HomeUncategorized1/22 News Roundup & Open Thread – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez On ‘The Late Show w/ Stephen Colbert’ & More
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Here’s some articles about the interview


Freshman New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) in an interview late Monday said she gives “zero” f—s about criticism she’s received from members of her own party.

“Now, congresswoman, for you and other freshmen members of Congress, you’re getting a fair amount of pushback from even members of your own party saying ‘wait your turn, go slow, don’t ask for so much so fast right now, you’re new, wait your turn for everything and don’t make waves,'” late-night host Stephen Colbert said to the rising progressive star on CBS’s “The Late Show.”

“I want to ask this question in a respectful manner, knowing also that you’re from Queens, so you will understand this question,” he continued.

“And the BX,” Ocasio-Cortez, who is also from the Bronx, laughingly injected.

“On a scale from zero to some, how many f—s do you give?”

After taking a moment to deliberate, Ocasio-Cortez reached into her side and pulled out her hand to make a circle, saying: “I think it’s zero.”

“That’s my thought!” Colbert exclaimed.



Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said late Monday that an economic system that allows billionaires is “immoral.”

“I do think that a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez told late-night host Stephen Colbert on CBS’s “The Late Show,” according to the New York Post.

She added that she doesn’t think all billionaires are immoral.

“It’s not to say someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are immoral people,” she said. “I don’t believe that.”


Of course she’s 100% correct


While the poorest half of the world was scraping by on less than $5.50 a day in 2018, the world’s billionaires saw their wealth increase by $900 billion — or $2.5 billion a day.

That’s according to a new report released Monday from Oxfam a day ahead of the start of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The report reveals that the number of billionaires has nearly doubled since the financial crisis, with a new billionaire created every day between 2017 and 2018. On a percentage basis, the world’s wealthiest saw their fortunes rise 12% last year, while the poorest — 3.8 billion people— experienced an 11% drop.


Bill Gates is over-rated. Read up on Microsoft and you will see that he is just as ruthless and greedy as the usual yahoo who gets super-rich. Same with Buffet. T and R to the usual excellent TPW suspects!!


True but it’s smart of AOC to focus on the system and not the individuals


You mean this



The view that excessive income concentration corrodes the social contract has deep roots in America — a country founded, in part, in reaction against the highly unequal, aristocratic Europe of the 18th century. Sharply progressive taxation is an American invention: The United States was the first country in the world, in 1917 — four years after the creation of the income tax — to impose tax rates as high as 67 percent on the highest incomes. When Representative Ocasio-Cortez proposes a 70 percent rate for incomes above $10 million, she is reconnecting with this American tradition. She’s reviving an ethos that Ronald Reagan successfully repressed, but that prevailed during most of the 20th century.

And she’s doing so at a time when there is an emergency. For just as we have a climate crisis, we have an inequality crisis. Over more than a generation, the lower half of income distribution has been shut out from economic growth: Its income per adult was $16,000 in 1980 (adjusted for inflation), and it still is around $16,000 today. At the same time, the income of a tiny minority has skyrocketed. For the highest 0.1 percent of earners, incomes have grown more than 300 percent; for the top 0.01 percent, incomes have grown by as much as 450 percent. And for the tippy-top 0.001 percent — the 2,300 richest Americans — incomes have grown by more than 600 percent.

Just as the point of taxing carbon is not to raise revenue but to reduce carbon emissions, high tax rates for sky-high incomes do not aim at funding Medicare for All. They aim at preventing an oligarchic drift that, if left unaddressed, will continue undermining the social compact and risk killing democracy.


AOC is very popular right now over at DK. See below. Of course no mention that the Overton Window began shifting left with Bernie’s run against Clinton. What will they think of AOC over there if Bernie does run for President and AOC endorses? ?



I’m thinkin some heads will explode over their if AOC endorses Bernie


It certainly would make my day.????


Be afraid ?????


The elite financiers attending the World Economic Forum are worried about the 70 percent tax rate on earnings above $10 million proposed by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

“It’s scary,” Scott Minerd, global chief investment officer for $265 billion Guggenheim Partners, said in an interview.

“By the time we get to the presidential election, this is going to gain more momentum,” said Minerd, who added that he would probably be personally impacted by it. “And I think the likelihood that a 70 percent tax rate, or something like that, becomes policy is actually very real.”

To a man, the billionaires and millionaires attending Davos had misgivings about Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal, which she made during a recent interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” A poll found that 59 percent of voters were in favor of the idea, and even 45 percent of Republicans liked it. The lawmaker has turned heads in Washington and on Wall Street with her left-wing economic rhetoric, despite only being sworn into office earlier this month. Ocasio-Cortez, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx, identifies as a Democratic-Socialist.


