Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,801
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on May 1, 2019 19:57:10 GMT
Kyle Griffin.. ”Lindsey Graham says he won't call for Robert Mueller to testify before Congress: "I'm not going to do any more. Enough already. It's over." Via ABC” Ok. That is total BS.
If Mueller isn't called to testify, is there anything else he can do at this point?
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 1, 2019 20:09:34 GMT
Kyle Griffin.. ”Lindsey Graham says he won't call for Robert Mueller to testify before Congress: "I'm not going to do any more. Enough already. It's over." Via ABC” Ok. Is it even up to Lindsey Graham wether or not anyone testifies befit CONGRESS? I suppose Nancy Pelosi could block it but a Senator?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 1, 2019 20:19:59 GMT
Kyle Griffin.. ”Lindsey Graham says he won't call for Robert Mueller to testify before Congress: "I'm not going to do any more. Enough already. It's over." Via ABC” Ok. Is it even up to Lindsey Graham wether or not anyone testifies befit CONGRESS? I suppose Nancy Pelosi could block it but a Senator? He means for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He’s the chairman so he decides only for his committee. Senate Intelligence Committee can invite him as well. House Judiciary Committee is ready for Mueller; they’re just waiting for DOJ to agree on a date.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 0:24:51 GMT
Mark Follman..
“This was a big moment: Sen. Kamala Harris got Barr to admit that he decided not to charge Trump with obstruction—perhaps the most consequential DOJ decision since Watergate—without examining any of the underlying evidence”
Why should Barr examine any of the underlying evidence? After all, he wrote a paper that he sent to the White House giving his opinion that one can’t charge a president with obstruction of justice. Never mind what the evidence shows.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 0:30:10 GMT
Amy Siskind...
“Not only is Barr a no-show for House Judiciary hearings tomorrow, the DOJ ALSO said it will not comply with the committee's subpoena for Mueller’s full report. Trump and his regime are stonewalling and eroding the separations of power of our democracy!”
On another thread I said that trump was a cancer that he was spreading through people he surrounds himself with. Here is a perfect example of it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 1:01:52 GMT
New York Times. Opinion piece by James Comey...
“James Comey: How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Bill Barr”
“Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive this president.
People have been asking me hard questions. What happened to the leaders in the Trump administration, especially the attorney general, Bill Barr, who I have said was due the benefit of the doubt?
How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like “no collusion” and F.B.I. “spying”? And downplaying acts of obstruction of justice as products of the president’s being “frustrated and angry,” something he would never say to justify the thousands of crimes prosecuted every day that are the product of frustration and anger?
How could he write and say things about the report by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, that were apparently so misleading that they prompted written protest from the special counsel himself?
How could Mr. Barr go before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and downplay President Trump’s attempt to fire Mr. Mueller before he completed his work?
And how could Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, after the release of Mr. Mueller’s report that detailed Mr. Trump’s determined efforts to obstruct justice, give a speech quoting the president on the importance of the rule of law? Or on resigning, thank a president who relentlessly attacked both him and the Department of Justice he led for “the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations”?
What happened to these people?
I don’t know for sure. People are complicated, so the answer is most likely complicated. But I have some idea from four months of working close to Mr. Trump and many more months of watching him shape others.
Amoral leaders have a way of revealing the character of those around them. Sometimes what they reveal is inspiring. For example, James Mattis, the former secretary of defense, resigned over principle, a concept so alien to Mr. Trump that it took days for the president to realize what had happened, before he could start lying about the man.
But more often, proximity to an amoral leader reveals something depressing. I think that’s at least part of what we’ve seen with Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein. Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites.
It starts with your sitting silent while he lies, both in public and private, making you complicit by your silence. In meetings with him, his assertions about what “everyone thinks” and what is “obviously true” wash over you, unchallenged, as they did at our private dinner on Jan. 27, 2017, because he’s the president and he rarely stops talking. As a result, Mr. Trump pulls all of those present into a silent circle of assent.
Speaking rapid-fire with no spot for others to jump into the conversation, Mr. Trump makes everyone a co-conspirator to his preferred set of facts, or delusions. I have felt it — this president building with his words a web of alternative reality and busily wrapping it around all of us in the room.
I must have agreed that he had the largest inauguration crowd in history because I didn’t challenge that. Everyone must agree that he has been treated very unfairly. The web building never stops.
From the private circle of assent, it moves to public displays of personal fealty at places like cabinet meetings. While the entire world is watching, you do what everyone else around the table does — you talk about how amazing the leader is and what an honor it is to be associated with him.
