HomeUncategorized5/9 News Roundup & Open Thread – Bernie Sander’s Speech @ The DC IAM Union Legislative Conference, Warren Unveils CARE Act & More

Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
55 Comment threads
46 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
polarbear4humphreyWindDancer13wi60Tyrannocaster Recent comment authors

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

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Don midwest
Don midwest

meanwhile, our foreign policy supports Israel

Gaza at Risk of amputation from Israeli Sniping

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Thousands of innocent Gaza Palestinian protesters wounded by live fire by Israeli snipers are in danger of losing limbs if the decrepit Gaza hospital system does not receive $20 million, according to Jamie McGoldrick, United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for the occupied Palestinian territory.

Since the Great March of Return protests began in spring of 2018, some 31,691 Palestinians have been injured by the Israeli army. Almost none of those wounded had actually come up to the border fence with Israel or gotten close enough to Israeli soldiers to endanger them. We are therefore talking about 31,0000 war crimes, since it is not permitted in international law for occupying troops to simply shoot down unarmed protesters.

Most of those injured were hurt by military-grade tear gas, about which victims report that “Acute symptoms included loss of consciousness, breathing difficulties, rashes, and severe pain, all of which lasted many hours beyond the time they were directly exposed to the gas.” Repeated exposure raises anxieties about chronic headaches and miscarriages. Some are injured by being hit by the teargas cannisters, which can cause serious injury and even death.

About 7,000 Palestinian protesters in Gaza have been sniped out with scopes by professional Israeli snipers, and hit with live fire strategically targeting their legs.

1,700 of those 7,000 are in immediate danger of bone infections and other complications and cannot hope to get good medical treatment in the Gaza Strip, where a decade of Israeli blockade has left the medical infrastructure woefully underfunded, and where Israeli airstrikes have sometimes hit hospitals.

Don midwest
Don midwest

WA Post opinion piece on E Warren

Only one 2020 Democrat fully grasps the threat Trump poses

and Bernie doesn’t?

Well, at least the article says that there is another candidate worthy of the issues Bernie has been pushing


Well for better or worse, Warren has been the most vocal about impeachment. Bernie basically agrees with House Dem leadership that impeachment should not be pursued immediately—instead investigate.


Wapuke will never write positively about Bernie as long as Bezos owns it. T and R, LD!!

Don midwest
Don midwest

It is not 3%. It is 0% of scientific articles on global warming hoax are wrong.

I saw this someplace yesterday, it might have been here, but just in case, posting it again

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.


Pretty much mirrors national polls right now for Bernie (23) and Biden (33), with Bernie doing somewhat better. Buttigieg (20) is much higher than everybody else (Harris (3) is the next highest).


Despite being the home-state candidate, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has a long way to go if he hopes to win Indiana in the Democratic primary next year as former Vice President Joe Biden has a 10-point lead over second place U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and a 13-point lead over third place Buttigieg. Despite very loud noise from the far left of the Democratic Party and Buttigieg’s popularity in the South Bend region, it seems that, for now, rank-and-file Indiana Democrats prefer a traditional party leader.


Getting his 15% like a good boy. The establishment wouldn’t care if he carried a single other state if these results hold up.


I wonder why Inslee hasn’t done this. He obviously is against fracking. I also didn’t realize that Bernie has joined Inslee in calling for a debate focused on the environment.


As Bernie Sanders calls for a national ban on fracking due to the serious threat it poses to the climate, air quality, and water supply, Washington Governor and 2020 presidential candidate Jay Inslee won praise from environmental groups on Wednesday for signing into law a statewide ban on the destructive drilling practice.

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, celebrated Inslee’s move—which made Washington the fourth U.S. state to ban fracking—but urged him to join fellow 2020 contenders Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in calling for a nationwide ban on the extractive technique.

“A clear majority of Americans want political leaders to take real action on climate change,” Hauter said in a statement. “Now would be the perfect opportunity for Inslee to join fellow candidates Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in calling for a national ban on fracking, and for a halt to all new fossil fuel infrastructure everywhere.”

“We’re pleased that Governor Inslee has banned fracking in Washington,” added Hauter. “This is great news, but as a presidential candidate, in order to show real national leadership on climate and clean energy, Inslee must endorse a ban on fracking across the country.”


