I have not endorsed a candidate in the primaries. I have not chosen a favorite. I will vote for any Democrat who runs against Trump.
That said, I’m very concerned about the New York Times’ consistently negative coverage of Senator Bernie Sanders.
We expect the newspaper of record to be unbiased. But when it comes to Sen. Sanders, the Times goes after him in snide ways.
First, there was an article that delved into his anti-war views of thirty-five years ago. It was written by Alexander Burns and Sydney Ember and published on May 19. Its overall tone is hypercritical of Sanders for his leftist views, especially his efforts to undermine the Reagan administration’s policies towards the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
A New York Times review of Mr. Sanders’s mayoral papers — including hundreds of speeches, handwritten notes, letters, political pamphlets and domestic and foreign newspaper clippings from a period spanning nearly a decade — revealed that from his earliest days in office Mr. Sanders aimed to execute his own foreign policy, repudiating Mr. Reagan’s approach of aggressively backing anti-Communist governments and resistance forces, while going further than many Democrats in supporting socialist leaders.
Mr. Sanders’s activities during his mayoralty bring into relief the fervently anti-imperialist worldview that continues to guide him. They also underscore his combative ideological persona, which has roiled national Democratic politics as thoroughly as it upended municipal government in Burlington. As mayor, Mr. Sanders denounced decades of American foreign policy that he portrayed as guided by corporate greed, and outlined a vision of international affairs defined by disgust at military spending and sympathy for Marxist-inspired movements in the developing world…
Mr. Sanders’s deep-rooted foreign policy values have the potential to not only earn him support from voters who have grown tired of overseas wars, but also make him vulnerable to attack from rivals in both parties who are eager to depict him as too radical for the presidency.
Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator since 2007, initially declined an interview for this article. But after it was published Friday, he requested a phone interview, during which he described his opposition to the Vietnam War and criticized an American foreign policy in the 1980s that he said had revolved around overthrowing governments and “installing puppet regimes.”
“I plead guilty to, throughout my adult, life doing everything that I can to prevent war and destruction,” he said…
In the interview Friday, Mr. Sanders called the Soviet Union an “authoritarian dictatorship” but said that stopping nuclear war was more important to him in the 1980s.
“I was going to do everything that I could to prevent a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union,” he said.
The article paints Sanders as an ideological extremist and radical who was out of the mainstream. Imagine a mayor who is anti-war! What an outrage!
Is it fair to expect everyone to have exactly the same views over their entire life? Is it fair to judge a person today by what he said and did 35 years ago? I don’t think so. My views have evolved. Some have changed dramatically. Most people supported the war in Vietnam when it happened. I expect many (including me) now see it as a disaster. Maybe the same is true about the war in Iraq, which turned into the war in Afghanistan, which might soon become the war in Iran. Bernie Sanders opposed them all.
Presumably the Times will tear apart Biden for the votes he cast long ago and the views he espoused that he now regrets.
And the Times will do the same to every other Democratic candidate, thus assuring Trump’s re-election, since his rabid base doesn’t care what he has done or said in the past.
Most infuriating recently was the New York Times’ hit job on Sanders’ thoughtful education plan, which was co-written by veteran education journalist Dana Goldstein and Sydney Ember, who to my knowledge has no education knowledge or experience. Ember was also co-writer of the anti-Sanders’ piece on May 19.
The Sanders plan for education is incisive, intelligent, well-informed, and bold.
He proposed a tripling of funding for Title 1, the funding stream that directly affects the neediest children.
He proposed increasing the federal contribution to the cost of special education to 50%. When Congress mandated special education services for children with disabilities, it pledged to pay 40% of the costs. It has never paid more than 10-12%. If Congress were to raise its payment to 50%, it would provide immediate fiscal relief to every school district in the nation.
He made clear that his administration would prioritize desegregation.
He called for a ban on for-profit charter schools and a moratorium on charter schools, echoing the NAACP (and Black Lives Matter), until it could be determined whether they are having a negative fiscal impact on public schools and whether they meet the same standards of accountability as public schools. He noted that “billionaires like DeVos and the Waltons, together with private equity and hedge fund executives, have bankrolled their expansion and poured tens of millions into school board and other local elections with the hope of privatizing public schools.” This statement is a matter of fact, not campaign rhetoric. The millions spent by billionaires like Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, the Waltons, and hedge fund managers (DFER) to influence school board elections and referenda are real.
