HomeUncategorized5/13 News Roundup & Open Thread – Sanders Zeroes In On The South, On the Trail With Bernie 2.0 & More

Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
61 Comment threads
79 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
wi60humphreyhumphreyBennymagsview Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of


I have been a practitioner of medicine for more than 25 years and have interactions with thousands of patients .

I will outline in this article that Medicare for All can be a viable option for reducing health care costs as well as making sure that every legal American resident get basic health care at affordable price.

First a few facts about health care as it stands today

– 40-50% of American get their health care from the government via Medicare, Medicaid, veteran healthcare, Tricare healthcare, etc.
– Medicare overhead is around 2% while private health insurance overhead is around 10%-20%.
– Medicare offers the broadest selection of providers, hospitals and there is no pre-certification needed to get appropriate testing done without the need for making a call from doctor’s office before testing.

Contrary to popular belief, private insurance offers a limited choice of doctors and hospitals. Prior to testing doctor’s office patients often need to call their insurance company and get approval for which test the doctor orders.

Sometimes a patient has to wait 48-72 hours to get a test or medicine approved by the insurance company. Insurance companies also have high deductibles, sometime as high as $10,000 and co-pays of $50 so most of the money comes out-of-pocket from the patient for health care.

Questions regarding long waits in countries which have single payer system like the U.K. or Canada are that they spent around $4,000-$5,000 per capita for their health care versus the U.S. spending around $10000 per capita for health care.

If you provide decent funding than people don’t have to wait for proper health care in our country.



Democratic presidential candidates are scrambling to respond to growing calls to break up big tech companies like Facebook — a sign of the shifting headwinds for Silicon Valley in a party that once eagerly embraced the internet industry.

In the latest sign of the new dynamics, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) ratcheted up her anti-tech rhetoric in an interview Sunday with CNN. When asked whether Facebook should be broken up, she said, “We have to seriously take a look at that.”

“I think that Facebook has experienced massive growth and has prioritized its growth over the best interests of its consumers, especially on the issue of privacy,” she said.

The remarks come just days after Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the social network is a “monopoly” and should be forced to shed Instagram and WhatsApp — two blockbuster acquisitions from recent years.

That tough stance from such a high-ranking former Facebook insider threw fuel on a debate that’s been growing in the Democratic Party since Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), another 2020 candidate, issued a sweeping proposal to break up companies like Facebook, Amazon and Google, which she said have “bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit and tilted the playing field against everyone else.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-Mass.), a longtime ally to Silicon Valley, has himself grown increasingly critical of tech companies’ power since declaring his run for the White House. But in an interview with ABC on Sunday, he made clear he is not a fan of Warren’s plan, calling it reminiscent of something the current occupant of the Oval Office might say.

“I don’t think that a president should be running around pointing at companies and saying breaking them up without any kind of process here,” Booker said. “It’s not me and my own personal opinion about going after folks. That sounds more like a Donald Trump thing to say, ‘I’m going to break up you guys.’”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) praised Hughes, the Facebook co-founder, in a tweet Friday for “sounding the alarm on the dangers of unchecked corporate power,” writing, “We are living in an era of monopolies that dominate every aspect of our lives — including our government. It’s time to take that power back.”

But Sanders stopped short of calling for the firm to be broken up. His office did not respond to a request for comment last week on his specific stance on that.


“We have to seriously take a look at that”

I detest that kind of empty rhetoric! It’s meaningless talk. Let’s form a committee to talk about that, blah, blah, blah.


T and R, LD/JD. You two lovebirds getting set to leave on your trip? My age is showing this week. Whatever. Good thing you are too far from the southeast cos the weather here sucks!


Of course, nothing in the article about what ideas either Booker or Buttigieg are promoting. It’s all about their “stories.”


One of the Democrats running for president is a youthful former Rhodes Scholar who speaks more than one language and cut his teeth as a two-term mayor. The other is Pete Buttigieg.

Buttigieg’s sparkling resume has been the subject of countless profiles, powering the South Bend mayor to the top tier of the 2020 field. Sen. Cory Booker, however, hasn’t received nearly as much attention and remains mired in the middle of the pack in recent polls.