Whole article focusing about the battle for rich Califirnia donors. No mention about who actually has the most California donors.


California Democrats, especially those with ties to the influential LGBTQ and Hollywood communities, are finding themselves torn between a home-state senator they love, Kamala Harris, and an out-of-state suitor who has suddenly captured their attention, Pete Buttigieg.

It’s a dynamic that’s unsettling the Democratic presidential primary in California — home to an early 2020 March contest that offers a mother lode of nearly 500 delegates. No two candidates are crowding each other quite so closely here, or elbowing each other quite so aggressively, in the pursuit of some of the party’s most generous and influential donors.

Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., isn’t viewed as a direct threat to Harris. But his rapid rise, appeal to millennial voters and newfound popularity among Hollywood and Silicon Valley donors stands to hinder her ability to lock down her backyard. And it could enable the 37-year-old mayor to net a solid cache of delegates from Harris’ home state — perhaps even more than he can capture in early-voting states like Nevada or Iowa.



There more info, with a state by state breakdown. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/felony-disenfranchisement-a-primer/

A striking 6.1 million Americans are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses.1) Felony disenfranchisement rates vary by state, as states institute a wide range of disenfranchisement policies.

The 12 most extreme states restrict voting rights even after a person has served his or her prison sentence and is no longer on probation or parole; such individuals in those states make up over 50 percent of the entire disenfranchised population.2) Only two states, Maine and Vermont, do not restrict the voting rights of anyone with a felony conviction, including those in prison.


Buttigieg is the only top 2020 candidate not offering staffers health care yet

On the campaign trail, Pete Buttigieg likes to say that “health care is freedom” and that if “leaving your job means you’re going to lose your health care, that means you’re not free.”

But as he staffs up a national campaign, the upstart Democratic presidential candidate isn’t providing health care coverage to any of his own campaign workers, an NBC News review of his campaign spending disclosures shows.

Instead, Buttigieg is providing a monthly stipend to workers to buy insurance on their own through the Obamacare exchanges, his campaign said, with plans to offer health care in the future.

The practice stands in contrast to the other leading presidential candidates this year, as Democrats have made a point of aligning their internal practices with the policies and values they are emphasizing on the campaign trail.

Federal Election Commission records show Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign made an $87,000 payment to United Healthcare in March. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s campaigns have made payments to Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Sen. Cory Booker’s staff has coverage through Aetna.

The campaigns of former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris said they, too, are providing health coverage to their staffers. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ staffers have even unionized — a first for a presidential campaign — ratifying a contract Wednesday that includes not only health care but “broad coverage for mental health care services.”

To be sure, offering health care to workers is a complicated arrangement for employers, particularly small ones just getting off the ground. Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was unknown to the American public until recently, and as his campaign has taken off, it has been forced to rapidly expand from a handful of staffers to a full-fledged national operation.

Still, veterans of past Democratic campaigns said that it’s typical for campaigns to make sure their workers can buy into a group health care plan. Teal Baker, who was the deputy chief operating officer for President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, said everyone other than part-time field or advance staffers was salaried with benefits. She said even when she joined the first Obama campaign, in March 2007 — shortly after he entered the race — she had access to benefits.

“I certainly had health care,” she said.

This is probably a post in and itself for many reasons.

  • Indiana is a right to work state, thus healthcare isn’t a big deal to them
  • Pete’s game is moderation in spending–he’s hired very little staff, but the way to stretch his budget is not to have big rallies and do mainly fundraisers/media appearances.
  • Notice the neoliberal framing by the reporter. Access to benefits. That’s not the same as what Bernie is offering

I don’t think Mayor Pete is still a serious contender. He’s fishing for something else.



Does Mayor Pete subscribe to Goop?


Goop queen Gwyneth Paltrow is throwing a fundraiser for wunderkind presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg—elevating pseudoscience into the political conversation.

Paltrow and her husband Brad Falchuk, along with actor Bradley Whitford and actress Amy Landecker, are set to throw the bash on May 9, with tickets starting at $250 per person, according to Variety.

Scientists and anti-pseudoscience activists ranted about Paltrow’s waltz into the 2020 race.