Sure, you notice that Mr. Mattis never actually praises the president, always speaking instead of the honor of representing the men and women of our military. But he’s a special case, right? Former Marine general and all. No way the rest of us could get away with that. So you praise, while the world watches, and the web gets tighter.
Next comes Mr. Trump attacking institutions and values you hold dear — things you have always said must be protected and which you criticized past leaders for not supporting strongly enough. Yet you are silent. Because, after all, what are you supposed to say? He’s the president of the United States.
You feel this happening. It bothers you, at least to some extent. But his outrageous conduct convinces you that you simply must stay, to preserve and protect the people and institutions and values you hold dear. Along with Republican members of Congress, you tell yourself you are too important for this nation to lose, especially now.
You can’t say this out loud — maybe not even to your family — but in a time of emergency, with the nation led by a deeply unethical person, this will be your contribution, your personal sacrifice for America. You are smarter than Donald Trump, and you are playing a long game for your country, so you can pull it off where lesser leaders have failed and gotten fired by tweet.
Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values.
And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.”
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 2, 2019 1:42:01 GMT
I’ve always been partial to James Comey.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on May 2, 2019 1:56:44 GMT
I like comey more after reading his book recently. I think he was wrong to say what he did in oct 16.. but.. overall a man who tries to be honest and upright. a dudley doright..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 2:03:30 GMT
Missy Ryan...
”Bolton’s staff was dissatisfied w Pentagon's Gen Selva, who WH officials felt didnt present sufficient military options for Venezuela. Selva believed confrontational style of Bolton staff was out of line." Insight from @karendeyoung1 @paulsonne @jdawsey1”
Why would we even need military options for Venezuela?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 2:06:55 GMT
Maddow Blog..
”Clinton: "I'm living rent free inside of Donald Trump's brain, and it's not a very nice place to be, I can tell you that."
No I guess it wouldn’t’ be with all that crazy going in that brain.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 2:19:10 GMT
Who is this guy who trump is retweeting like crazy?
Tom Fitton...
”BREAKING: Obama knew -- FBI admits it found Clinton Emails in Obama WH! PLUS @judicialwatch is already investigating the investigators -- 43 lawsuits to expose the Coup/Deep State attack on @realdonaldtrump. Mega Judicial Watch Update! youtu.be/FwDXRyP66rA”
Think about what the “BREAKING” is. They found Hillary Clinton emails at the White House and President Obama knew. So?
She was his Secretary of State for 4 years so it is entirely possible she as his SoS sent emails to the White House. That he knew about. So?
Or does this nut case think it was in the White House that Hillary hide those missing emails. Even though she told her attorneys to delete them.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 2, 2019 2:19:57 GMT
Amy Siskind... “Not only is Barr a no-show for House Judiciary hearings tomorrow, the DOJ ALSO said it will not comply with the committee's subpoena for Mueller’s full report. Trump and his regime are stonewalling and eroding the separations of power of our democracy!” The Senate got to read the unredacted Mueller report today, not sure about everything else.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 2, 2019 2:36:55 GMT
(CNN) Former White House personnel security director Carl Kline took responsibility for a security clearance process criticized for overruling multiple recommended denials for senior government officials, according to members of Congress who privately interviewed Kline on Wednesday."He's basically trying to say that the buck pretty much stopped with him," said House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat. "There's much more information that we need to dig into." Tricia Newbold, whom Democrats describe as a whistleblower, has accused Kline of approving security clearances for White House officials despite recommended denials, including for the President's son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner. In 2018, Trump reportedly directed his then-chief of staff John Kelly to give Kushner a top-secret security clearance. But Republicans said that Kline's testimony made clear that he was not improperly influenced and protected the national security of the country. "He told us that he made every decision about security clearances," said Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio. "It wasn't the President. It wasn't the White House chief of staff.""I think the bottom line is that our national security interests were secure under Mr. Kline," added Rep. Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina. Members of the House Oversight Committee privately interviewed Kline after a weeks-long feud over his testimony that included a congressional subpoena and threat to hold him in contempt. The White House ultimately allowed Kline to testify with lawyers present, but rejected the panel's request for certain documents. ** www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/carl-kline-congress-security-clearance/index.htmlHe was allowed to go in....