The similarities between their credentials — and the disparity between how their campaigns have been covered on the campaign trail — are frustrating Booker allies who question whether the media is giving the New Jersey senator a fair shot.



Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Sunday said that Republicans are trying to “ignite vile attacks” against her over a podcast interview where she voiced her support for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Policing my words, twisting & turning them to ignite vile attacks on me will not work,” Tlaib tweeted.

“All of you who are trying to silence me will fail miserably. I will never allow you to take my words out of context to push your racist and hateful agenda. The truth will always win.”

The comments were quickly picked up by Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which published an article titled “Tlaib Says She Is Humbled Her Ancestors Provided ‘Safe Haven’ for Jews After Holocaust.”

A pair of House Republicans on Sunday criticized her over the use of the phrase “calming feeling,” implying Tlaib was describing her feelings about the Holocaust itself when using those words.

“I call on Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer to finally take action against Representative Tlaib and other members of the Democratic caucus who are spreading vile anti-Semitism,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in statement obtained by the Washington Post.

“All of us, regardless of party, must stand as Americans against the evil of anti-Semitism. If the Democratic leadership continues to stand by in silence, they are enabling the spread of evil.”

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) echoed Cheney’s comments, saying in a statement, “There is no justification for the twisted and disgusting comments made by Rashida Tlaib just days after the annual Day of Holocaust Remembrance. More than six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust; there is nothing ‘calming’ about that fact.”



“Republican leaders and right-wing extremists are spreading outright lies to incite hate,” Denzel McCampbell, Tlaib’s spokesman, told the Post in a statement. “Congresswoman Liz Cheney should be ashamed of herself for using the tragedy of the Holocaust in a transparent attempt to score political points. Her behavior cheapens our public discourse and is an insult to the Jewish community and the millions of Americans who stand opposed to the hatred being spread by Donald Trump’s Republican Party.”

McCampbell added that Tlaib “did not in any way praise the Holocaust” and had “repeatedly called the Holocaust a tragedy and a horrific persecution of Jewish people.”



Cuz bezopo hates everyone even slightly associated with Bernie?



Joe Biden is having no trouble raising money. In just one single evening last Wednesday, he raked in a cool $700,000 at a California fundraiser, where he hobnobbed with Hollywood bigshots like Jeffrey Katzenberg and Terry Press.

This suggests a possible serious problem for the former vice president. Money is useful in politics, especially in such a profoundly corrupt society as the United States. But where that money comes from still matters. What’s more, there is surely a point of diminishing returns — or even negative returns, where more money harms a campaign. Biden evinces no sign of having learned from the money problems of Hillary Clinton.

One surprising aspect of the 2016 campaign was that Clinton absolutely crushed Trump in the money race. She and her super PACs raked in nearly $1.2 billion, while Trump and associated operations raised just short of $650 million. She did this largely by cutting back on campaigning and spending much of her time zipping from one glitzy fundraiser to the next.

Despite his smaller cash hoard, the Trump campaign did more events than Clinton in every single swing state except Florida — 31 from Trump compared to 24 from Clinton in North Carolina, 28 to 26 in Pennsylvania, 30 to 18 in Ohio, 18 to 5 in Virginia, 14 to 8 in Michigan, and 9 to 5 in Wisconsin. Despite his total lack of political experience, Trump still seemed to spend his money with far more tactical savvy than the Clinton campaign, with its vast battalions of so-called data experts.

Indeed, a big fraction of that money likely hurt Clinton in the end. In addition to distracting her from a traditional campaign, it also made her appear — with considerable accuracy, frankly — as a tool of the rich. It jammed up her campaign messaging as being the candidate of the poor and working class, making her look like just another Democrat who talks a big game about inequality while quietly reassuring the big money donors behind closed doors that there is nothing to worry about.

This creates an opportunity for the Democratic nominee to characterize Trump as a corrupt hypocrite — a liar who works hand-in-glove with American oligarchs to keep taxes low and regulations down. This would work perfectly with the very successful fundraising model that Bernie Sanders has innovated. As of the last filing period, he had raised more than any other candidate, with $20.7 million (though Biden is probably close by now). Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are not far behind using similar tactics. Democrats could have their money cake and eat it too — running a well-funded campaign without the stench of corruption that comes from glad-handing plutocrats day in and day out. On the other hand, it will be much harder to make that case if the nominee is raising tons of cash from the same types of people Trump is going to.