“Gwyneth Paltrow has built a successful brand by spreading health misinformation and embracing pseudoscience,” Timothy Caulfield, chair of health law and policy at the University of Alberta and author of Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?, told The Daily Beast. “Facts obviously don’t mean much to her. The last thing we need is another politician who tolerates this kind of approach. We need leaders who will champion science, evidence, and critical thinking!”


On an alarmingly regular basis, Gwyneth Paltrow’s lifestyle company Goop publishes new morsels of health bullshit.

And as the Goop website has emerged as a reliably laughable source of pseudoscience, a small army of journalists (myself included), doctors, researchers, and bloggers has evolved to pounce on Goop’s claptrap as soon as it’s out. We explain why jade eggs for vaginas, $30 sex “dust,” and body stickers that “promote healing” are misleading drivel. In the best cases, we use Goop’s bunk to teach people about how actual science works. It’s practically a parasitic relationship.


You can probably find one a lot cheaper I had a good gem and mineral show. 😏



fwiw. looks legit.


Trump Bigger Factor than Obama for 2020 Dem Primary Voters in NH

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the clear front-runner for New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation Democratic primary, according to the first Monmouth University Poll of Granite State primary voters in the 2020 cycle. One-third of voters say that finding a candidate who will carry on former President Barack Obama’s legacy is very important to them and there is little difference in levels of candidate support by the importance voters place on Obama’s legacy. On the other hand, two-thirds of primary voters point to finding a nominee who can beat President Donald Trump as more important to them than agreement on the issues.

In a field of 24 announced and potential candidates, Biden holds a clear lead with 36% support of registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the February 2020 primary. He is followed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 18%. Other contenders include South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (9%), Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (8%), and California Sen. Kamala Harris (6%). Registering at least 1% in the poll are former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (2%), Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (2%), New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (2%), former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (1%), Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan (1%), and entrepreneur Andrew Yang (1%). The remaining 13 candidates earn less than 1% or were not chosen by any respondents in the poll.

Biden does especially well among voters aged 65 and older, garnering 53% support with this group compared to only 9% for Sanders. The former vice president also bests Sanders by 36% to 19% among those aged 50 to 64, but he trails the Vermont senator by 20% to 27% among voters under the age of 50. Biden tops Sanders by 45% to 10% among self-described moderates and conservatives, but he lags by 23% to 29% among liberals. A majority of likely Democratic primary voters (58%) describe themselves as moderates or conservatives in New Hampshire, a state that allows unaffiliated voters to participate in either party’s primary.

“As other polls have shown, Biden officially enters the race as a clear front-runner. He is the preferred candidate of voters who want someone to take up Obama’s mantle but it does not seem that this is a decisive factor right now,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

Biden’s entry has raised the question of what role his former boss, President Barack Obama, will play in the race. One-third of likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire (34%) say that nominating someone who will build on Obama’s legacy is very important to them. Another 38% say it is somewhat important, 21% say it is not important, and 7% are unsure. Liberals (40%) are more likely than moderates (29%) and women (41%) are more likely than men (24%) to prefer a nominee who is seen as following in Obama’s footsteps. There does not appear to be a definitive “Obama lane” in this race, but Biden holds the lead with voters who say the former president’s legacy is a factor. Among those who say Obama is very important, 39% currently support Biden while 15% support Sanders, followed by Buttigieg (10%), Harris (9%), Warren (8%), Booker (3%), and Klobuchar (3%). Among those who say Obama’s legacy is somewhat important, 39% support Biden to 20% for Sanders, followed by Buttigieg (9%), Warren (8%), and Harris (5%). Among those who say it is not important or have no opinion on the importance of Obama’s legacy, 30% support Biden and 19% back Sanders, followed by Warren (10%), Buttigieg (7%), Harris (5%), and O’Rourke (3%).


Monmouth poll part 2

“While Democrats may have positive feelings about Obama, the current White House occupant is a much more significant factor in the 2020 primary. In fact, it really isn’t an either-or calculation. Voters who value Obama’s legacy say the best way to preserve it is to beat Trump in 2020,” said Murray

The overwhelming majority (68%) of likely Democratic voters prefer to have a nominee who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues. If they were forced to choose, just 25% say they would favor a Democratic candidate who they are aligned with on the issues even if that person would have a hard time beating Trump. Among those who say having a nominee that builds on Obama’s legacy is very important to them, 79% prioritize beating Trump while just 15% say they want a candidate who they agree with on the issues even if he or she would be weaker against the incumbent.

