HomeOpen Thread4/15 News Roundup and OT
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

T and R, Ms. Benny, and the rest of the usual excellent TPW suspects!! ☮️😊👏


Actually, Clyburn had a good statement on this about understanding Tlaib’s frustrations. Obviously, there has to be some policing and some incarceration though she’s definitely right about militarization. Again Twitter is not always a politician’s best friend.


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Wednesday that he did not agree with Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s (D-Mich.) call for “no more policing, incarceration, and militarization” following the fatal police shooting of Daunte Wright, a Black man, in Minnesota.

Appearing on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Sanders said, “No I don’t,” when asked by host Wolf Blitzer if he agreed with Tlaib’s statement.

“I think that what we need to do is to understand that there needs to be major, major police reform all across this country,” Sanders said. “We are tired of seeing the same thing, week after week and year after year. We do not want to see innocent African Americans shot in cold blood.”

A day after Wright was fatally shot, Tlaib wrote on Twitter, “I am done with those who condone government funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.”

Other Democratic lawmakers have taken similar stances to Sanders. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said on Tuesday that the U.S. has “got to have police officers.”

“I think she’s expressing her frustrations and what she hears from her constituents,” Clyburn said when asked about Tlaib’s statement. “And I can understand that.”


Bernie is 79 y.o. Where is his successor in the Senate?


Maybe Fetterman if he wins?


I also thought Clyburn’s statement was good. Kind even.

I think she’s expressing her frustrations and what she hears from her constituents



Climate Change is the major threat we face. WWIII, you bet.


Good news


The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits tumbled last week to 576,000, a post-COVID low and a hopeful sign that layoffs are easing as the economy recovers from the pandemic recession.

The Labor Department said Thursday that applications plummeted by 193,000 from a revised 769,000 a week earlier. Jobless claims are now down sharply from a peak of 900,000 in early January and well below the 700,000-plus level they had been stuck at for months.

The decline in unemployment claims coincides with other evidence that the economy is strengthening as vaccinations accelerate, pandemic business restrictions are lifted in many states and Americans appear increasingly willing to travel, shop, eat out and otherwise spend again. In March, employers added a healthy 916,000 jobs, the most since August, and the unemployment rate fell to 6%, less than half the pandemic peak of 14.8%.

Other healthy economic data was reported Thursday, underscoring that a potential boom, much-anticipated by economists, may be getting under way. Trillions of dollars of government stimulus, including $1,400 checks largely distributed last month, have maintained overall household income despite widespread job losses in the pandemic.

Those checks, supplemented by higher savings that many households have managed to build, drove retail sales sharply higher in March. Sales at stores, car dealers, restaurants and bars jumped 9.8%. It was the biggest gain since retail sales soared 18% in May of last year in a partial bounce-back from the virus’ initial blow.


Best news in a long time. Very exciting


Racist Republicans at it again


No big surprise about who shows up here


Ted Cruz was among six Republicans who voted against a bill on Wednesday that would strengthen federal efforts to end rampant anti-Asian hate crimes in America.

An overwhelming majority of senators voted to advance the legislation directing the Justice Department to “facilitate the expedited review” of hate crimes against Asian communities.

But six Republicans — Texas senator Mr Cruz, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Josh Hawley from Missouri, Rand Paul from Kentucky, Tommy Tuberville from Alabama, and Roger Marshall from Kansas — voted against it.


I expected more R’s to vote against


Me too.

Also, Tom Cotton is awful!


Remember Arkansas Birdie phatkhat’s comments about Cotton? I sure hope she is well. humphrey, too, tho I know he’s been hanging out at c99.😊


That GND “debate” would be 🤣🤣🤣


Just another reborn Christian GQP nut job


Even a bill to form a study committee on this subject is controversial.


Reparations legislation could soon be headed to the House floor for the first time in more than three decades. Now comes the hard part.

Wednesday night, the House Judiciary Committee voted to bring H.R. 40 out of committee — a historic feat not accomplished since the late Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) first introduced a reparations bill in 1989. The legislation has been introduced in every Congress since then but never made it past a committee vote until last night, where it was approved with the support of 25 Democrats over 17 Republicans.

If passed in both chambers, the bill would establish a commission to study reparations and demonstrate to Congress the U.S. government’s role in the enslavement and systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans.

The bill does not lay out provisions for the shape the reparations would take, whether in the form of direct cash payments or safety net programs. Despite its open-ended design, getting buy-in from enough lawmakers to tee up a floor vote in even one half of Congress is a tall order.

On a Wednesday press call, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer dodged questions about whether he would bring the bill to the floor and tried to put the onus on Biden, suggesting the president create his own reparations commission.

While both parties have been reticent to embrace reparations legislation in the past, the majority of Republicans oppose it. A February POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found that 60 percent of Democrats support the formation of a committee to study reparations while 74 percent of Republicans oppose it. Many on the right argue that today’s lawmakers should not be held responsible for mistakes of the past, like enslavement.

Yet given the ongoing national reckoning on race and systemic racism — now reignited by the trial of Derek Chauvin and a second high-profile police killing in Brooklyn Center, Minn. — reparations advocates say now is a prime opportunity to move reparations legislation forward. It currently has 180 co-sponsors in the House, the most ever. And even with Democrats’ slimmed-down House majority, which includes multiple hesitant moderates, it is in its best position yet to pass that chamber. Doing so would mark a major victory for reparations proponents and racial justice advocates alike.



President Joe Biden’s recently announced executive actions aimed at curbing U.S. gun violence are receiving solid reviews from the general electorate, according to a new Morning Consult/Politico poll.

