#like biden is not a better choice anymore since he’s now proved that he will sell progressive policies down the river for the sake of israel

[silicon-based-life]

i don’t think this matters to any of my mutuals but for real i will unfollow anyone who puts “vote blue no matter who” bullshit on my dash. just saw a take about how not voting for Biden is antisemitic because Trump is a Netanyahu supporter. buddy you’re not gonna believe this, but you know who ELSE is a Netanyahu supporter? you know who’s been giving him money and weapons to commit unspeakable atrocities??? yeah it’s the FUCKO in the white house Right Now.

and obviously Netanyahu is horrible and needs to be kicked out but this will not magically happen if Biden gets a second term, as “preserving democracy” is only a value of the US if the countries in question can be exploited. but more importantly, this is more than just a “Netanyahu bad” issue. The Palestinians have been systematically oppressed and marginalized in their own homeland since before the first Nakba (right now being the second one), and the apartheid in Israel is systemic, institutional, and a widespread ideological issue. there is no Israeli political party that isn’t aligned with Israel’s current (and historic) program of violence against the Palestinian people and their right to self determination. Getting rid of Netanyahu will *maybe* make things marginally better in Israeli politics by not having an all out fascist in charge, but there’s no guarantee (especially now) that an even further right PM wouldn’t be his replacement, and even if he was replaced by someone more left wing, that doesn’t mean things will improve for the Palestinians and in fact they probably won’t, because Israel is a state founded on the oppression and erasure of Palestine. Palestinian liberation is not a stance Israeli politicians have.

a vote for Biden is not a vote for getting rid of Netanyahu. a vote for Biden is an acknowledgement of what he has done in this conflict, an acknowledgement of Biden’s dedication to funding Israeli war crimes and the US bombs that have taken the lives of thousands of innocents, and saying that it’s not only okay for Biden to have done it but it’s okay for him to continue. No. Fuck no. I live a very comfortable life in America, a fact for which I am incredibly lucky and grateful, but that comfort is not worth the lives of innocent people in other countries. Joe Biden is not owed my vote, and I’m not going to fucking give it to him if he’s going to continue to aid Israel in a genocide. It truly is that fucking simple.

Palestine will be free in our lifetimes, and it will be because of an international struggle for Palestinian liberation, not because of Joe Biden.

[thisdaynews]

Warren has a plan for Wall Street — and Wall Street isn’t panicking

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/warren-has-a-plan-for-wall-street-and-wall-street-isnt-panicking/

Warren has a plan for Wall Street — and Wall Street isn’t panicking

Many bankers view Elizabeth Warren as the safer presidential choice if the progressive wing wins out in the Democrats’ internal war. | Ethan Miller/Getty Images

2020 Elections

Most bankers dislike Elizabeth Warren’s economic and financial regulation policies. But as president she would be a ‘better form of poison’ than her key liberal alternative, one financier said.

NEW YORK — Elizabeth Warren has another plan — this time to take on Wall Street and reshape the role of finance in the American economy.

And Wall Street isn’t panicking as she climbs in the polls.

Story Continued Below

The Massachusetts senator, who became known as a leading scourge of big bankers and moneyed elite in the aftermath of the financial crisis, is finding a relatively calm reception among wealthy left-leaning bankers and hedge fund managers.

Most of them don’t love Warren’s economic and regulatory policies. But they generally understand them and appreciate that the Democratic presidential candidate declared herself a “capitalist to my bones” and believer in free markets, albeit with strong cops on the beat.

Warren released a new plan Thursday to take on private equity firms’ special treatment, roll back Trump-era financial deregulation and reinstall a Depression-era ban on investment banks also serving retail clients. Most of her proposals have drawn heated discussion for years, so her latest plan is not likely to shock the finance world.

Many bankers view Warren — a former Republican who’s made her policies clear for years — as the safer presidential choice if the progressive wing wins out in the Democrats’ internal war. If it comes down to Warren or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an avowed democratic socialist who continues to make personal feuds with bankers a centerpiece of his campaign, many of them would swallow hard and take Warren.

“She’s preferable for many reasons,” said Robert Wolf, a venture investor and former adviser to President Barack Obama who has given to several candidates. “She’s been very clear that she believes in fair capitalism. And the idea of promoting socialism I don’t think is a winning strategy if the goal is to beat President Trump.”