Biden garners somewhat more support among voters who prioritize beating Trump (39%) than he does among those who are looking for issue alignment in their nominee (32%). Sanders, on the other hand, does much better with “issue” voters (33%) than “electability” voters (13%). Harris does slightly better with electability voters (8%) than issue voters (4%). There are no significant differences in support for other candidates between these two types of voters.

While beating Trump at the ballot box is a priority for most New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, just 20% say it is very important to them that the party nominates someone who supports impeaching Trump now. Another 18% say it is somewhat important, while most say it is not an important consideration (54%) or are not sure (7%). It’s worth noting, though, that among those who say a nominee who supports impeaching Trump is very important to them, 49% back Biden. Biden recently said that Congress would have to pursue impeachment if Trump blocked their investigation of issues arising from the Mueller report.

The Monmouth University Poll also asked voters to rate 22 announced and 2 potential candidates in the race. Biden holds the most positive rating at 80% favorable to 15% unfavorable. Sanders also has a strong rating at 73% to 19%. Warren, New Hampshire’s other neighboring-state senator in the field, has the third highest favorability rating in the field at 63%, but also has one of the highest unfavorable ratings at 24%.

See more about the poll results here.


That overwhelming Biden support among the over 65s in all these polls has been depressingly consistent.


As someone who is older than that…I can not for the life of me figure out why my generation is so stupid. Maybe the Who was right.


I don’t understand it either. These (we) are people who grew up when there was a healthy middle class. They know or should at least know the difference between what it was like then and what it is like now.

I am guessing that there has always been a large divide in ideology within the ranks of baby boomers. Maybe the conservative ones outlived the rest of us.


I think it is about civility.



Interview With Democratic Congresswoman and 2020 Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard

EVER SINCE TULSI GABBARD was first elected to Congress in 2012, she has been assertively independent, heterodox, unpredictable, and polarizing. Viewed at first as a loyal Democrat and guaranteed future star by party leaders — due to her status as an Iraq War veteran, a telegenic and dynamic young woman, and the first Hindu and Samoan-American elected to Congress — she has instead become a thorn in the side, and frequent critic, of those same leaders.

Gabbard’s transformation from cherished party asset to party critic and outcast was rapid, and was due almost entirely to her insistence on following her own belief system and evolving ideology, rather than party dogma and the longstanding rules for Washington advancement. In 2012, Rachel Maddow, upon announcing Gabbard’s victory, instructed her audience to learn Gabbard’s name because, the MSNBC host gushed, “She is on the fast track to being very famous someday.” In 2015, Maddow invited Gabbard on her show to herald her as one of the leaders of what Maddow touted as an urgently needed, new bipartisan congressional caucus composed of military veterans in the war on terror.

But by mid-2016, Gabbard committed the ultimate party heresy: She very publicly resigned from her position as Democratic National Committee vice chair at the peak of the primary battle to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders after months of internally accusing DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of corruptly violating the DNC’s duty of neutrality by favoring Hillary Clinton. Her accusation was later vindicated through emails published by WikiLeaks, Wasserman Schultz’s resignation, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s own “rigging” accusation, and current DNC Chair Donna Brazile’s book, which caused Gabbard to publicly repeat her allegations of the DNC’s “unethical rigging” of the primary in favor of Clinton.

Gabbard has compiled a record on domestic policy questions that places her squarely within the left populist wing of the party — from advocating Medicare for All, a national $15 an hour minimum wage, various free college programs, and even participating in anti-pipeline Standing Rock protests in North Dakota. Yet her aggressive criticisms of the pieties of the bipartisan foreign policy community — particularly her harsh criticism of regime change operations from Iraq and Libya, to Syria and Venezuela, and her warnings about escalating tensions with Russia and China and the dangers of a “new Cold War” — have further cemented her status as party outsider and heretic from the perspective of Washington Democratic insiders.

Glenn Greenwald is the interviewer. I haven’t seen the video yet.


Take a moment to unwind.