Where’s my violin? We’re supposed to feel sorry for these Davos yahoos?? Go get em, AOC!! You have plenty of your fellow citizens (including us Boomer wrinkles) covering your back!!!!!!


This is how out of wack things really are.


Hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin brought his appetite for marquee homes to London, shelling out 95 million pounds ($122 million) for a historic mansion near Buckingham Palace.

Griffin has a long history of splashing out on prominent properties. He spent nearly $300 million buying real estate in Chicago, Miami and New York between 2013 and 2015, according to the New York Times.

His shopping spree included $30 million for two floors of the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Chicago, a Miami Beach penthouse for $60 million and around $200 million worth of apartments in New York’s 220 Central Park South development. All three set records as their respective city’s most expensive real estate purchases at the time, according to the Times



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) warned a crowd about the urgency of addressing man-made climate change on Monday at an event honoring the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which she warned would “destroy the planet” in a dozen years if humans do not address it.

During an interview at the MLK Now event in New York City, Ocasio-Cortez told interviewer Ta Nehisi-Coates that younger Americans were looking for bold solutions to climate change, and were not concerned about the cost.

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'” Ocasio-Cortez asked Coates.


This is the biggest reason Brown is down on my possible candidate list. I understand that there will likely be some halfway measures before full M4A, and I have no problem with anyone supporting M4A while simultaneously backing a less expansive measure, but Brown’s anti M4A position is stupid politics. Go for it all and accept less if you must. Go for less and you might end up with not much or even nothing.


Medicare for All may be progressives’ rallying cry. But it’s Medicare for More that’s likely to wind up becoming reality.

Several likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans for something short of universal health care, a move already creating friction within the party’s empowered left wing, which has panned any attempt to water down the progressive dream of a single-payer system.

One idea gaining support is allowing some demographic groups to buy into Medicare earlier than age 65, while still incrementally building on Obamacare coverage gains.

“It’s easy to say ‘Medicare for All’ and make a good speech, but see no action,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a potential 2020 candidate whose own bill would give retiring police and firefighters access to Medicare before 65. “I want to see action.”

It’s a pathway Brown and many in the party establishment have gravitated toward in recent months — one that balances the desire to make a Trump-era lurch leftward with memories of the political blowback Democrats endured for a decade after their last revamp of the nation’s health system.


I think the problem may be that, even for the candidates that are “going for it,” they actually aren’t, for the most part. Their donors don’t want it and neither do they. They’re giving it lipservice to appear progressive.

Brown may be the only honest one of that group.

I do see the worth of them even giving it lipservice, because it makes it acceptable to the public, but it worries me that it could get one of them elected, in which case they will not fight for it.


Yes I understand that, but I still think more progress can be made with someone who at least outwardly supports M4A than with someone who starts asking for much less. If you say you are for M4A and then go back on your word, the public will notice. In any case, all this will come out in the primaries, in which everyone can assess the depth of candidates’ commitment to all issues. I know where Brown stands so he’s a nonstarter for me. He did not join with the senators to cosponsor Bernie’s M4A bill. Those cosponsors were very helpful to push the M4A idea along.


I’ll never forget the first time I heard Bernie say:

Beware of the “half-loaf” approach to politics.

That’s Bernie Sanders’ new response to detractors who say he’s “thinking too big” and his plans are unrealistic. Sanders went on the offensive against incrementalism Sunday night at a Fort Collins, Colo., rally, saying that when you run on a platform calling for a full loaf, “at worst you’re going to get a half loaf.”

But if you ask for a half loaf, “you’re gonna get crumbs.”

Sanders said Americans don’t need crumbs. “They need the whole loaf.”

It really hit home for me as it’s impossible to not notice what terrible negotiators most Dems are. I’ve watched them for years start negotiating proceedings by asking for what they want instead of demanding MORE than they want (and then having a chance, at least, to end up with what you thought was ‘reasonable’ to aim for by the end of negotiations).


Me so cynical. They are great negotiators…for their donors.

They know once something that keeps the insurance corpses in the loop goes through, people will be happy with the improvement and just scared enough of Medicare for all to keep it from happening.


Considering how ineffective they’ve been at negotiating, I’d have to agree with you pb!!


Handy info, of which I was unaware.


By all appearances, Harris is more pro-Israel than other prominent Democrats, many of whom have taken a sharp left turn when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since taking office in 2016, Harris has spoken at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) twice. In 2017, her remarks were made public while her 2018 appearance at AIPAC’s annual policy conference was off-the-record and not listed in the event’s itinerary.