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 2, 2019 2:48:10 GMT
Missy Ryan... ”Bolton’s staff was dissatisfied w Pentagon's Gen Selva, who WH officials felt didnt present sufficient military options for Venezuela. Selva believed confrontational style of Bolton staff was out of line." Insight from @karendeyoung1 @paulsonne @jdawsey1” Why would we even need military options for Venezuela? Because Bolton says we might go!! National security adviser John Bolton on Tuesday repeated that “all options remain on the table” in regard to possible U.S. military intervention into Venezuela, where clashes worsened between forces loyal to President Nicolás Maduro and opposition groups. “We want as our principle objective the peaceful transfer of power, but I will say again as the president has said from the outset ... all options are on the table,” Bolton told reporters outside the White House. ** Asked whether the administration was providing any other support other than words, Bolton replied that “we are providing support in a variety of respects,” including humanitarian assistance and “a lot of others things, some of which I’m not going to talk about.”** thehill.com/homenews/administration/441426-bolton-says-all-options-are-on-the-table-in-venezuela-as-protests****** And Shanahan: Shanahan also told the House Appropriations subcommittee that he, Dunford, Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will meet later Thursday to discuss Venezuela. “When people say all options are on the table, they literally are,” Shanahan said. "We've done exhaustive planning. There's not a situation or scenario that we don't have a contingency for."
Dunford added that U.S. Southern Command chief Adm. Craig Faller has been coordinating with regional partners on the issue. ** thehill.com/policy/defense/441598-top-general-us-military-focused-on-collecting-intelligence-in-venezuela
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 2, 2019 4:03:24 GMT
Well, now I know for sure why dt wants Stephen Miller on the Fed: Back support, IRS issues, Women should not be in sports of any kind in any capacity.. Male pay raises have slowed (although Women have not caught up yet)... This time it is disgusting!!Certainly not money related and this is much more recent, 2016!! Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's Federal Reserve pick Stephen Moore expressed regret over a comment he made in 2016 about Trump kicking former President Barack Obama's family out of "public housing.""There's that great cartoon going along, that The New York Times headline: 'First thing Donald Trump does as President is kick a black family out of public housing,'" Moore said at a 2016 event shortly after Trump's election. "And it has Obama leaving the White House. I mean, I just love that one." Asked about it Tuesday during an interview with PBS' "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover," Moore responded: "I shouldn't have said it." Moore, an economic commentator who served as a Trump campaign adviser in 2016, has come under fire for columns and comments made over the past 25 years, including comments reported by CNN's KFile disparaging women's equality and participation in the workforce and especially in sports and the media. ** www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/stephen-moore-obama-public-housing/index.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 4:15:56 GMT
From the Literary Hub..
“Rebecca Solnit: Unconscious Bias is Running for President”
“Unconscious bias is running for president again. Unconscious bias has always been in the race, and Unconscious Bias’s best buddy, Institutional Discrimination, has always helped him along, and as a result all of our presidents have been men and all but one white, and that was not even questionable until lately. This makes who “seems presidential” a tautological ouroboros chomping hard on its own tail. The Republican Party has celebrated its status as the fraternity of bias that’s conscious till it blacks out and becomes unconscious bias. But this also affects the Democratic Party and its voters, where maybe bias should not be so welcome.
One of the ugly facts about the 2020 election is that white men are a small minority of people who vote Democrat but have wildly disproportionate control of the money and media and look to have undue influence over the current race for the nomination, which is just one of the many fun ways that one person one vote isn’t really what we have.
In 2016 white men were approximately 34 percent of the electorate, but about 11 percent of the Democratic votes, because more than two thirds of them voted for Trump or third-party candidates. Black voters were also about 11 percent of the Democratic vote total (and black women voted 94 percent Democratic, the highest total of any major social group). Black and Latina women alone constitute a proportion of the Democratic electorate comparable to white men. So in a completely egalitarian system, what black voters or nonwhite women want in a Democratic candidate should matter at least as much as white men.
But power is not distributed equally, and too many white men—politicians, media powerhouses, funders, people I crash into on social media—are using theirs in all those familiar ways. Also a whole hell of a lot of them are medaling in unconscious bias. In 2016 I wrote, “With their deep belief in their own special monopoly on objectivity, slightly too many men assure me that there is no misogyny in their subjective assessments or even no subjectivity and no emotion driving them, and there are no grounds for other opinions since theirs is not an opinion.” I wish that wasn’t still the case, and I fear how it will yet again affect election outcomes.
I’ve just spent a month watching white male people in particular arguing about who has charisma or relatability or electability. They speak as if these were objective qualities, and as if their own particular take on them was truth or fact rather than taste, and as if what white men like is what everyone likes or white men are who matters, which is maybe a hangover from the long ugly era when only white men voted. It’s a form of self-confidence that verges on lunacy, because one of the definitions of that condition is the inability to distinguish between subjective feelings and objective realities.