Warren had not made Wall Street-bashing as central to her campaign as Sanders has done. The Vermont senator ripped the industry multiple times in the first Democratic primary debate. Warren never mentioned it.

That changed somewhat with Warren’s new proposal Thursday, in which she argued that the financial sector has grown too large as a share of the economy. But her proposal includes much of what Warren has already rallied around over the past decade — including rebuilding the Glass-Steagall division between investment and commercial banking and reinstating Obama-era rules on banks.

The proposal — and accompanying legislation she’s introducing in the Senate — takes sharpest aim at one corner of Wall Street: the private equity industry. Warren proposes forcing private equity firms to take responsibility for debt they pile onto companies they buy and limiting their ability to pay themselves large fees and dividends from portfolio companies, among other changes.

“We should start by transforming the private equity industry — the poster child for financial firms that suck value out of the economy,” Warren wrote in a post on Medium.

That’s likely to ring alarm bells at big private equity firms like the Blackstone Group and the Carlyle Group. But the fact that private equity would be her first target may even offer some relief to other parts of the industry that they would not be atop Warren’s to-do list.

Warren is hardly seeking out Wall Street support. She raised $53,760 from people in the securities and investment industry in the first quarter of 2019, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Second-quarter numbers for the industry are being tabulated this week. Both she and Sanders have so far shunned big-ticket fundraisers and relied, successfully so far, on online donations.

And there is no big industry rush to embrace Warren. Most Wall Street Democrats would strongly prefer another candidate. Industry support is now largely divided among former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg, all of whom have high-dollar bundlers on Wall Street.

But even some executives who support other candidates said in interviews that while they do not want to see Warren win, they are much more frightened of Sanders — who represents a less understood and more existential threat than Warren does.

“I think she is going to get the nomination because she’s the smartest, she’s charismatic and she’s the most policy-oriented,” said one former top executive at a large Wall Street bank who, like several interviewed for this story, declined to be quoted on record saying anything nice about Warren. “Wall Street is very good at accommodating itself to reality and if the reality is the party is going to be super-progressive, they may not like Warren but she’s a better form of poison than Bernie.”

Several executives who have negative feelings about Warren also said that while it might be hard to ever support Sanders in a general election, for fear that he would try and blow up the entire capitalist system, they could probably come around to backing the Massachusetts senator against Trump.

“If she were the nominee, there will certainly be people who will say that Donald Trump represents everything that I’m against,” said Orin Kramer, a hedge fund manager who is raising money for Buttigieg. “And they will find stuff that they like about her and will vote for her.”

The slight warm-up to Warren marks a significant shift from 2016, when bankers made a concerted push to discourage then-nominee Hillary Clinton from selecting Warren as her running mate. Warren has not really changed since then, outside of reaffirming her commitment to capitalism.

But the industry has changed to some extent since then as banks become somewhat more diverse, younger and more hospitable to the progressive wing of the party.

“I don’t think the stereotypes of the industry serve the same purpose as they used to,” said Wolf. “People who work in corporate America and financial services may have the same views that she does on 95 percent of the issues such as income inequality, student loans, climate change and others.”

The idea that bankers might not hate her as much anymore is not one that the Warren campaign embraces. Any expressions of support from the industry could be an incitement to Sanders supporters to suggest their candidate is the true progressive who would boldly bust up the nation’s largest banks.

“If you suggest even in the most minuscule way that Wall Street may be willing to entertain the possibility of Warren’s success, she will need to go out and prove that she’s more Bernie than Bernie,” the former senior executive at a large Wall Street bank said.

People close to Warren note that she has the most extensive record of actually making changes in the financial industry, including helping set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pressuring Wells Fargo to dump former CEO Tim Sloan and pressing for regulatory changes at the Federal Reserve and elsewhere. And they say she has the deepest Rolodex to staff a potential administration with like-minded officials in senior roles.

If any finance types support her, they say, they should do so knowing she would not change any of her views should she win the presidency. And that itself is still enough to lead some Democratic financiers to say they might sit out a Warren-Trump 2020 campaign.

“I think if she gets the nomination, some people just won’t vote,” a financier who supports Harris said. “They will look at Trump and say, ‘I don’t like him but he won’t hurt me financially.’ And they’ll look at Warren and say, ‘She will hurt me financially.’”

But that appears to be an increasingly minority view, even among those whose eyes roll at the mention of Warren’s name. It’s not a groundswell. But it’s a shift.