Let me be clear about what I believe. I stand with Israel because of our shared values which are so fundamental to the founding of both our nations. I believe the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and we can never let anyone drive a wedge between us,” she said while speaking to AIPAC attendees in 2017.“

And I believe Israel should never be a partisan issue, and as long as I’m a United States senator, I will do everything in my power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel’s security and right to self-defense,” she added.

Harris what not part of the group of Democratic senators who sent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a letter in November 2018, calling for Israel to abandon all efforts to demolish the Palestinian village of Khan al-Ahmar in the West Bank and warning against he Israeli government’s ongoing policies toward settlement expansion.

Instead, about a week before the letter was sent, Harris travelled to Israel and met with Netanyahu to discuss a number of issues relating to “deepening cooperation” between the US and Israel.


Is AIPAC considered a corporate PAC? I’m unsure.


California Senator Kamala Harris declared that she “will not take a dime” from corporate political action committees (PACs) in her 2020 run for the White House.

“This campaign will not take a dime from corporate PACs—just people, like you,” Harris, 54, wrote on Twitter, sharing a link to her campaign donations pages.

“We don’t have to accept a system that drowns out your voice. We can do better. Chip in now.”


Is “truth and justice” the new “hope and change”?


Harris’s early reception was intense. For a candidate whose entry wasn’t at all a surprise, it generated buzz all day. Harris aides bragged that she’d received donations from all 50 states within 30 minutes of announcing, and that her launch video had surpassed 3 million views by the late afternoon. She passed Warren in Instagram followers, they noted, and had 300,000 engagements with her posts there on Monday alone.

By trying to speak to a broader problem, though, what Harris doesn’t have at this point is many specific solutions. Her announcement came with an email to reporters pointing to a bill she wrote that would provide a $500 monthly tax credit to families making under $100,000 per year, another that would reform the bail process, and another aimed at tackling implicit bias in healthcare that leaves black women three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes.

After spending most of her career as a prosecutor, the biggest early question facing Harris in is whether she can convince a liberal electorate that she’s a progressive who tried to bend justice toward victims from the inside, rather than a cop who was out to put people behind bars. Her “For the People” slogan is an attempt to turn that background into a strength, a calling, and her advisers like how that her years in law enforcement stand in contrast to a president who’s facing multiple criminal investigations and been accused of abandoning the rule of law while in office. The prosecutor for president, they like to say.

That, the Harris adviser said, is how she avoids getting mocked in the way that some went after Barack Obama in 2008, offering high-minded talk that wasn’t headed anywhere. “It’s not going to be hope and change,” the adviser said. “It’s going to be truth and justice.”





Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign raised $1.5 million in its first 24 hours, her campaign aides told POLITICO, a massive haul for the first-term senator from California that tied Bernie Sanders’ one-day total from his 2016 presidential campaign.

Small-dollar donations are an early litmus test in what is anticipated to be a crowded Democratic field. Others who have opened exploratory committees, including fellow Sens. Elizabeth Warren, on New Year’s Eve, and Kirsten Gillibrand, last week, have yet to make public any of their campaign fundraising numbers.

Harris, who announced her candidacy on Monday, crossed the $1 million threshold before 7:30 p.m. and raised $1.5 million from 38,000 donors, her aides said. As a point of comparison, Sanders’ early 2015 cash haul came from about 35,000 donors who gave an average of $43.50, his campaign said at the time.

Harris’ 2020 average online contribution was $37.


Very unwelcome news.


They likely told the big $$$ donors to hold back in order to get a favorable headline.?


Thanks, but no thanks Mike.


Republican critics are joined by a handful of moderate Democrats, who fear that promises by well-intentioned presidential prospects may create unrealistic expectations with their party’s most passionate voters.

Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg, a former Republican mayor of New York now considering a Democratic presidential bid, recently opined that primary voters might be receptive to a more moderate approach.

“Most Democrats want a middle-of-the-road strategy,” Bloomberg said on ABC’s “The View.” He added: “If you go off on trying to push for something that has no chance of getting done, that we couldn’t possibly pay for, that just takes away from where you can really make progress in helping people that need help today.”

So far, at least, very few presidential prospects are heeding such warnings.



Sens. Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders took two starkly different approaches Monday as they spoke to hundreds of mostly black rally-goers in the first Southern state to vote in 2020.

At Columbia’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day rally at the state capitol, Sanders talked explicitly about the racial wealth gap, black infant mortality rates and voter suppression among people of color. He also called President Donald Trump a “racist.”

Booker acknowledged that the country has a justice system that works better for the “rich and guilty” than the “poor and innocent.” But he largely echoed King’s message, speaking in more general terms about the importance of unity and having what he called “courageous empathy” and acting on dissatisfaction, a term King stressed in his 1967 “Where Do We Go From Here?” address.