Ryan Lizza, fired from the New Yorker for undisclosed sexual misconduct, tweeted, “The Kamala Harris fundraising numbers drive home just how impressive Pete Buttigieg’s fundraising numbers are” when hers were nearly twice as large, and maybe who has money to donate and why white men have always been carried forward and black women have always been held back are relevant things here. One notable thing about the 2016 election is that some of the leading pundits whose misogyny helped shape the race—including Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Mark Halperin, Glenn Thrush—were later charged with sexual abuse or harassment; that is, their public bias was paralleled by appalling private misconduct. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes were outed earlier; heads of networks, directors, and producers have also been outed as serial sexual abusers in charge of our dominant narratives.
“Electability isn’t a static social fact; it’s a social fact we’re constructing. Part of what will make someone unelectable is people give up on them in a way that would be premature, rather than going to the mat for them.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times in all its august unbearability just published this prize sentence in a piece about Joe Biden’s failure to offer Anita Hill an apology she found adequate: “Many former Judiciary Committee aides and other people who participated did not want to talk on the record because they feared that scrutiny of Mr. Biden’s past conduct would undermine the campaign of the candidate some think could be best positioned to defeat President Trump, whose treatment of women is a huge issue for Democrats.” That translates as, let’s run a guy whose treatment of women is an issue, and let’s ignore that treatment because even so we think that he’s best positioned to defeat the guy whose treatment of women is an issue, and also fuck treatment of women, especially this black woman, as an issue, really.
Sometimes these guys with outsized platforms say shit like James Comey did when he complained that his erstwhile classmate Amy Klobuchar was “annoyingly smart,” perhaps because women are not supposed to be like that in his worldview. The framework that intelligence is an asset in a man and a defect in a woman is nastily familiar. Another white man had the temerity to explain to me that “The really smart wonks don’t end up being the media stars needed to win the presidency, i.e., Hillary Clinton—super smart, knows the facts, but comes off as smug and all knowing. I get this from Kamala Harris too.” In other words, he assumes that they are women who know too much and the character defect is theirs, not his.
A friend of mine posted some praise of Elizabeth Warren, and a man jumped in to say, “It’s a moot point because she’s not going to get into office. With any luck Bernie Sanders is going to do that.” I’ve heard a lot of white men explain that Warren can’t win because she’s wonky, and then when I mention that our last two Democratic presidents were famously wonky, I get to hear why they had charisma and Warren doesn’t.
I am a middle-aged blue-eyed blonde woman and quite possibly wonky myself, or at least stuffed with a lot of obscure information and vocabulary words, and so I find Elizabeth Warren magnificent and if that word “relatable” is not going to die an overdue death, that too. When she talks about dismantling big tech or calls for impeachment with a voice full of conviction or delivers another of her well-crafted plans to change the world, that’s compelling and exactly what I hope to see in a leader. And I find Kamala Harris questioning Jeff Sessions and Brett Kavanaugh until they jellify riveting and supremely skilled and powerful, which is maybe what we mean by charismatic.
But I’m a woman, so I’ve always been aware that what I like is not what everyone likes. After all another friend reported a man saying Warren’s voice “makes my balls shrivel,” electability apparently tied to the gender-specific sparking of joy in the scrotum. It reminds me of Kanye West saying of his MAGA hat “But this hat, it gives me power in a way. My dad and my mom separated, so I didn’t have a lot of male energy in my home. There was something about putting this hat on that made me feel like Superman.” West is extremely not white, but he does ace unconscious bias with his widely shared male idea that a president or a presidential candidate should have the same general effect as Viagra, and he does remind me that the 2016 election sometimes seemed to be, for too many heterosexual men, an erectile referendum.
The problem, as feminist philosopher Kate Manne put it recently, is that what we say now is not just commentary about what is possible; it is shaping what is possible. She said, “If we knew for sure that a candidate couldn’t beat Trump, that would be reason not to support them. But electability isn’t a static social fact; it’s a social fact we’re constructing. Part of what will make someone unelectable is people give up on them in a way that would be premature, rather than going to the mat for them.” Meanwhile lots of media outlets have worked hard at associating the women candidates with negative language. “How does Elizabeth Warren avoid a Clinton redux—written off as too unlikeable before her campaign gets off the ground,” tweeted Politico. “I Can’t Believe Elizabeth Warren is Losing to These Guys” is the headline of a Jacobin article that ties her to failure.
