days of the Condor", great NY film, reminds me of Trump supporters. People who lost almost everything in the great recession and never fully recovered.

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Trying to get the working class involved in the economy is a more complex issue than is being reported especially after the horrific recession we just experienced..But just like Trump uses immigrants and minorities as scapegoats, so does the Bernie Sander class use Wall Street as a scapegoat..

Sanders was right. Wall street led the deregulation of the financial services industry in the 90s, installed a revolving door with govt, and turned Wall Street into a casino. There was massive fraud that led to the great recession, and no one went to jail for it because the Attorney General was a former corporate lawyer who once represented these firms. Guess what he did after he left? You guessed it, went right back to Wall Street.

I have nothing against Wall Street when it isnt run like a casino. When its used to create jobs, industry, widely shared prosperity, Im all for it. When most of the decisions are made purely for the benefit of corporate America's largest shareholders, Im against it.

The economic problems of today have a lot, lot, more to do other things than Wall Street deregulation...Housing prices were artificially high becuase the Sanders class pushed the idea that everyone should own a home..Wall Street decided to package these mortgages as securities and trade it..There is enough blame to go around..But demonizing people because they make money is silly..

Cmon Holfresh, not demonizing people who make money, I like making money. Im demonizing how some people make their money. Who packaged all those toxic mortgages and sold them on unsuspecting customers? As for blaming Sanders again, it was George W Bush who made home ownership the centerpiece of his presidency, and guess who was advising him? What industry? Surprised you dont remember that.

Regardless of who made mortgages the centerpieces of their Presidency, Clinton did his part too in changing the Community Reinvestment Act to push mortgages to folks who couldn't afford it..But that said, mortgages as a small part of Wall Street, wage stagnation existed before the housing crisis..The economy is changing and industry is changing because of automation..Microsoft and Apple functionality as it relates to employees and let's say middle managers, workers is very different than the Fords, Railroads, other factories etc..It's a different world..Instead of assigning blame to those who has made the adjustment to the new economy, lets elect leaders who are talking about figuring ways of helping the rest of the population to make the pivot because automation will change life as we know it in the next decade..Breaking up the banks isn't bringing back the middle manager..

Yes but not breaking up banks will bring on the next bubble and the next. We need to get the economy back to being based on production not fancy jargon and accounting tricks manufactured to hide risks and rake in the profits. The economy is now entirely based on finance and leverage and it's no longer based on production. Big banks is a symptom of this but the disease is in the nature of growth and the wealth being created.

Book and Movie are both fabulous!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail

Yup. TBTF is a real and significant threat to society.Ever since the switch from the production based economy of the seventies to the Finance based one of today the US has become the story of two economies. The majority of the people work in the old economy or what's left of it and they see no benefits or growth from their efforts. the elite class (1 % ers) typically work in the finance/leverage based economy where they multiply their profits by taking risks where the people in the old economy are the collateral damage. - Example the Housing crisis, the banks bailed on their bad investments but the people who got conned in are still trying to fight their way through bankruptcy.

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

JesseDark wrote:I watched all the Sunday morning news shows this morning and not a single question to any Trump surrogate about when he will be releasing his taxes or the letter stating he was being audited. Very frustrating. Why not follow the question about President Obama's birth certificate with a tax question?

Who give a F about his taxes--have you ever walked into Trump Tower--the bottom line is the guy has more $ than 99.999999999% of people out there. We get around by car he gets around by private plane. Whatever his taxes say or dont say dont really prove relevant to over all wealth anyway.

By the way I think you said something about racism with Trump. What IF one of these days one of these fckers sit next to your son or daughter and lets a bomb go off and lets we'll see just how fast your tune changes. Because it has happened to you doesnt mean it wont. The bottom line right now. If your a police officer in the uS you now have 10X worse of a thought process with Africans Americans and believe me most Americans DO NOT want to sit next to someone from the ME --its sad both ways but true both ways.

Wow, you are really star struck by this guy. There are reams of information available about how this guy has played taxpayers thru incentives, bond buyers, and the TV public. Not Illegal but immoral dealings. A very clever man.

Here is why you should be worried. The thought is that he'll surround himself with smart people. He has in the campaign and some quit and some were fired. Some are deplorable in their own right.
The key here is if he surrounds himself with smart people but does not listen ("I know more than the generals"), then its wasted talent. If he surrounds himself with "Yes men" then be very afraid. Stalin did this because he would purge his people and to survive you did what you were asked.

Example: "I want to ****** those people". "Im sorry mr president, that is not legal". "Your fired!", whose next!!!!

Perhaps narcissistic folk are attracted to each other.

That's the kinda of guy you want on your side when the **** hits the fan.

Pat Riley was criticized for being classless and immoral.

Personally I'm not interested one bit about how he got there. I'm only interested in seeing results and resolutions so I don't have to walk past Newark Penn today and see cops placed at every outfit public trash bin. As Briggs and I've said for years people change their tone when it happens to them and their loved ones. It's all sunshine and rainbows until then.

After a 3rd term of Obama/Hillary/Alinsky illegal immigrants and refugees will have the right to vote for President and the America we've taken for granted will be no more. The status quo establishment prevails as will the dumbing down and programming of the American people under complete governmental control