HomeUncategorized7/12 News Roundup – Bernie Sanders’ Speech In Opposition To Brett Kavanaugh, Beto Brings In $10.4 Million & More
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Not sure what to make of this.


This might shed some light on it.


ew York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) accused her challenger, Rep. Joe Crowley (D), of refusing to concede and mounting a third party challenge against her.

Ocasio-Cortez was responding to a New York Times article from Wednesday stating that Crowley is still on the November ballot as a Working Families Party (WFP) candidate.

The Times reported that WFP state director Bill Lipton said Crowley refused to vacate the line he won in New York’s 14th Congressional District.


The plot sickens:

Peace between Ocasio-Cortez and Crowley showing strain

A Crowley campaign official said the rival campaign never provided her personal phone number.

In a rebuttal tweet, Crowley dismissed Ocasio-Cortez’s charges as nonsense.

Crowley also said he would have to use a maneuver that amounts to”election fraud” to get his name removed from the Working Families Party line.

“Lots questions about WFP line. Was honored to have their support. I’m not running. For record you can only be removed from the ballot if 1) you move out of NY; 2) die; 3) be convicted of a crime; 4) accept a nomination for another office (in a place I don’t live),” Crowley

“I don’t plan on moving out of New York, have a clean record, hope God’s will is that I don’t die, and won’t commit what I honestly believe to be election fraud,” Crowley added.

WFP executive director Bill Lipton sided with Ocasio-Cortez in the dispute.

He said he asked Crowley’s team to yank his name so Ocasio-Cortez could become the WFP as well as Democratic candidate in the race for the 14th congressional district seat, which covers portions of Queens and The Bronx.

“They refused to consider it,” Lipton said.

Lipton also said it was laughable for Crowley to claim that using a time-tested maneuver to get his name off the WFP line amounts to election fraud.

“Nobody knows how to manipulate the election law better than the Queens Democratic Party. They just don’t want to be helpful,” he said.


Crowley sounds pathetic! Apparently he’s claiming that no one gave him Alexandria’s ‘personal’ phone number..

“I’m not willing to air grievances on Twitter”, he tweets…as he airs grievances on Twitter…


See this is why I like running through the party, hes going to make an ass of himself and its going to reflect on the whole dem establishment by the times its all through. Power never concedes without a fight but it often shows its crooked hand while fighting.


This is enough to make a person barf!


Grateful for small favors–it’s not actually usable in our currency. phew!

btw, expect (possibly) 2 more .25 rate hikes before 2019.


Someone got grumpy!


Emily’s list is at it again!


Emily’s List, a Democratic-leaning advocacy group that supports women in politics, has plunged into the crowded primary for Kansas’s 3rd Congressional District. According to media trackers, Women Vote!, the group’s PAC, is spending nearly $400,000 on advertising in support of Sharice Davids, a Native American activist and former White House fellow who entered the race in February.

Here is the catch.

She is running against Brent Welder.


Welder, a former Sanders delegate who has gotten the most attention among the Democratic candidates, sees his approach as energizing the party’s base and at the same time attracting populist voters who sided with Trump. The pitch: What’s good for the Bronx and Queens would be even better for Kansas.


And believe me, they looked for the whole “Native American activist” I’m sorry to say. I wonder if said activist was for Bernie.


It would be the height of political cynicism to employ such identity politics towards their own ends if Sharice Davids is less than progressive. Hence, I wouldn’t put it past them over at Emily’s List.

Davids said that conversations on health care policy need to start with the belief that health care is a human right. But while she supports a single payer system in concept, she said that smaller improvements to health care access are more realistic policy goals right now with President Donald Trump in office.


What happens when you demand only half of the loaf (even less in this case) again?? Crumbs, if you’re lucky.


Following the footsteps of their boss.


The last 18 months have been difficult for former members of the Obama administration. They’ve been replaced by a regime, which, in the words of former Domestic Policy Council director Melody Barnes, “shows virtually no respect for constitutional principles, or often, basic human decency.” And now they can do little more than complain about their successors’ parade of outrages.