What makes a candidate electable is in part how much positive coverage they get, and how much positive coverage they get is tied to how the media powers decide who is electable, and so goes the double bind. Perry Bacon Jr. at FiveThirtyEight writes, “Because the U.S. is majority white, and because a significant number of Americans have some negative views about nonwhite people and women, a heavy emphasis on electability can be tantamount to encouraging any candidates who aren’t Christian white men either not to run in the first place—or to run only if they are willing to either ignore or downplay issues that involve their personal identities.” But if a party is majority women and people of color, should the same factors prevail? Shouldn’t we have a situation in which white men don’t really matter so much?
“ What makes a candidate electable is in part how much positive coverage they get, and how much positive coverage they get is tied to how the media powers decide who is electable.”
“Speaking of white men, Pete Buttigieg is very young and his political experience to date consists of winning (with a tiny vote total) the mayorship of a modest-sized college town and losing his bigger elections, including for Indiana state treasurer. No one has said in my hearing that he cannot be president because he is too wonky; lots of people have praised what seem to me like charming but irrelevant intellectual accomplishments; and though I have heard an awful lot about his Rhodes scholarship I have heard hardly anything about the Rhodes scholarship of Senator Cory Booker, who is also running, and who is black, and who seems to have become, even more than Julian Castro, Invisible Man.
I asked people whether they thought the two-term former mayor of Richmond, CA, a gritty refinery town in the Bay Area with nearly the same population as South Bend, would be a good presidential candidate. But I knew that former mayor Gayle McLaughlin, a sixty-something woman, was never ever going to be granted the same status as a thirty-something white man with similar political achievements—if that: McLaughlin helped organize a Green coalition that pushed back hard at Chevron’s domination of the city and its politics, raised the city’s minimum wage, reformed the police department, and stood up for homeowners against the banks in the foreclosure crisis aftermath of the 2008 crash. I have nothing against Buttigieg, but I find his self-confidence about his qualifications astonishing.
I would love to have a gay or lesbian or trans president, but I’d like that person to be what I’d like any other candidate to be, experienced and committed to climate action and the intersectional human rights and justice issues that get disparaged as “identity politics.” I was not thrilled to read Buttigieg speak dismissively of boycotts and declare, “identity politics don’t compute for me.” They apparently don’t for Bernie Sanders either, who said in late 2016, “In other words, one of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics.” Which is that unconscious bias I’ve often tried to describe as “from their mountaintop they see the playing field is level,” which is by the way a sports metaphor from the era when nearly all sports were male-only, as most televised sports still are. From the abyss, people see that the field is not level; what gets termed “identity politics” is an attempt to identify the inequalities and level them out, because not all inequality is economic and a lot of economic inequality is rooted in racism and sexism.
“I think it’s a step forward in America if you have an African-American CEO of some major corporation,” Sanders added, “But you know what, if that guy is going to be shipping jobs out of this country, and exploiting his workers, it doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot whether he’s black or white or Latino,” except that the issue dismissed as “identity politics” isn’t one CEO or one candidate, it’s equality for the hundred million or so people in the USA who aren’t white. If you want to add white women and girls (and gay, bi, and trans white men) to that list, you’re talking about more than two-thirds of the population treated as a special interest group.
The Fortune 500 as of 2018 had only three black CEOs, all male, and 24 women, and it’s not hard to imagine that this would be a different country if white men didn’t control most of it. A 2011 scholarly paper on climate change denial with the fun title “Cool Dudes” concludes, “We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views… and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well.” White men are the most conservative sector of this society, and wealth and power makes them more so, overall. The climate-denial study then mentions “the atypically high levels of technological and environmental risk acceptance among white males,” which is a reminder that though man and not woman is supposed to be the measure of all things and whiteness our American norm, white men are in many ways outliers. Another scholarly paper notes, “non-White minorities in the United States expressing consistently higher levels of concern than Whites… Blacks and Latinos also typically express higher levels of support for national and international climate and energy policies than Whites.” So three decades that may have doomed the earth come down in no small part to who was in charge, which makes who’s in charge a matter of survival for humans, especially poor non-white ones and women and children, and for countless other species.
But Sanders took this line all over again in 2019, telling GQ, “Many of my opponents … think that all that we need is people who are candidates who are black or white, who are black or Latino or woman or gay, regardless of what they stand for, that the end result is diversity.” When you take out black, Latinx, gay, and women, you’re left with straight white men, and lack of diversity is a real problem, from electoral politics to who holds wealth and power. Wanting Latinas in power isn’t tokenism but something that would likely change the political landscape, and everyone deserves representation, everyone deserves to live in a nation where people like them can and do hold power and participate in determining who and what matters. As Justice Sonya Sotomayor said long ago, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Power is not distributed equally, and too many white men—politicians, media powerhouses, funders, people I crash into on social media—are using theirs in all those familiar ways.