Democratic state Rep. Jerry Govan said Monday’s appearance was easier for Booker but more important for Sanders, who held more public events and is staying in the state longer than his Senate colleague.

“I think both of their messages struck a chord with the audience,” said Govan, chairman of the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus. “I think both of them were well received. I think it’s too early on to say whether there was a winner or a loser because I think both of them were winners based on the simple fact that they showed up. I know that I appreciated hearing from them both.”



The challenge with black voters may be greatest for Sanders, who faltered here in 2016 after shocking Clinton with a victory in New Hampshire. Since then, Sanders and his allies have worked assiduously to woo black voters, and he’s begun to mention racial discrimination more in his stump speech, bluntly calling Trump a “racist” during his speech here. The 77-year-old Vermonter, who famously dislikes discussing his biography, mentioned he traveled to Washington as a college student and heard King deliver his “I Have a Dream” speech.

“Let us not forget that the title of that march was for Jobs and Freedom,” Sanders said at the rally, invoking the organizers’ call for an increased minimum wage, a federal job guarantee and more affordable housing. “Racial equality must be central to combating economic inequality if we are to build an economy that works for all of us.”

Sanders drew loud applause as he tied his push for progressive policies, such as free college tuition, to the black community, noting African-Americans in particular struggle with student loan debt. Sanders also called for automatic voter registration for every American and “making the right to vote a constitutional right,” as well as ending the war on drugs, minimum sentences and private prisons.

Bishop Roderick Sumpter, a 52-year-old from St. Stevens, said his impression of Sanders improved after seeing him at the rally and a subsequent town hall.

“It makes a difference seeing the person talk than looking at them on TV,” he said. “You can really feel the impression and see the emotion ― that it’s not phony. It’s for real.

Booker drew a more subdued response. Speaking less in specifics and more of embracing “courageous empathy” and “spiritual dissatisfaction,” Booker raised his voice as he called on the crowd to be agents of change themselves.

“This is the moment in America where we don’t just celebrate King’s holiday,” he said. “We recommit ourselves to be the agents of change. To be the daring dreamers once again. To be the laborers in our democracy because that is what we need. Do not be discouraged. Because we know that hope is the act of conviction. That despair will not have the last word.”



But among the senator’s top aides and his most ardent supporters, there is a differing view of how the coming months and years could play out. It acknowledges the questions — if not always with concrete answers — but posits generally that for every new challenge there are fresh advantages.

To start, Sanders now is a known quantity with unrivaled social media and digital operations, which he uses to supplement his traditional media presence, allowing him to reach voters even when Trump is dominating the headlines. His base, though its raw numbers will likely diminish in such a big field, might still be enough to carry him, without any new recruits, through the opening whirl of primary contests. And with most Democrats likely to reject super PAC backing, which can double as life support for flagging campaigns (see: Jeb Bush), this gargantuan Democratic field could shrink sooner rather than later.

Still, his indecision has opened seams for other hopefuls to deliver their messages, without interference, to uncommitted primary voters. Progressive diehards in Iowa and New Hampshire might be undecided between Sanders and Warren, but they have not had to pick which one of them to hear from over the last couple of weeks — Warren was the only show in town, and she’s played in both states to mostly positive reviews.

Some of Sanders’ fiercest allies, the progressive or leftist activists and organizers who want him to run, warn that a second bid will have to look much different from its predecessor — in part because the primary itself will be fought on almost unrecognizable terms.

“Who are you hiring on staff? What types of organizing spaces are they creating early on? Are they, and if they are, how are they listening to the concerns and particular issues that are unique from state to state, demographic to demographic, county to county?” were among the questions posed by Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, which has not endorsed but is typically supportive of Sanders. “It’s not any particular speech or buzzword or laundry list of issues, it’s an intentionality that’s demonstrated in a lot of ways.”
The tweaks to the apparatus are beginning to show.

Former campaign manager Jeff Weaver will not return to the job if Sanders runs again, though he remains a trusted senior adviser. The process of picking a replacement is underway, though no choice appears imminent. Nor does an announcement that Sanders plans to run. The uncertain timetable will test the pull of the wider Sanders orbit, including Our Revolution, and other grassroots groups trying to push him in.


Overall the entire article is worth a read. I think that Bernie’s last primary run was more of a protest with him putting forth his policies in order for them to get recognition. (which worked our very well). I think that even he was surprised at the support that he got along the way even though Clinton had locked up support of the Democratic leadership and had her thumb on the scale. Honestly I think that his campaign was somewhat unprepared for all the success along the way. This time things will go much better.