The challenge of the Sanders model is that it requires credibility. Small donors are much more willing to step up when it’s part of a genuine promise to get corporate influence out of politics. One might conclude that Biden doesn’t want that, because he is perfectly fine with the status quo. It’s almost as if he’s served as a bag man for Delaware corporations for his entire Senate career, and would rather forego a potentially powerful political weapon against Trump than give up big-dollar fundraising. But that surely can’t be it.



The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are sorting themselves into two categories: those who want the political reality to be one way, and those who know it’s the other way. Only the latter are likely to get anything done.

If the next Democratic president spends the first two years of their administration spinning their wheels—strategizing under the assumption that the modern GOP has any interest in cooperation—they’ll fail to solve any of the problems we face and set Republicans up to take back control of Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024. Since gauging electability 18 months before the election is a fool’s errand—just ask former senators John Kerry and Michael Dukakis who won their primaries on electability, or former President Barack Obama who was tagged as unelectable—it’s far more worthwhile to think about who’s going to be able to deliver on their promises.

The wishful-thinking crowd is made up of candidates who think the Republican Party is just waiting for the fever to break before returning to sanity. Former Vice President Joe Biden now has a stump-speech refrain that Trump is an “aberration” in the GOP, and often cites his strong personal relationships while pronouncing that he will be able to get Republicans to “vote their conscience.” And Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar has argued that “you have to work across the aisle to get things done” and suggested that she can succeed in securing Republican support where President Obama failed. Colorado senator Michael Bennet, who just recently entered the fray, performed a pirouette of wishful thinking on “Meet the Press.” He asserted that the Senate Democrats should not have lowered the threshold for confirming nominees from 60 to a majority in 2013 after intensive Republican obstructionism—which allowed us to confirm far more Obama judges than we would have been able to do otherwise when Obama was on track to confirm a historically low number of nominees.

Bennet seems to believe that then-Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell—the man who blocked Judge Merrick Garland from the Supreme Court—would have reciprocated Democrats’ forbearance by declining to go nuclear himself, passing up the chance to reshape the federal judiciary and leaving the 60 vote threshold intact for Democrats to use against Brett Kavanaugh. McConnell, who has recently taken to calling himself the “grim reaper” of progressive legislation, hears comments like this and chuckles as he sharpens his scythe.

This naive thinking fails to recognize that the modern GOP is ruled by an incentive structure that rewards obstruction and punishes cooperation. No matter how strong personal relationships with individual Republicans are, they will not withstand the onslaught from Fox News and the network of donors and extremist activist groups that drives any conservative who tries to cooperate from the fold. Former senators Jeff Sessions and Bob Corker were cast out for merely criticizing President Trump, even as they voted the party line 90 percent of the time. Trump regularly insults the late former Arizona Senator John McCain, and no Republicans come to his defense—not even his best friend Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.


I heard someone on I think it was CNBC this morning proclaim that all voters want is a “return to normalcy”. (I rolled my eyes)


right about now, the 1960s is looking pretty normal to me.



The story came on the heels of a highly-detailed New York Times piece dissecting internal conflict in Harris’ campaign. The notoriously cautious Harris is struggling with the main tension in a Democratic primary: Do you allow the Democratic base to push you left of Bernie Sanders? Or do you plot a more conventional, poll-driven approach to maintain wider appeal in a general election?

Harris’ advisers apparently disagree on the path. He sister and campaign chair, former ACLU executive Maya Harris, is pushing to the left.

“But such pressure is coming up against the advice of three top Harris consultants — Ace Smith, Sean Clegg and David Binder — who have extensively polled and run focus groups on the Democratic primary electorate and do not believe she should bow to activists,” according to the Times.

The story depicted Harris’ campaign as one attempting to “reset.”

Two more truths about politics: First, you can’t fight the boss’ family. Second, when your campaign’s internal disagreements spill into public view, you’ve lost control of the narrative.

“When a candidate’s advisers call up the New York Times, or anyone else, and then explain in gory detail the political calculation between that candidate’s next utterance, you’re doing that candidate a massive disservice,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former Obama advisor who co-hosts Pod Save America.