The claim I’ve seen that other candidates are “stealing” Bernie Sanders’s issues also seems to be the fruit of longterm unconscious biases. Feminists have long talked about the phenomenon at meetings whereby a woman introduces an idea or makes a proposal and is ignored or rebuffed, and then a man does the same thing and is lauded. Perhaps the people who think Sanders originated all these excellent ideas didn’t hear the black people who spoke up and supported many of them earlier. Jesse Jackson ran for president in the 1980s on a platform that included free community college and universal healthcare (and lots of well-framed “identity politics” in a Rainbow Coalition that was gloriously intersectional before the term was coined).
Congressman John Conyers introduced a Medicare-for-all bill in the house in 2003. Then-congressman Sanders was a cosponsor, but a stunning number of the cosponsors in that very white congress were black (and there have been many earlier measures to expand healthcare coverage, by Franklin D. Roosevelt and most Democratic presidents since).
The current fight-for-15 minimum wage battle was launched by fast-food workers, many of them people of color, in 2014. Ted Kennedy introduced a minimum wage hike bill in 2002, and there was another one in 1996 and another one before that, back to 1938 when Roosevelt and company established a minimum wage. Public universities were free in California for decades, so free college isn’t even just a glorious idea, it’s an everyday reality we lost and then too many people forgot ever existed. I’m glad Sanders has spoken up for these good things, but less glad people think he somehow originated or owns them.
Unconscious bias is running for president. Anyone advocating for a candidate who’s not white or male has to compete not just against the official rivals but against the burden of inequality and prejudice on a playing field approximately as level as the Grand Tetons. It is far from impossible to overcome, but it is extra work that needs to be done. Because equal work for equal pay isn’t a thing yet, as long as not being white or male or straight requires all this extra labor and comes with all these extra obstacles.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 4:45:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 5:08:28 GMT
The Hill
“Trump accuses Harris of being 'very nasty' to Barr, looking for 'political points'”. ❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️🎻❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️
“President Trump on Wednesday accused Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) of being "probably very nasty" to Attorney General William Barr during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Trump told Fox Business's Trish Regan that Harris and other lawmakers who are running for president were hard on Barr during the hearing for "political points."
"She was probably very nasty," he said of Harris, who grilled Barr on a number of points related to Barr's handling of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
While being questioned by Harris, Barr admitted that he did not look at the underlying evidence in Mueller's report before deciding not to pursue an obstruction of justice charge against Trump.
This is the second time in less than a week that Trump has referred to Harris as "nasty." Speaking to Fox News's Sean Hannity last week, Trump said the California Democrat has "a little bit of a nasty wit, but that might be it."
In his comments Wednesday evening, the president also slammed the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are running against him for president, saying they were "ranting and raving like lunatics" at the hearing.
"You have Bill Barr, highly respected, great attorney general, and he's got to take the abuse from people that are running for office," he said while appearing on Fox Business. "They don't care about this. They're just looking for political points."
He also slammed calls for Barr's resignation as "so ridiculous."
Barr on Wednesday testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the day after committee Democrats released a letter Mueller wrote to Barr criticizing Barr's characterization of the report.
Mueller's letter, dated March 27, said Barr's summary of the report from three days prior created "public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation."
Weeks after Barr sent his summary of the findings to Congress, the Justice Department released a redacted version of Mueller's report.
Three Democrats who are running for president in 2020 - Harris, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) - sit on the Judiciary Committee. Booker and Harris were among a group of 2020 candidates who on Tuesday and Wednesday called for Barr to resign.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 2, 2019 5:13:09 GMT
And he is Mr. charming while delivering his pleasantries.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 5:39:55 GMT
New York Times..
”Trump Administration Files Formal Request to Strike Down All of Obamacare”
Let me get this straight. trump tells the people they will come up with something better. But not until after the election.
The Republicans had six years to come up with something better. trump &. The Republicans has these last two years to come up with something better.
And, while they eliminate the ACA, we are suppose to believe them they will come up with something better after the election. They had eight years to come up with something better. We trust trust and re-elect some on the belief, after 8 years, they will come up with something better. Really?