CorporateNN, you can tell. It’s empty and boring.


AOC—she’s got it.



The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s request to allow it to temporarily enforce its restrictions on transgender people serving in the military.

The justices stayed district court injunctions that blocked the new policy pending a ruling in the Ninth Circuit on the government’s appeal.

The court, however, did not agree to review the legality of the new policy as the administration had asked.

It takes five justices to agree to agree to stay a lower court ruling.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, of the court’s liberal wing, said they would have denied the application.


The illegitimate Supreme Court gets down to business


In an ominous sign for potential victims of gun violence, the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, a challenge to New York City’s gun licensing regime.

It’s the first Second Amendment case the Supreme Court will hear since 2010, and only the second such case since 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, which held for the first time in American history that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. It’s also the first Second Amendment case since Brett Kavanaugh, who penned a starkly pro-gun dissent as a lower court judge, took over from the more moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

And the Court’s decision to hear New York State Rifle should trouble gun violence advocates for another reason. The case involves such a minor and incidental burden on gun rights that it is unclear why the Court would pick this case as their first foray into Second Amendment litigation in nearly a decade. If the Court sides with the plaintiffs in this case, that would suggest that many gun laws must fall in this decision’s wake.

New York State Rifle in other words, is a huge case because it concerns a tiny issue. If the Supreme Court is willing to declare that even very minor burdens on gun owners violate the Constitution, then it is unclear what can still be done to prevent gun violence.


Illegitimate and corrupt, bending America to their will.


Wait until they get to Roe vs. Wade.



Lady Gaga stops her concert to blast Trump and Pence.

“If the fucking president of the United States could please put our government back … there are people who live paycheck to paycheck and need their money!”

“To Mike Pence, who thinks that it’s okay that his wife works at a school that bans LGBTQ, you’re wrong. You’re the worst representation of what it means to be a Christian. I am a Christian woman, and what I do know about Christianity is that we bear no prejudice and everybody is welcome. So you can take all that disgrace, Mr. Pence, and look yourself in the mirror and you’ll find it right there.”



Speaking to Time, Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport spokesperson Patrick Hogan warned that wait times are only going to get longer as the government shutdown over President Donald Trump’s demand for over $5 billion in border wall funding deprives tens of thousands of workers of the pay they need to survive.

“It’s not a sustainable situation,” Hogan warned. “At some point TSA workers won’t be able to afford childcare to come to work, and they’ll have to look for other jobs.”

According to a New York Times analysis, “Airport screeners make $41,000 per year on average, and have missed about $2,700 in wages so far.”

The rise in TSA agent call-outs comes as some are urging the unpaid airport screeners to go on strike to pressure President Donald Trump and the Republican Party to reopen the government.

In an interview on Democracy Now! last week, long-time activist and journalist Barbara Ehrenreich expressed support for a TSA employee strike and said “if enough airport workers were to either walk away from the job or go on strike, that would shut down the airports.”

“And that would be—that would just shut down the economy,” Ehrenreich concluded. “They couldn’t, we wouldn’t, I think even Trump wouldn’t let that last for more than a few hours.”



Thought of you, @la58. UTLA strike is aimed at the charter schools. This article focuses on how the union is pulling it off.

In November the L.A. Times and Capital & Main leaked the outline of Beutner’s plan to carve up the district into clusters of schools run like competing stock portfolios. Any school judged to be an underperformer would be sold off like a weak stock.

The teachers have a different vision. Instead of this dystopian contest, they want to force the district to put its stockpiled cash into creating the “schools Los Angeles students deserve,” with smaller classes, more nurses, librarians, and counselors, and an end to random police searches of students.

In particular, UTLA wants to abolish Section 1.5, a clause in the existing union contract that allows the district to override class-size limits.

“They’ve been starving the schools slowly but surely over the years,” said Taiesha Fowler, a sixth-grade English teacher at Revere Middle School. “Our state now has a $21 billion surplus and we have 39, 40, and I talked to a teacher the other day that has 50 kids in his AP English class.”

“I have 41 students,” said Michael Schepps, who teaches seventh-grade world history at Revere, “and in two of my classes it prevents me from doing things I want to do, such as group work. I used to do plays in my classroom, with costumes, and because of the numbers, I can no longer do that.”“

Just one of the strategies used. The article has several more, like drawing in the parents.


The building block that made this possible was the contract action team—union volunteers recruited at each school who took charge of involving educators and the local community in developing contract demands; communicating regularly with co-workers about their top issues; and mobilizing co-workers to participate in actions, such as regional rallies last spring.