He committed to rethinking the national reliance on property taxes and to ensuring that all schools are equitably funded.
He promised to work with states to establish a minimum teachers’ salary of $60,000.
Every parent, every educator, every citizen should read his plan.
But consider how the New York Times reported Sanders’ visionary plan.
The article barely mentions Sanders’ historic funding proposals and focus instead on his critique of charter schools, which is a relatively small part of his plan. They write that Sanders’ support for racial integration was “overshadowed by more divisive elements of the proposal: Mr. Sanders’s plan to freeze federal funding for all new charter schools, and the link his plan made between charter schools and segregation.”
It goes on to say that “Many Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, support charters as a way to provide more options to families, especially those that are too poor to move to a higher-quality school district or pay for private school. The impact of charters on school segregation is hotly disputed in education circles, and by linking these elements, Mr. Sanders touched a nerve in a highly charged debate within the party.”
They then quote Amy Wilkins, a paid lobbyist for charter schools (“a vice president at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and a longtime advocate in Washington for racial equity in education”), who finds the linkage of charter schools and segregation to be “galling.” She thinks that the Brown decision gave black parents the right to choose where to send their children, ignoring the fact that racist governors and senators said exactly the same thing and enacted freedom-of-choice plans that were repeatedly struck down by federal courts.
The article balances Wilkins by acknowledging that “The Sanders plan lists a number of causes of school segregation, such as inaction from the courts and federal government. It also cites data from a 2017 Associated Press investigation, which found that 17 percent of charter schools had student populations that were 99 percent nonwhite, compared with 4 percent of traditional public schools.
The media battle against Bernie is going full force. How about promoting Bernie and stating that what he stands for is much better than what his opponent Biden says, who is a corporate shill?
…………
Democrats worry Bernie Sanders could play spoiler
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON – 05/29/19 06:00 AM EDT
Democrats are worried that if he doesn’t win the party’s presidential nomination himself, Sen. Be…
Democrats are worried that if he doesn’t win the party’s presidential nomination himself, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will be a thorn in the side of the Democratic nominee for president — especially if it’s former Vice President Joe Biden.
The Democrats worry that Sanders won’t be a team player if he loses, and that he and his supporters will be particularly problematic if Biden or another rival seen as out of step with progressives comes out on top.
“I think Bernie will do everything in his power to elevate himself by pushing others down,” said one aide to a Democratic senator.
A senior aide to a second Democratic senator said concerns about Sanders dividing the party next year are widely held, even though everyone in the Senate Democratic Conference is holding their tongue for fear of making things even worse.
The aide said that when it comes to Sanders, there is a concern among Biden supporters that “this guy is going to play spoiler again.”…
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/445859-democrats-worry-bernie-sanders-could-play-spoiler
Can someone tell me why anyone supports Biden? What does he bring to the table? If you’re concerned about Trump’s age, why would you pick Biden? If you’re concerned about Trump’s gropiness, why would you pick Biden? If you’re concerned about Trump’s verbal diarrhea, why would you pick Biden? If you’re concerned about Trump’s warmongering, why would you pick Biden? If you’re concerned about Trump’s support for big business, why would you pick Biden?
Even if you actually support neoliberalism, why not pick a neoliberal who at least brings something to the table – Cory Booker and the black vote, for instance, or Pete Buttigieg and the hip, trendy and gay vote? Or at least a neoliberal who doesn’t need a defibrillator-trained entourage.
good point about voting for either Booker or Buttigieg if you are a neoliberal. Although the comment about those candidates bringing the black or gay vote as if those voters only vote for blacks or gays is fairly offensive. I do agree that if the primary choice is a white candidate who defends racist white Republican voters who refuse to vote for black candidates and insists there is nothing racist about those white voters at all, and an actual black candidate who doesn’t proclaim that racist white voters who refuse to vote for black candidates aren’t racist, then black voters would be more likely to vote for Booker in the primary.
However, I think the fear is that Booker and Buttigieg have as much chance to win the general election against as HRC did and would get the same biased press coverage and lose badly if they won the primary. Whereas Biden won’t since his “issues” are the same issues Trump has without Trump’s hate-filled embrace of the neo-Nazi ideal of America.