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 2, 2019 11:21:36 GMT
The Hill “Trump accuses Harris of being 'very nasty' to Barr, looking for 'political points'”. ❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️🎻❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️“President Trump on Wednesday accused Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) of being "probably very nasty" to Attorney General William Barr during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Trump told Fox Business's Trish Regan that Harris and other lawmakers who are running for president were hard on Barr during the hearing for "political points." "She was probably very nasty," he said of Harris, who grilled Barr on a number of points related to Barr's handling of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. While being questioned by Harris, Barr admitted that he did not look at the underlying evidence in Mueller's report before deciding not to pursue an obstruction of justice charge against Trump. This is the second time in less than a week that Trump has referred to Harris as "nasty." Speaking to Fox News's Sean Hannity last week, Trump said the California Democrat has "a little bit of a nasty wit, but that might be it." In his comments Wednesday evening, the president also slammed the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are running against him for president, saying they were "ranting and raving like lunatics" at the hearing. "You have Bill Barr, highly respected, great attorney general, and he's got to take the abuse from people that are running for office," he said while appearing on Fox Business. "They don't care about this. They're just looking for political points." He also slammed calls for Barr's resignation as "so ridiculous." Barr on Wednesday testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the day after committee Democrats released a letter Mueller wrote to Barr criticizing Barr's characterization of the report. Mueller's letter, dated March 27, said Barr's summary of the report from three days prior created "public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation." Weeks after Barr sent his summary of the findings to Congress, the Justice Department released a redacted version of Mueller's report. Three Democrats who are running for president in 2020 - Harris, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) - sit on the Judiciary Committee. Booker and Harris were among a group of 2020 candidates who on Tuesday and Wednesday called for Barr to resign. Maybe Janet can change up her lyrics a bit here & it can be a fight song
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 2, 2019 11:58:00 GMT
Incredible that the nastiest person occupying the WH has the temerity to call someone else nasty. Amongst the many deficiencies already in view daily, one can add the total absence of self-awareness to the list. Next up will be the henchwomen of the Trump Republic – SHS and KellyAnne.
|
|
|
Post by peano on May 2, 2019 13:06:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 13:38:33 GMT
Evan Halper...
”.@joebiden keeps framing his strategically scant policy offerings as an act of mercy to Iowans. "I’ll be back. I’m going to get into climate, health care and the rest of it. If I did tha,t you would all be asleep on the floor right now."
Paul Waldman..
“So far Biden hasn't offered any indication that he has any policy ambitions at all. He has positions, sure. But mostly he just wants to sit in the big chair. How will things be different at the end of his presidency? We'll be nicer to each other, I guess? That's about it.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 13:40:49 GMT
Paul Waldman..
”Just a heads-up: When the Democratic nominee is chosen, President Trump will instruct the Justice Department to open an investigation of that person on something or other - as Hillary's emails showed, it doesn't matter what it is - and Barr will eagerly comply. /1”
“I don't think we can begin to appreciate how much the resources of the federal government are going to be marshaled to ensure Donald Trump's reelection. /2”
“It always happens in small ways - the well-timed grant to a swing state, carefully chosen trips by cabinet secretaries - but what we'll see in 2020 will be unprecedented. /3”
Something to ponder.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 13:51:47 GMT
Paul Waldman - Washington Post..
“William Barr’s congressional testimony was shameful”
“There is unlikely to be a dramatic “gotcha” moment in Attorney General William P. Barr’s testimony this week before Congress, because Barr is too skilled a witness to blurt out what’s really going on. But what’s going on is, in its own way, a kind of coverup, an ongoing propaganda effort with a single goal: protect President Trump at all costs.
Barr’s name can now be added to the lengthy list of Trump administration officials who in any just accounting would be considered guilty of perjury, though there will be no such accounting. We learned on Tuesday night that Robert S. Mueller III wrote Barr a letter to protest that his summary had mischaracterized the report. Barr’s summary did what it set out to do: establish a narrative, before anyone had seen the report, that it had exonerated Trump and disproved all the allegations against him.
We now have Mueller’s full letter to Barr, and the frustration and anger Mueller felt are even more clear. Mueller says he had already sent Barr executive summaries of each section, with sensitive material redacted, and asked him to release them to the public so that the public could be informed about what his investigation actually found:
“Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.
Yet Barr refused.
And in his previous testimony to Congress after he received this letter but before the report was released, Barr repeatedly said that he was not aware of any disagreement Mueller had with his four-page summary. We now know that was a lie.
In his testimony Wednesday morning, Barr described a phone conversation he had with Mueller after Mueller sent him this letter.
“He was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report,” Barr said.
But that is exactly what Mueller says in his letter to Barr, that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.” Let me suggest that given Barr’s record so far, we should suspend judgment on whether he’s telling the truth about this conversation until we hear directly from Mueller.