“At the ground level, the creation of the CAT teams is really key,” said Gillian Russom, a history teacher at Roosevelt High School and UTLA board member. “The goal was a one-to-10 ratio and enough people on the CAT team to really talk to everybody.”

That ratio—one CAT volunteer for every 10 union members—sounded pie in the sky to some longtime union activists. “At the beginning people didn’t really believe that they could get that many people to step up in their school,” Russom said. “People said it was too much work and would never happen.”



LOL. In DK’s weekly straw poll, they are now requiring an email address if you vote, which will undoubtedly depress voting from nonDK Bernie supporters who probably will be more reluctant to provide that to DK. Looks like DK will be Harris territory followed by Warren


In the survey from Public Policy Polling, Trump trails Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) by 7 percentage points, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) by 6 percentage points and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) by 5 percentage points.

He also trails several top progressive leaders who are speculated to be considering 2020 bids but have not yet announced, including former Vice President Joe Biden by 12 points and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) by 10 points.

“It really doesn’t matter which Democratic hopeful you test against him right now,” said PPP president Dean Debnam in a press release accompanying the poll. “Voters prefer any of them over Trump at halftime of his Presidency.”


I would think that many of those participating in that poll are unaware that the email list is sold to various organizations. It is really just a money making scam.




Biden is a liberal/Progressive? Did I read that right? I. don’t. think. so!



Yeah this and a lot more from Biden’s career should sink him.





I hope they got a concession or not breaking up the district and on charters.


There seems to have been a plot to emphasize it only on Bernie’s campaign in the MSM.


As campaigns gear up for the crowded 2020 Democratic primary, they are already grappling with how to address a major structural deficiency in their industry: how best to deal with allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct on the trail.

The lack of adequate guidelines to address these issues has been made painfully apparent over the last few months, in the wake of both the broader #MeToo movement and with revelations that such conduct was rampant across many top campaigns. In order to avoid a repeat of those instances, some of the candidates who are in exploratory phases of presidential runs have started internal conversations as to how to best protect all the members of their staff.

The efforts have sped up in recent weeks amid concerns from prospective staffers that such safeguards remain absent from campaign operations. Early last year, a New York Times story detailed how Hillary Clinton shielded an adviser accused of inappropriate conduct during her 2008 presidential campaign. Just this month, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), took responsibility for a former aide’s harassment lawsuit while saying she was unaware of it at the time. And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has publicly apologized twice for allegations that have been reported against individuals working on his 2016 presidential campaign.


Definitely the NY Times


Wow. Well worth the 7 minutes. I won’t spoil it. Shocker.


I wish this had pasted as the chart that’s in the article. Very much worth a read. My last article for the month.

Turns out that centrists are the least supportive of democracy and free elections. Amazing.


Centrists Are the Most
Skeptical of Democracy

Percentage of people who say democracy
is a “very good” political system.
Far left
Far right
Only 42% of centrists view democracy as a very good system.
33% see it as very good.
Respondents who put themselves at the center of the political spectrum are the least supportive of democracy, according to several survey measures. These include views of democracy as the “best political system,” and a more general rating of democratic politics. In both, those in the center have the most critical views of democracy.

via Beth the alien


Centrists are actually very conservative, imo.

In politics, centrism—the centre (British/Canadian/Australian English) or the center (American/Philippine English)—is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right.[1]


They’re fearful (some due to fear-mongering) of anything that could upset their warm and cozy lifestyles.


To know who the democratic centerists are we first need to know who the democratic rightists are. Anybody know?


True, the “Centrists” are the right of the democrat party.


Do you mean like Manchin?


The word ‘centrist’ didn’t exist years ago. It’s an abomination that means GOPuke Light.



Lol. Some football fans might appreciate this.


?. I’m glad my Pats won the relatively noncontroversial overtime game.


That’s not what I heard from my next door neighbor who hails from CT and is a solid NE Pats/Boston Red Sox fan. I didn’t watch the game. He said the Pats got lucky and there were some major bad calls. He emphasized an off sides that should not have been called. I saw the earlier game, and the refs stunk calling it for both teams. Rams have an awesome defense. Bucs faithful know them when we see them. 🙂


Yeah there was an offsides that negated an interception of a Brady pass that would probably have won the game for the Chiefs but the Chiefs player clearly lined up offside. That was a bad play by the Chiefs not a bad call by the ref. Otherwise there were several close plays that went the Pats way but nothing like the one in the Saints game that was clearly pass interference and kept the Saints from running out the clock to kick a chip shot game winning field goal. But the Saints did get the ball in overtime and promptly through an interception, which led to the winning Rams field goal The Pats got the ball and marched down the field to score the winning td


Not a fan of any of the teams that played sun but saints rams opened up old wounds of the fail mary


You’re talking to a long time, long suffering Bucs fan. Refs have pulled plenty of whoppers against my team. What can u say?