And yet for all the damage the Trump administration is doing to American democracy, several prominent Obama alums seem to have quietly made their peace with a subtler attack on the legitimacy of U.S. institutions. Today, many are lending the prestige of their White House resumes to scandal-fraught organizations in return for large sums of money. Some are even doing business with the Trump administration.

There are too many examples to quote. Lets just say that there are after a $$$ bonanza just like Obama is doing right now.


In Light Of Confirmation Hearings, Government Says It’ll Provide Brett Kavanaugh’s Relevant Writings… In 5 Years

The government’s weak excuses for violating its FOIA obligations must stop.

While we all understand that Brett Kavanaugh went to Yale so there’s no need to further vet him, some folks out there have the crazy idea that installing someone on the Supreme Court for two to three decades might require a more critical inquiry. Non-partisan group Fix the Court, represented by American Oversight, filed FOIA requests seeking Kavanuagh’s files from his years in government service. With scrutiny already mounting over his shifting views on the propriety of investigating a president — which seem to boil down to “Democrats should be, Republicans shouldn’t” — delving into Kavanaugh’s papers from his years serving in the Office of Independent Counsel would seem uniquely relevant.

In response, the National Archives, fully cognizant of the statutory deadlines imposed by FOIA, informed FTC that they would comply with the request in five years — and wouldn’t even deliver the first tranche of documents for 22 months. Even on the Merrick Garland timeline, those documents wouldn’t get out in time to make a difference.

But the National Archives are positively speedy compared to the Bush Library. The Library specifically identified the materials exempt from FOIA and said of the rest that its “best estimate at this time,” is that the request “may be completed in approximately 20 years.” We’ll stabilize Iraq in less time.

The snark is strong in this writer.


We dealt with this kind of chicanery before when the EPA tried to stonewall FOIA requests by claiming they simply couldn’t handle the volume of documents detailing corrupt activities to keep up. As we pointed out then, lawyers comply with requests orders of magnitudes larger within 30 days.

The Archives, taking its lead from the EPA, tried to explain away its failings by claiming it’s not the volume of the request but the volume of requests, saying they’re “currently processing requests received in February 2013.” But like the EPA’s excuse, this doesn’t hold water or “drinkable toxic effluent” or whatever we call it now. This only makes sense if you operate from the premise that every FOIA request is seeking unique materials — they’re not, most are asking for about the same subjects — and that compliance with each request must be approached from scratch.


Go Zephyr!


I think she has what it really takes, which i believe more than anything is a untiring work ethic. If you look at Bernie or Alexandria or even Beto they all have one thing in common, they work their butts off and I think that more than anything is what can lead to an insurgent victory.

People know congress critters are lazy, so when they see someone out there working their butts off, it ties right into the psyche of the ‘success by the sweat of your brow’ American ideal.

Everyone loves an underdog and a hard worker, so a hard working underdog automatically has natural appeal, though im not saying thats why people are voting for them, but it is a natural door opener for consideration.





This is a good question. I am not sure what the answer is.



Lots of not so super Dems, but remember not one Dem voted for the GOP tax bill, which is corruption on a historic scale. Trump and his administration’s corruption has never been seen before in our nation’s history. This bothbsiderism from Dore aggravates me. I’m no fan of establishment corporate Dems and they need to be defeated for the good of the country, but they are not equivalent to the racist, homophobic, xenophobic, oligarch-loving, fascism here we come, Republicans.


Yes not one dem voted for the tax bill but they didnt need one vote, what if they needed 1? 2? 5? 10?

Think it still would have passed? History says yes.


I don’t recall the Dems passing massive tax giveaways to the rich when they controlled controlled Congress under Obama.


Pretty sure the Bush tax cuts were extended under Obama.

also you avoided my question


If magically two Republicans voted against the tax cuts last year, I don’t believe two Dems would have taken their place to ensure passage.

Not all the Bush tax cuts were kept. The top bracket went back up to 39%. Unfortunately, many Dems did compromise in the face of Republican government obstruction. Many Dems aren’t great and their actions play into Republican hands. But the impetus for tax cuts for the rich always comes from the Republicans who are always 100% behind that idea.


oops wrong thread


OOPS I did it again. I think I should have my eyes checked.

Skip to toolbar