63% of voters support Biden’s unilateral move aiming to limit the spread of so-called “ghost guns,” untraceable weapons that can be assembled from a kit without requiring a background check, while 21% are opposed.

By an 18-point margin (46-28), voters back increasing regulation of stabilizing braces, which are designed to enhance the accuracy of pistols.


Put the ban back on assault heat while you’re at it, joe.



There is, of course, a way to stop this needless slaughter of Black people for the apparently capital crime of “driving while Black.” We need not live in a world where the police can “accidentally” kill Black people who committed moving violations. The solution is simple and obvious: Abolish armed traffic stops. Use unarmed officers and ubiquitous technology to enforce the traffic laws instead. More Black people will live.

This isn’t as radical as it might sound—or as dystopian. Yes, cameras, drones, facial recognition technology, and the other apparatus of the surveillance state are just as racist as the people who program them. But I can argue a ticket much more effectively than I can dodge a bullet.

In most localities, we already have unarmed law enforcement officers issuing citations for minor vehicular offenses. Parking cops issue tickets all the time, but most of them are armed only with that unforgiving ticket-writing thingy, instead of a gun. And despite the fact that I’ve seen people pull out a thesaurus to come up with the worst possible invectives to shout at these officers, when was the last time you heard about somebody killed by a parking inspector?

There’s no actual reason we should have armed police officers enforcing traffic laws. Government officials don’t need to carry a gun to write a ticket or issue a summons. The state need not send armed paramilitary units to rove the streets looking for people who miss a turn signal. The option of shooting somebody over an air freshener should never be on the table.

I’m not calling for traffic anarchy. Driving is a dangerous privilege. Road traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people under 54 in the United States. They’re the leading cause of work-related death in almost every industry. I’m constantly aware that getting behind the wheel of a car is the most dangerous thing I do, and sitting in my car is the most dangerous thing my children do. I know I’m much more likely to be killed by a fellow civilian speeding through an intersection than by a cop violating my constitutional and human rights. Cars are so dangerous the Federalist Society probably wants to invent a constitutional right for aggrieved white boys to drive them without a permit.

But we have no evidence that siccing armed police officers on people suspected of moving violations makes our roads safer. Indeed, technology has advanced to the point where many traditional traffic enforcement duties are being handled by the surveillance state instead of the police state. The last time I got a ticket for anything, I was busted by the robots: A red-light camera caught me making an illegal U-turn. Since it would be patently ridiculous to outfit the red-light camera with a ray gun and program it to zap me unconscious until the police arrived with my physical ticket, I received my ticket in the mail about a week later, and my illegal turning spree came to an end.

Between the cameras, which are everywhere anyway, and some unarmed traffic wardens empowered to pull over Lamborghinis and protect us from drunks, we could have all of the same safety benefits from road regulation that we do now. The only thing we’d lose from traffic cop disarmament is the likelihood that allegedly clairvoyant police officers would use minor traffic violations to pull over Black drivers in the search for other crimes.

I’ve been there. I was pulled over in Indiana, back when I was about the same age as Wright. When my tormentor approached my car, he said it “smelled funny.” I had just gotten it washed. I responded with something flippant, channeling my inner Sharon Stone with something like, “What are you going to do, arrest me for having my car washed?” The next thing I knew I was being pulled out of my car, and my head was then slammed onto its hood.

I was so scared. And watching the video of Wright’s murder, I could feel his fear rising. Even though I already knew what would happen to him by the time I watched it, I wanted to scream, “Stay calm, brother! Stay calm and we will live and grow and have a family and children. We can survive this! Don’t let them take us now.”

Daunte Wright was no threat. Even if he had driven away, so what? The officers still had his plate, the information from his driver’s license, and the make and model of his car. The police could have driven to his mother’s house and handed her the summons for the freshener violation. An unarmed cop might have put the ticket in the mail.

But that didn’t happen, because the officer playing at traffic cop still had her gun. An otherwise ordinary example of court-approved racism escalated to state-sponsored homicide, because we allow the cops to turn traffic infractions into capital crimes.

Armed cops should not be allowed to pull us over for traffic violations. They can’t be trusted with that power.


Republicans will never agree to anything that raises any taxes so this will have to be done through reconciliation.


A recent Morning Consult/Politico poll found fairly broad support for an ambitious federal infrastructure bill, paid for by tax increases on the wealthy and big corporations. In an interesting twist, excluding the tax hikes made the plan less popular, not more.

Or put another way, as we recently discussed, ask people about President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan, and they say they like it. Let people know that the Biden infrastructure plan includes tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy, and they say they like it more.

Of course, that was just one survey. Would other independent data point in similar directions? As a matter of fact, yes. Take the new, national Quinnipiac poll, released yesterday, for example.

Poll respondents were initially asked, “Do you support or oppose President Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan?” A 44% plurality expressed support for the plan. But the next question asked respondents, “As you may know, President Biden has proposed funding his infrastructure plan by raising taxes on corporations. If it was funded by raising taxes on corporations, would you support or oppose President Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan?”

At that point, support jumps from 44% to 53%.

All of this is of particular relevance right now because Congress is weighing Biden’s American Jobs Act, and Republicans are fiercely opposed to any proposal that raises the corporate tax rate, which the GOP slashed in their regressive 2017 tax plan.

The problem, obviously, is that Republicans have found themselves on the opposite side of the American mainstream.

John Anzalone, the top pollster for Biden-Harris 2020, told Axios this week “his extensive polling and research has found that few issues receive broader support than raising taxes on corporations and people earning more than $400,000 a year.”

The report added that Anzalone believes “the White House need not treat the tax increases on the wealthy as some kind of necessary evil. Rather, Team Biden should brag about this because the idea is so broadly popular.”

The evidence to bolster the point is unambiguous.