Barr’s testimony only got worse as it went along. There was a tortured exchange about the fact that, as Mueller details, Trump instructed then-White House Counsel Donald McGahn to have Mueller fired, and then when that was reported in the press, instructed McGahn to deny it publicly. The report even describes Trump insisting to McGahn that because he had not used the word “fire," that meant he didn’t really tell McGahn to have Mueller fired, and that meant McGahn could publicly insist that Trump never told him to have Mueller fired. McGahn, perhaps realizing how absurd that was, refused.
Yet in his testimony, Barr took the Trump position on that question. Under questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barr insisted there was nothing wrong with Trump seeking to have Mueller “removed,” instead of “fired,” and then telling the White House counsel to tell a story he knew to be false, because it would be theoretically possible that there would be another special counsel appointed to take his place:
FEINSTEIN: You still have a situation where a president essentially tries to change the lawyer’s account in order to prevent further criticism of himself.
BARR: Well, that’s not a crime.
FEINSTEIN: So you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie?
BARR: To be obstruction of justice, the lie has to be tied to impairing the evidence in a particular proceeding. McGahn had already given his evidence, and I think it would be plausible that the purpose of McGahn memorializing what the president was asking was to make a record that the president never directed him to fire — and there is a distinction between saying to someone, “Go fire him, go fire Mueller,” and saying “Have him removed based on conflict.”
As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) later said about a separate matter, “That’s some masterful hairsplitting
From the moment Barr was nominated to be attorney general, some of us were shouting that despite his reputation as a white-shoe Republican lawyer of long standing in Washington, he was being placed in that office solely in order to protect Trump. While it was too late for him to shut down the Russia investigation, he has done everything in his power to act not as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer but as Trump’s advocate.
Every time Barr appears in public to discuss the Russia scandal, he makes that more and more clear, and brings more shame upon himself.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 14:06:21 GMT
linkFrom the latest Q poll ”Wealth Tax, Free College American voters have mixed views on a number of policy ideas being discussed: Voters support 60 - 34 percent an annual 2 percent tax on any individual wealth over $50 million; Voters oppose 59 - 36 percent raising the tax rate to 70 percent on individual income that is over $10 million; 52 percent of voters oppose making all public colleges in the U.S. free, with 45 percent in support; 54 percent oppose free public colleges if it is paid for by a new tax on wealthy individuals, with 41 percent in support; Voters support 57 - 40 percent having the federal government forgive up to $50,000 in student loans for individuals in households making less than $250,000 a year; 52 percent of voters oppose this loan forgiveness plan if it were paid for by a new tax on the wealthy, with 44 percent in support Voters oppose 65 - 31 percent allowing prison inmates to vote. "It's almost a tossup, but if a vote were taken on free public college, the educated guess is that it would go down," Malloy said.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,275
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on May 2, 2019 15:06:20 GMT
linkFrom the latest Q poll ”Wealth Tax, Free College American voters have mixed views on a number of policy ideas being discussed: Voters support 60 - 34 percent an annual 2 percent tax on any individual wealth over $50 million; Voters oppose 59 - 36 percent raising the tax rate to 70 percent on individual income that is over $10 million; 52 percent of voters oppose making all public colleges in the U.S. free, with 45 percent in support; 54 percent oppose free public colleges if it is paid for by a new tax on wealthy individuals, with 41 percent in support; Voters support 57 - 40 percent having the federal government forgive up to $50,000 in student loans for individuals in households making less than $250,000 a year; 52 percent of voters oppose this loan forgiveness plan if it were paid for by a new tax on the wealthy, with 44 percent in support Voters oppose 65 - 31 percent allowing prison inmates to vote. "It's almost a tossup, but if a vote were taken on free public college, the educated guess is that it would go down," Malloy said. I agree with all of these except forgiving student loans. That's a pretty heafty hit for the government to take. I do think those loans should be restructured and allow a longer payback period with a very small interest rate or make them interest free as long as payments are made on time.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 15:08:44 GMT
As a rule I don’t watch Committee hearings. But Rachel showed the part where Senator Harris asked Barr if the White House suggested Barr investigate others. How he didn’t answer was insulting to Senator Harris and more importantly the American People.
We are screwed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 21:55:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 15:44:19 GMT
Just watched the Hillary Clinton interview on Rachel’s show.
I’m beginning to hate watching her and President Obamas interviews.
It is a reminder of what we lost, President Obama, and what we could of had, President Hillary Clinton and what we ended up with, a stupid, lying, petty, vindictive, paranoid little man.
|
|