I have my doubts that he is a Kamala Harris supporter.??


He thinks Kamala is radical?



Harris is a cheapo version of OBummer. IMNHO


I think that you misunderstood. He is the radical one.


I am not sorry that I missed it!

Claire McCaskill Makes Her Debut as MSNBC’s “Political Analyst” (LOL)


This is worth a view as it contains important information.

2020 Dems Weigh In On Withdrawing From US Interventions



The New York Times is a mere shadow of itself.


The New York Times (shortened as the Times and abbreviated as the NYT) is an American newspaper based in New York City with worldwide influence and readership.

Nicknamed “The Gray Lady”, the Times has long been regarded within the industry as a national “newspaper of record”. The paper’s motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print”, appears in the upper left-hand corner of the front page.

That they actually pay people like this to write for it’s editorial page.


It appears that being a “Democratic Socialist” in Virginia is an uphill battle.



Scabby the Rat stands 12 to 30 feet tall, teeth bared and claws raised aggressively, with hungry, bloodshot eyes. The giant rodent’s sickly-looking underbelly refers to the ‘scab’ pejorative sometimes used by unions against strikebreakers, making it a global symbol of worker protest.

Courts and the National Labor Relations Board have issued rulings over three decades holding that the inflatables are permitted under federal labor laws or are symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. But the NLRB’s current general counsel, Peter Robb, has had enough of the rat—to the point that since April 2018 he’s been looking for a case he can use to exterminate it, according to sources familiar with his thinking.

“GC hates the rat,” a senior NLRB official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, told Bloomberg Law. Robb “wants to find it unlawful to picket, strike or handbill with the rat present.”





Put that all together and it’s hard for me to see how the law students and budding law professors of this generation aren’t going to view the Supreme Court and the enterprise of constitutional law with a skepticism so jaundiced, it will make the arguments of Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory seem like Thomistic natural law.

An interesting historical parallel arises.

Imagine you’re a progressive law student coming of age between the 1910s and the 1930s. You’re a student of someone like Felix Frankfurter or his ilk, politicized by the labor movement, the Socialist Party, or the Depression to join various radical causes.

You’ve read a lot of legal realism. You come to a view of the Court as not a source of legitimacy but as the bastion of the American ruling class, forever enforcing the dictates and injunctions of capital. And you start casting about for a legal philosophy or theory that would not empower that Court but defang, even strangle, it.

I have to believe we’re in for some version of this from the legal left in the next decade or two: not an effort to rehabilitate the law in more progressive directions but an effort to systematically delegitimize the law and the Court, recognizing to some degree that that has already been accomplished by Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and the Right.



On several occasions, now, progressive candidates have endorsed the idea that we should tax the rich more, in contrast to the Republicans who have been on a decades long mission to reduce taxes on the rich and corporations. Usually, pundits have reacted as if the progressives had lost their mind to advocate such a “radical” if not “communistic” idea.

And the Democratic mainstream typically shares the pundits’ incredulity. In fact, when the Republicans started calling the progressives bad names, the Democratic Party went into a collective cringe, and tried to reign in the offending progressives.

They should have learned from Bernie Sanders—the most popular politician in America—confronting the corporatists and conservatives was a better strategy than cringing from their name-calling.
They should have learned from Bernie Sanders—the most popular politician in America—confronting the corporatists and conservatives was a better strategy than cringing from their name-calling.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the latest progressive to speak out in favor of taxing the wealthy, and predictably, the punditocracy pounced on her as if she was some naïve political ingenue, and just as predictably, many of the mainstream Democrats joined them.

As with Sanders, however, AOC didn’t go into a swoon when she was challenged on the idea that a 70 percent marginal rate could raise revenue needed to support a Green New Deal. In her 60 Minutes interview, when Anderson Cooper characterized her as “radical,” she said “… then call me radical.” When Scott Walker completely mischaracterized how marginal rates work in an attempt to discredit her, AOC took him on and destroyed him, rather than going into hiding.

Her courage and conviction has proven to be a political asset, not a liability, as the corporate wing of the Democratic Party would have it.


It’s not “reign,” it’s “rein.” Major problem and definitely the dumbing down process.


Am I missing something here?


COLUMBIA, S.C. — House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said he won’t endorse a presidential candidate until close to South Carolina’s Democratic primary date, if at all.

“I’m not gonna take sides,” Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American Democrat in the House, told POLITICO. “It’ll be a long time before I take sides in this race.”

Clyburn’s presence looms so large over his state’s primary that the Democratic National Committee has in the past asked him to stay neutral.