“There may be a tad less hostility toward Warren, perhaps because she keeps calling herself a capitalist,” said one investment banker. “And some are more respectful of her effectiveness on the campaign trail.”

Read More

[welcometomy20s]

April 5, 2019

Democratic Primary Update: Long List of Thoughts

Biden - We knew he was never really good at handling his flaws, but oh boy did he whiff it here. Perhaps, there’s a contingency of primary voters who do not care for 21st century identity politics, but I would not say it’s a big one. For Biden supporters, or any other supporters for that matter, thing you need to prove is that we can forgive all his/her flaws because of some strength of the candidate. Biden supporters (erroneously) believe that Biden is the only one who can beat Trump, and as for the specific reason, they kind of whiff about leadership? Sternly saying Trump is bad is not going to be winning strategy for anyone.

Warren - Full disclosure, she’s currently my first preference, but she has a long road ahead, and I actually just hope she makes it to the first debate. She has an Clintonian problem of campaigning as her weak spot and somehow she has gathered some big skepticism from people who says she’s great. She has been going hard on policies lately; that feels like desperation, even if policy’s good.

Sanders - Ryan Grim is right. Sander has be steadfast on things he doesn’t like. Which is good if you are pursuing a policy, but as the frontrunner who has a chance to win and running like he has a chance to win, he must show he can triangulate... remember that I presented Corbyn’s support after his brilliant turn of rhetoric in Manchester, which he turned but kept in his belief in other parts. Honestly, I think Corbyn has handled the Brexit situation pretty well, considering the desperation of people on the other side. I know very unpopular opinion.

Harris - Don’t forget her strength, she will be the second choice after Biden, even the polls don’t show that way, and after her initial hit, she has been riding low and slowly gathering support. If she doesn’t make a fuss in the debates, she could well coalesce even votes to nab her the nomination. Take good notes.

Booker - Similar thing to Harris, he’s being attacked even less than Harris and I think he also has been hiding very well, and I do believe he is better in debate than Harris, which mean he could definitely stand out and take the skeptics.

Beto & Buttegieg - Buttegieg is in upper-mid tier, as I know he can be moderate, but I do believe he can be swayed to the left. Beto, however, I see as lost cause even more since before his presidential campaign. His policies seems like poor photocopies and his folksy shtick is hardly unique anymore. He has money, tho.

Abrams - I always thought she was running for the senate, but she’s been too quiet and now there’s other people running for the senate, which makes me worry she’s actually seeing higher sights. There goes another one, I guess.

Gilibrand - What is she doing? I had hopes for her, but she whiffed it badly.

Klouchbar - She might move away from the her attacks, and she has quietly building her policy profile and her campaign style has been interesting...

Tim Ryan & Seth Moulton - Does not have a chance in hell!

Hickenlooper & Delaney - He is seriously eerie sometimes. More I know about him... Delaney has his Entourage vibe and Hickenlooper... just bizarre.

Bloomberg & de Blasio - He’s thinking running if Biden drops, honestly it would be fun to see him go again. As for the current mayor, I think people underestimate him, his hatred is obscured by his racial differential and we’ll see how that affects in a national race. I suggest he might well better than expected.

Castro - I just wonder if he gets a bump if his brother runs for the senate.

Williamson & Yang - Don’t count out these two, they actually have wide variety of policies, and some areas they are really the only ones with a vision for them.

Gabbard - I just don’t think there’s enough Tulsi supporters to take away from Bernie’s support. Tulsi people are definite the people who only exist on twitter.

Gravel - I just wonder if he can get to a debate. I really hope he does. Lessig?

Inslee - Climate change is a good pivot, but he’s just not differentiating himself, perhaps it’s the return of the favorite son thing and it’s our state’s one... okay.

Swalwell - I don’t know how Swalwell is going to run, is he getting into the Beto lane or is he going to be stuck in Delaney/Ryan lane? Focus on security?

Bullock - Unlike Beto and Abrams above, I always knew Bullock is gunning for the highest executive, it’s just I don’t know if he can do well in such a crowded primary. Does he take the J&H Green support away from Buttegieg(?)

McAuliffe - And he wants to run. There must be least one Virginian in the race...

Bennet - He has prostate cancer, but he still wants to run. Well, okay then.

Messam - Oh, and he’s running. Sure we’ll have black guy as Gilmore here.

Sandberg - Then there’s this guy! Who knows what he’s going to do!

I think if you count there are 28, it’ll be bit less by the first debate in late June.