Campaigns run on internal conflict. You just don’t read about it in the papers when a campaign is rolling toward victory.

Polls show Harris trailing both Biden and Sanders in California. The recent run of bad press hardly suggests a comeback. Fickle politicos may head toward the exits.



The only mention of Bernie in the article: “With the exception of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who raised more than 80 percent of his campaign money from donations of less than $200 during the first three months of the year, most candidates are actively seeking money from both small-dollar online donors and larger donors.” shows why he is the most immune to the tapping out mentioned in the last snippet below.


After spending the first months of 2019 fixated on small-dollar online support and adopting rhetoric shunning bigger donors, campaigns are now taking stronger steps to bring wealthy and well-connected supporters into the fold. Jolted by Joe Biden’s splashy $6.3 million first day in the Democratic primary, many of Biden’s rivals are increasingly hungry for bigger donors’ support.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who raises most of his funds online from small donors, is set to hold his first high-dollar event of the campaign in New York City this week, where attendees have to pledge to raise $25,000 for some tickets. South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg is holding high-dollar events in cities across the country as he tries to collect on his newfound fame with donors.

Hardy’s planning is part of a wider effort to help Warren collect big checks: Warren campaign workers are also in touch with other well-connected volunteers who want to raise money for the Massachusetts senator. And in June, Sen. Kamala Harris’ campaign will fete people who agree to raise big money for her at a meeting for Harris’ growing national finance committee in California. The fundraisers will be treated to a look inside the Harris operation, including talks from campaign officials about her strategy and path to victory in 2020, and details on Harris’ volunteer training program.

O’Rourke, who started his campaign with few connections to wealthy donors outside his home state of Texas, is getting help from a major New York City financier ahead of his Monday fundraiser in the financial capital: Mark Gallogly, a founder of the private investment firm Centerbridge Partners, sent an email ahead of the event urging people to give money to O’Rourke’s campaign.

The minimum contribution to attend is $250, while attendees can garner extra perks for agreeing to raise up to $25,000 for O’Rourke.

Buttigieg, who raised nearly two-thirds of his money from small donors in the first quarter, has leaned into the wealthy donor community as his public profile shot up, frequently appearing at fundraisers and encouraging high-profile supporters to sign onto his events as co-hosts rather than keep their support discreet, as many of his competitors are doing. In recent days, he made stops in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Houston for fundraisers.

Buttigieg will visit Los Angeles again in June and has plans to travel to Boston for a fundraiser hosted by Jack Connors, a philanthropist dubbed by Boston Magazine the “last king of Boston.” To take advantage of his newfound cachet with elite donors, the Buttigieg campaign recently hired two Obama alumni, Zach Allen and Adia Smith, to raise money in New York and Los Angeles.

Warren, who is careful not to violate the fundraising restrictions that she put on her own campaign, is not attracting the throngs of celebrity support that Biden, Buttigieg and Harris have enjoyed so far.

But raising money only gets more difficult as campaigns wear on, and candidates can tap out their networks of friends and die-hard supporters after the initial wave of excitement surrounding their campaign launches.

“The second quarter is going to be much harder” for campaigns, said Tom Nides, a Morgan Stanley executive and Democratic fundraiser who was a deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration.


The Bernster’s financial support has always come from the regular folks via the innertubz, etc. The legal limit is around $2700 total. Do the math: Bernie is fine. 🙂


Logging out and in again so I can post left me with this two in one post. 😁


Que Sera Sera, whatever will be, will bee.

(sorry, but I had to get that in).


You guys are bad! 🙂


😂😂😂 Doris is laughing.


Bernie’s op ed on cash bail.


After decades of politicians in Washington supporting mass incarceration, America is now spending $80 billion a year to lock up 2.2 million people — the highest incarceration rate in the world. What’s more, in a country that prides itself on the principle of presuming innocence, nearly half a million people who are in jail across the country haven’t even been convicted of any crime — and that includes roughly 60 percent of all prisoners in Pennsylvania. That is because many people accused of a crime cannot afford bail.

This creates a modern-day debtors prison. Add to that a racial wealth gap that leaves African American and Latino communities with higher rates of poverty, and “tough on crime” policies that disproportionately target those same communities, and what we have is a criminal justice system that is effectively criminalizing communities of color.