Stunning. This seemed like a fitting post for here.


The headline looks really good, but digging a bit further in shows that this act was not quite as generous as it sounds. All in all, though, a positive move.


The Kill Chain. It’s a thing.


Okay, I’ll bite: Just what kind of neighborhood would you expect to find this cache in?

More than 1,000 weapons seized in ritzy Los Angeles neighborhood

“It’s just beyond comprehension that somebody can have so many weapons in a residence like this in a neighborhood like this,” Ramirez said.


One for the math people here. Are these trucks a bit pricey? (Note: There will be no marketing cost or showroom/lot expenses and there should not be any storage of unsold vehicles cost as well as other costs associated with the normal business of selling a vehicle.)

Trump’s ‘great news’ lands with a thud on abandoned GM plant floor

Workhorse does present some reasons for optimism. It makes trucks for the United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp., and is in the running for a lucrative contract with the U.S. Postal Service. Defense contractor Oshkosh Corp., Humvee maker AM General and Indian manufacturer Mahindra are going up against the company for an award of as much as $6.3 billion worth of business building 180,000 new mail trucks [emphasis added].

I should also add that they want people to approve this sale based on the possibility that there may be jobs. There are three other companies bidding for this contract, and one of them is a defense contractor.


$35k a pop. Does seem high, considering the size of the order.


And probably higher as there is no doubt that little feature (not a bug) called cost overruns. (Even given that it takes on average 23 hours of labor to build a car.)

Thanks! I am glad someone does math. = ) That is lower than what I could come up with in my head.


There is a whole lot wrong with this deal, but this piece is the kicker. Palestinians will be forced to pay for the forces that are killing them. Say what??

Trump’s “Deal of the Century” Will Use Sanctions, Military Threats to Force Palestinian Acceptance

The draft plan published by Israel Hayom, while in keeping with many of the details that have been leaked to the press in past weeks and months, contains several new and troubling claims, including the Trump administration’s plan to force Palestinian leadership to accept the plan through threats of economic strangulation and military force.

While the plan would allow “New Palestine” access to Jerusalem as a shared, undivided capital with Israel, Palestinians would be responsible for paying the state of Israel for their security because it would be forbidden from having its own army. In other words, Palestinians would be forced to pay the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the military force that has occupied the West Bank for over 50 years, to “protect” them despite the fact the Palestinians are regularly extrajudicially murdered by IDF soldiers. However, the apparent “concession” offered by the Trump administration in this regard would be allowing the “New Palestine” to maintain a police force with “light weaponry.” [emphasis added]

See the rest of the article for the rest of this “deal,” but be prepared to have your brain explode.


A very good interview with Norman Solomon on Bernie with a good message to unreconciled HRC supporters.

Who’s Anti-Bernie and Why They’re Wrong

JB | What can you tell us about the media coverage Bernie receives? What’s your take on it?

NS | As I put it in “The Biggest Obstacle for Bernie is Not the DNC” published in OpEdNews in March, “More than any other force, reflexive spin from corporate media stands between us and a Bernie Sanders presidency. In sharp contrast to campaigns with enormous budgets for Astroturf, the first Sanders presidential campaign was able to effectively defy the conventional wisdom and overall power structure by inspiring and mobilizing at the grassroots. His campaign was — and is — antithetical to the politics of corporate media.”

The enormous problem with mainstream media coverage of Bernie has continued, and I expect the overall negative treatment will greatly intensify between now and the end of the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. While there are some positive news stories and commentaries, the dominant range of media approaches to him goes from skeptical to hostile. The April 27 kickoff of the official Bernie 2020 grassroots campaign included upwards of 5,000 organizing events on that one day. It reflected a recognition that the forces arrayed against the Bernie campaign — notably including the dominant corporate media — are so powerful and so antagonistic that it’s going to be imperative to build a nationwide grassroots campaign with unprecedented depth, reach and power in order to win.


I like to picture Trump currently tearing his hair out (ha ha) trying to figure out just who gave the NYT this information.

The serious conversation:

A more light-hearted view?

Anyone think Bernie would pardon Trump?




hand marked, paper ballots. don’t want more microsoft, any soft. aaaaaaaaaaaaa!



Here is a poll that I could trust!😊


Skip to toolbar