To date, he has met with Harris, Booker, Sanders and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), although he said his meeting with Sanders wasn’t about presidential politics.

“I’ve talked to a lot of these folks,” Clyburn said. “I’m gonna help everybody I possibly can because I think that South Carolina was awarded this pre-primary status in large measure because I made the promise that I would not put my thumbs on the scale for any one candidate because the national party felt that that would be unfair, and the state party needs all these candidates coming here as often as they possibly can, staying as long as they possibly can, helping us build our party and help this state’s economy. So I’m not gonna do anything to cut that short.”


Nevertheless, Clyburn predicted to The New York Times that former Vice President Joe Biden would win the primary.

“If Biden gets in the race, everybody else would be running for second place,” Clyburn said. “From African-Americans, I’ve only heard three names being discussed: that’s Booker, Harris and Biden.”


Man, what planet is he on? Semi-senile?


Neolib. Too bad. By listing those names he did just make a NONendorsement.

I hope Bernie just goes around him and wins everybody’s heart and votes.







Sanders’s tour came after years of overtures to black voters, a constituency he’d struggled with in his race against Hillary Clinton, who with her husband, Bill, had spent decades building relationships with black leaders and voters.

“He saw room for growth and improvement on civil rights and justice issues,” said Shaun King, a civil rights activist who endorsed Sanders in 2016 and has been an informal adviser since then. “It just struck me as very sincere, and I’ve had real insincere conversations with people about that stuff, so I think I can tell the difference.”

But this time Sanders has worked to forge more connections in the state and the broader black community, and polling has consistently shown him with high favorable numbers among black voters. Since 2016, he has endorsed strikes and union drives by nonwhite workers in Los Angeles and Mississippi, and he lent his support to new, young black mayors in Birmingham, Ala., and Jackson, Miss.

“People know him a lot better,” said Henry Griffin, a vice president with the South Carolina State Conference NAACP, who supported Clinton in 2016.

“There’s a much better feeling about him,” explained Kathy Jarvis, 67, of Columbia. She was among the few black voters who supported Sanders last time, but she said he didn’t visit enough black churches. “This is where the votes are,” she said.

Sanders sounded torn when asked during a panel discussion Monday whether he’d enter the contest.

“There are some really good people who have announced, and they’re friends of mine,” Sanders said, listing Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), along with Booker and Harris.

“My views are maybe a little bit different,” he added. “You need to take on the people who have power . . . the assessment I’ve got to make is, is there a willingness in the grass roots of this country to take those people on?”


Why yes there is Bernie. Yes there is.


More good news


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is among a group of progressive lawmakers joining the House Oversight Committee, Politico reported Tuesday.

In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, fellow freshmen Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) are also set to join the committee, as is Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), according to Politico.

Politico noted that each of the lawmakers has been particularly critical of President Trump. Tlaib faced some criticism from within the party earlier this month for saying House Democrats would “impeach the motherf—er,” in reference to Trump.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the chairman of the committee, told Politico that he is “excited” about the new members and dismissed any concerns about them.



4 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) — were named Tuesday night to the House Oversight Committee, according to multiple reports.

Why it matters: The influential Oversight Committee, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings, will serve as a powerful check on the Trump administration, which has accrued a laundry list of potential subpoena targets over the past two years. The four new members — all of which, besides Khanna, are freshmen — have been exceptionally outspoken in their criticism of the administration, with Tlaib in particular making headlines recently for her expletive-laced call to impeach President Trump.







I take it the MSM is too busy interviewing magat creeps to worry about us carrying out a coup in Venezuela.

And she’s right. Where is the Resistance?



Mike Pence: the cross shaped infected boil on orange moran’s azz.


Just today I saw a headline that Brazil’s President Bolsonaro had warned “Brazil could become the next Venezuela” — it seems much more likely that the opposite outcome will occur.

I didn’t click to the story but assumed that it was his presentation at Davos. The crowd there would eat that BS up.



Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is urging federal employees going without pay during the partial government shutdown to “stop working,” and urged furloughed workers to picket their workplaces.

The Clinton-era Labor secretary tweeted a dig at what he called President Trump’s “callous regard for all of you.”

“As a former secretary of labor, I urge federal workers who continue to toil without pay to stop working and those who are furloughed to picket their workplaces,” Reich tweeted. “Trump’s callous disregard for all of you and for the public welfare must end. He must reopen the U.S. government.”







Fox News take on AOC. So Sad!



If you like Bernie, you’ll like this one. Back by popular demand.



Bernie has trouble with black voters. Hah!



It must be contagious. That is a good thing.


Skip to toolbar