This is an international embarrassment — one that I and other progressives have been opposing for years in Congress. Our government today makes sure Wall Street criminals get bailouts and never face charges in a courtroom, while low-income people are locked away in jail cells simply because they are poor and have inadequate legal counsel.

When our movement defeats Donald Trump in 2020, things are finally going to change. But even before we get to that presidential election, the people of Philadelphia have an upcoming opportunity to start making changes right now in 2019. On May 21, you will have a chance to vote for local judicial candidates who pledge to end cash bail.



Bernie Sanders is holding a rally in Montpelier on Saturday, May 25, his first rally in the state since announcing his 2020 presidential bid on Feb. 19.

Sanders held his first campaign rallies in Brooklyn and Chicago on the weekend of March 2. He noted in a Tweet at the time that he had spent the first 19 years of his life in Brooklyn.

Saturday’s rally in Montpelier is scheduled for 2 p.m. on the State House lawn at 115 State St. People can start gathering at 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, according to the Sanders campaign.



At least it will be on MSNBC🤔


Tokenism at its best: Pair up a person who has supported racists and racists policies with a person who has dark skin but has never lived the black experience (the last according to Tim Black).


Look who’s campaign made it to huff post!


Do you know him?


Washington State Congressional Candidate Joshua Lee Collins


No—been following for a long time tho.

I may have mixed him up with a candidate in Colorado.

Either way, Glad to see him hit the “big time. “


I follow him too, can’t remember why tbh, maybe because of you!

Or maybe for his fine tweets, lol.


It is a positive Huffpost article.

Part of which is here.


Collins is one of 3.7 million heavy-duty truck drivers in the United States who work dangerous jobs and suffer disproportionate health problems, and yet are often underinsured. At the same time, they are driving vehicles that churn out climate-changing emissions, and their bosses are investing in technology that would seek to do away with human drivers altogether. At 25, Collins saw the intersection of those trends as a direct threat to his future.

That’s what led him to launch a long-shot primary challenge against Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.) in the Evergreen State’s 10th Congressional District, which stretches in a U-shape along the shoreline from Shelton through Olympia to Tacoma. Heck, a three-term incumbent, is a loyal Democrat who dependably votes with his party. His votes in favor of LGBTQ and reproductive rights earned him 100% scores from the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood. He boasts a 94% ranking from the League of Conservation Voters.

But Heck’s centrist policy positions and corporate fundraising have made him a foe of the progressive movement. He repeatedly voted last year to weaken financial regulations, bolster military spending and ease restrictions on payday lenders. His record includes votes to ax rules protecting forests from logging, maintain fossil fuels’ advantage over renewables in federal research funding and speed up natural gas exports. He opposes “Medicare for All” and the Green New Deal.

Since entering Congress in 2013, he’s received $494,650 from the health care industry, $118,175 from agribusiness and $104,124 from the energy and natural resource sectors that include oil and gas companies, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. He’s aligned with Blue Dog Democrats in a political moment when Gilded Age inequality and surging greenhouse gas emissions equate ideological compromise with catching fleas.

“I watched the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez campaign, and what she did was impressive,” Collins told HuffPost. “I was hopeful maybe someday I could do that.”


I hope it’s well-attended.


From TomP at TOP:

Bernie and AOC at Sunrise Movement’s Road to a Green New Deal at Howard University Tonight.

Tonight, AOC and Bernie will speak at Howard University as part of the Road to a Green New Deal tour. You can tune in at the link below.



Joe Biden would be a disaster for climate change

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called for “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” to avert full blown climate catastrophe. It’s not too late to stave off the worst impacts, they urged – indeed, it’s “possible within the laws of physics and chemistry”. But we need to act fast.

Presidential candidate Joe Biden, 79, seems to have a very different understanding of the climate crisis than the world’s leading climate scientists. Several top advisers to the former vice-president previewed his “middle of the road” plan on the issue for Reuters on Friday. He’ll have the US rejoin the Paris agreement, which Trump has said he will leave exit as soon as that document’s terms allow in early 2021. He’ll preserve existing regulations on emissions and fuel efficiency that the current administration has targeted. Like Obama, he’ll embrace an “all of the above” energy strategy, with plenty of room for new natural gas development and exports as well as carbon capture and storage, to indefinitely extend the life of the coal industry.

The Sunrise Movement – one of the leading groups pushing for a Green New Deal – has rightfully called Biden’s plan a “death sentence for our generation”, advocating instead the kind of economy-wide mobilization scientists have urged.



Lol, the campaign is aging Joe fast. Note that he is now 79. Up 3 years since his announcement.


The environment is so screwed no matter if its Uncle Joe Or Trumpcorp


For once.


That was my thought when I read that pb!




The video with this article is worth watching. While some of it is gobbledy goop to me, the spin this guy puts on this plunge is fascinating.

Stocks tumble after China retaliates with tariff hikes

The Dow was down more than 600 points after falling more than 700 points earlier, while a steep drop in the tech sector pushed the S&P 500 down by 2.4%. The Nasdaq dropped 3.3%.

A related article and video:

China retaliates with tariff hikes on $60 billion worth of US imports

China’s finance ministry said it plans to set import tariffs ranging from 5 percent to 25 percent on 5,140 U.S. products on a target list worth about $60 billion. It said the tariffs will take effect on June 1.

That MSM war language again:

Chinese state media kept up a steady drum beat of strongly worded commentary on Monday, reiterating that China’s door to talks was always open, but vowing to defend the country’s interests and dignity.[emphasis added]

The sticking point. . . protecting corporate interests over the interests of American jobs or consumers:

Before high-level talks last week in Washington, China tried to delete commitments from a draft agreement that Chinese laws would be changed to enact new policies on issues from intellectual property protection to forced technology transfers. That dealt a major setback to negotiations.[emphasis added]

Tax the American public to ensure corporate profits:
The video on this one is also interesting. One reason would be that tweeting trade policies is somehow being accepted as being an appropriate way to handle government business. A second would be the comment that the new tariffs in effect create a new tax on US consumers.

Additional note: Trump may have canceled the TPP, but his policies are instituting those policies in other ways. The TPP will be forced on us in a 100 different agreements (cf, the EU’s new copyright laws.)


I imagine I’m not the only person whose commitment to getting at least a small garden protected from the critters will be important this year or next and the rest of my stuff, as much as I can from the bargain priced places.

Anyone else feel a crash coming on with the delusional pricing we’re seeing?

And I don’t understand why stores would rather go out of business then just take less than a 500% profit.


I am working on down sizing. I have way too much junk. Most will be heading for the thrift shops. I think I can fit the computer AND a change of clothes into a shopping cart.

I wake up every day expecting it and have for more than a year now.

Shareholders and eliminating competition.


Must see.



More from Taibbi hy


Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Colorado-governor-turned-presidential-candidate John Hickenlooper — who sells himself as a “pragmatic progressive” — went after Sanders in New Hampshire, though not by name.

“You have to hand it to the GOP for achieving the near-impossible,” Hickenlooper said in early May. “Just years after the collapse of the Soviet Union…who would have imagined the Koch brothers and Donald Trump could help resuscitate the discredited ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin?”

Of course, Hickenlooper went on to say, he wasn’t trying to cast aspersions on Sanders as a human being by comparing him to Stalin, who murdered 20 million people. “Do I respect him?” Hickenlooper said. “Absolutely. Do I respect his supporters? Absolutely.” However, he said, he thinks Sanders is wrongly “demonizing the private sector” with ideas that will “hurt working people.”

What politicians like Sanders and Warren represent isn’t Marxism, but an introduction to what politics might look like if you removed money from the policymaking equation.

Most people would rather have affordable health and day care than battleships, they want to be able to go to college without being in debt until death, and they want better schools and more job security.

If policies like these were decided by up-and-down plebiscite, without the advocacy of corporate-sponsored politicians and media outlets that would lose fortunes in ad dollars if elections were publicly-funded, there’s little question that people would ask for more than they’re getting now.

The current panic in the press is designed to make people think that if they demand more politically, it’s going to end in purges and Gulags. It’s a trick, and a big part of the reason there’s going to be a massive effort at creating an “ick” factor around politicians like Sanders, and to a lesser extent, Warren.

They want people to think it’s socially unacceptable to ask for job security or subsidized education or other protections. More to the point, they want to go back to the good old days, when the presidential election season was a glorious ritual in which voters took two years to decide if they would vote for the politicians who’d completely sold them out, or only just mostly.

Bernie Sanders may not be the answer, but he isn’t Stalin, and voter attitudes aren’t changing because people are romanticizing the Great Terror. We’ve just had awful leadership for so long that demanding fairness and competence from politicians has started to seem like a radical idea. It isn’t, but get used to being told it is, until the next election at least.


The sight of a self-described Vermont socialist taking quasi-polite questions from frontline Fox Satan-casters like Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum is surreal to the point where it’s surprising the hall doesn’t explode in hell flames. Baier in particular seems concerned his head might splatter, Scanners-style, every time he looks in Sanders’ direction.


The 1990 Bernie Speech That Began A Political Revolution


WOW! This video has over 2,000,000 views.

Bernie Sanders DESTROYS Trump & His Lackey for Their Lies and Hypocrisy


Bernie is the first candidate to comment




When one independent media source goes after another, we end up with this article from MintPress on The Intercept.

Another Whistleblower Bites the Dust as The Intercept Adds a Third Notch to Its Burn Belt

The Charge:

The indictment against Hale makes him the third Intercept source to be charged with leaking classified information to the outlet in less than two years. Notably, both of the government whistleblowers that have already been prosecuted and convicted by the Trump administration – Reality Winner and Terry Albury – were Intercept sources who were outed as whistleblowers by reporters working for the online publication.

Identifying the money source:

Despite its increasingly dismal track record, the publication – largely funded by government-linked tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar – continues to invite and “welcome” whistleblowers from the public and private sector and implores them to “consider sharing your information securely with us.”

Admitting Obama’s crackdown on whistle blowers and sources:

In a separate tweet to journalist Tim Shorrock, Radack called Hale’s case “an utter failure of source protection. Again.” In other words, Hale’s lawyer – who is privy to information not contained in the publicly available indictment – asserts that a large part of the blame for Hale’s arrest was attributable to the Intercept’s, and presumably Scahill’s, behavior and failure to protect their source. The other guilty party, of course, is the Trump administration’s continuation — if not intensification — of the Obama-era crackdown on whistleblowers and journalistic sources.

MintPress’s call to action:

If the Intercept will not hold itself accountable, as has thus far been the case, then it must be held accountable in the court of public opinion. Its employees must be held to account, including its celebrity journalists, for the paper’s refusal to deal with its indefensible track record of burning sources who have placed their trust in it. Concerned citizens on social media should ask Intercept journalists and the publication’s own accounts why nothing has been done and should demand that something tangible be done now that no less than three brave Americans who trusted the Intercept have found out the hard way that their trust was misplaced.


Others may appreciate MintPress more than I do, but I have found misinformation and misleading statements in their articles fairly regularly, more so of late. So, I do not particularly trust it. At this point, I do not know if this is honest reporting or if there is a hidden agenda.

However, I don’t really have a reason to trust The Intercept either. Is their reporting tainted because they do not protect their sources? Exposing sources, at least, shows a lack of integrity.

1. Applying critical thinking to everything tends to lessen trust levels.

2. The left can be lead down a rabbit hole just the same as the right can.

3. I think maybe I should only read authors who identify themselves as fiction writers.

(Just kidding on the last, but an over-consumption of “news” is not healthy, especially at a rapid pace.)


For the most part The Intercept has many informative articles There are plenty of reliable contributors. Perhaps the is a “mole” amongst them.


Caitlin J suggested that maybe it wasn’t the reporter who outed Hale, but another reporter on staff who did it. But it is all within the same family, so to speak. However, the MintPress article shows the reporter and Hale in regular communication which in itself is a telling sign when the reporter publishes the story.

As always when reading any “news,” large grains of salt.


It might be that the government found the whistleblowers in different ways, too. I read something about how the whistleblowers did not take tech savvy precautions before they even sent the material to the intercept or downloaded it, which ever it was.

Or it could be the intercept. I don’t know. I sure hope they take a deep hard look at this. And I do worry about their funding sometimes.


Three separate incidents does not bode well for The Intercept if they say they took proper precautions. The case against Assange has to do with Assange helping Manning with a password in order to protect her identity (the gov’t is trying to make look like Assange was trying to help her break in). The Intercept reporters according to the article did nothing to protect their sources.



Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) defended his record as an advocate for stronger environmental protections on Monday, responding to a report that he plans to take a “middle ground” on solutions to climate change.

Biden, who’s competing to be the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, brought up the matter unprompted during a speech to a crowd of hundreds at a pizza restaurant in New Hampshire’s seacoast region.

As evidence of his green bona fides, Biden cited an article on the fact-checking site PolitiFact that supported his claims and called him a “climate change pioneer” in Congress.

However, in his remarks, Biden did not explicitly say that he is not pursuing a “middle ground.”

It is difficult to know exactly what such an approach would mean in practice without a detailed policy plan. Biden said Monday that his campaign would release such a plan by the end of the month.

Reuters reported Friday that Biden is preparing to introduce a climate plan aimed at attracting blue-collar workers who voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. The report is based on conversations with two Biden advisers, including Heather Zichal, a former adviser to Obama who until last year sat on the board of a liquified natural gas exporter.


Can’t wait for the details of Biden’s “environmental revolution”!


In his 18 days as a presidential candidate, Joe Biden has refused to say anything about Senator Bernie Sanders, his closest rival.

But it’s clear he’s listening. Over the past few weeks, the Democratic primary contest has become a septuagenarian smackdown.

Standing on a makeshift stage at a pizza restaurant in New Hampshire on Monday afternoon, Mr. Biden adopted some of the language — though not the policy — of Mr. Sanders’s “political revolution.”

“We need environmental revolution,” said Mr. Biden, mentioning climate change legislation he sponsored in 1987 and promising a big speech on the issue by the end of the month. “It’s even more urgent now. We do need to finish this green revolution in a way that’s rational.”

The comments seemed to be a direct response to Mr. Sanders and others on the left, who attacked a Reuters report on Friday saying that Mr. Biden planned to seek “middle ground” on climate change — a characterization the Biden campaign said was inaccurate. “There is no “middle ground” when it comes to climate policy,” Mr. Sanders tweeted.


It is probably formulated by his wealthy donors as I type this comment.😁




So dictator.




Decent thread. I wish there were more links because he seems to have looked at some polls that others aren’t looking at.



Tell us how you really feel, Mike! 🙂


Behind a firewall for me but yikes. Wag the dog for pre-election?


The green new deal would give all those kids somewhere else to earn some money.


Here is a portion of it. I think that it is just bluster.

But with Trump one can never be sure.


WASHINGTON — At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.

The revisions were ordered by hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. They do not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops, officials said.

The development reflects the influence of Mr. Bolton, one of the administration’s most virulent Iran hawks, whose push for confrontation with Tehran was ignored more than a decade ago by President George W. Bush.

It is highly uncertain whether Mr. Trump, who has sought to disentangle the United States from Afghanistan and Syria, ultimately would send so many American forces back to the Middle East.

It is also unclear whether the president has been briefed on the number of troops or other details in the plans. On Monday, asked about if he was seeking regime change in Iran, Mr. Trump said: “We’ll see what happens with Iran. If they do anything, it would be a very bad mistake.”

There are sharp divisions in the administration over how to respond to Iran at a time when tensions are rising about Iran’s nuclear policy and its intentions in the Middle East.It is highly uncertain whether Mr. Trump, who has sought to disentangle the United States from Afghanistan and Syria, ultimately would send so many American forces back to the Middle East.

It is also unclear whether the president has been briefed on the number of troops or other details in the plans. On Monday, asked about if he was seeking regime change in Iran, Mr. Trump said: “We’ll see what happens with Iran. If they do anything, it would be a very bad mistake.”

There are sharp divisions in the administration over how to respond to Iran at a time when tensions are rising about Iran’s nuclear policy and its intentions in the Middle East.


Thanks. This might be one time that even the msm couldn’t sell this as a necessary war.


Rock the vote asked what’s your dream way of voting? You know Jenny had to answer. Thread.







Detailed. You can see it.

Skip to toolbar