I’m not saying that I agree with that. But it is depressing that the same press that did such a hatchet job on HRC and convinced people that Trump was no worse than HRC and not to worry their little heads about a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would do the same hatchet job on Booker or Buttigieg. I’m sure many ignorant people will still insist that it is better that Trump be re-elected and choose 3 more far-right Supreme Court justices for life because that would “send a message” to the corrupt DNC for allowing people to vote for the candidate they wanted in the primary instead of who the people who hate the DNC wanted voters to vote for.
The bottom line is that this is still a democracy until Trump and the far right own the rest of the Supreme Court. And the majority of voters who vote in the democratic primary will choose the candidate they want. And the rest of us will decide whether to embrace that candidate, or whether to undermine them by insisting that having Trump choose another 3 Justices can be no worse than what the evil candidate who the majority of the democratic primary voters chose will do and help re-elect Trump.
Biden brings the familiarity of mediocrity that too many dino Dems are know for.
Why would Bernie be a team player, if he is not on our team? That guy has to to down hard. I dont love Biden, but if he tanks Bernie, and then gets out of the way and let Harris and Warren give us a better future, I’ll be grateful for his service.
emmyelle, never seen you here before and your comment makes me hope I never will again. You seem to equate political ideas with sports teams; if you don’t wear the right jersey, you’re not on our side. The fact is that Bernie can articulate the principyles of what it means to the a member of the Democratic Party better than 70% percent of elected Democrats. That’s why Democrats like me support him. For example, the patron saint, if you will, of the modern Democratic Party is FDR. Tell me, whose platform is closer to the principles of the Four Freedoms? Bernie or Joe? Trick question: Joe isn’t even in the park. I will admit that I would be just as happy to have Warren at the top of the ticket. But to dismiss Bernie because he’s not an official member of the club is the Bustos-style DCCC-ism as it gets. And she and the DCCC have no idea who FDR was and what his philosophy means.
Thanks for the day’s laugh-out-loud, Dienne! I needed that.
dienne77,
AGREE totally.
The media are almost all owned by six megacorporations. That tells you how unbiased our news is. I’m glad you’re finally seeing it.
Anyone can articulate “principyles” (I’m guessing you mean principles), and arguably, many can articulate them better than Sanders. But he has been a member of the political establishment for longer than many of his supporters have been alive, and he has little in the way of concrete accomplishments to show for it.
There is a major difference between a spittle-flecked rant about healthcare, and a healthcare plan.
This is hardly a “spittle-flecked rant”: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file
Though I must say I am impressed by your ability to marshal a concrete, loaded phrase!
“Mr. Sanders’s deep-rooted foreign policy values have the potential to not only earn him support from voters who have grown tired of overseas wars”
It’s a very small sample, of course, but I think people are tired of wars. I don’t think there’s any popular support for more wars, and I live in a very conservative place.
I would say Sanders is closer to most people than the NYTimes is, on the “endless wars” question.
The lack of journalistic standards is disappointing indeed. I remember during Ralph Nader’s campaign being similarly furious. (Although Nader was no Sanders and did America no great favor).
The Times published a front page story about a Nader campaign event. The reporter observed that it looked more like a body piercing convention than a political rally. The story went on the characterize the attendees as “young, budding socialists.”
I wrote the Times and scathingly criticized their body piercing characterization, asking what that had to do with the critical issues facing the nation. I also suggested that the characterization was intended to belittle Nader’s support as fringe and inconsequential.
I also asked how, pray tell, did the reporter ascertain the socialist inclinations of the rally attendees?
As you might imagine, I got no response. This kind of subtle diminishing of citizens and candidates is no better than the Fox News propaganda that most of us criticize.
“(Although Nader was no Sanders and did America no great favor)”
Your right! Nader is ten times better than Sanders. But I’m confused as to why you say he “did America no great favor”? His work on consumer safety and protection saved many lives. His pointing out the various abuses of consumers by the business class were seminal in helping this country get some protections from unscrupulous business people who were only seeking maximum profit, to hell with the customer.
Yep, Nader has done admirable things. I voted for him as I couldn’t hold my nose for tweedle dee or tweedle dum. But as things turned out, it is arguable that his candidacy brought us W and Cheney.
The zombie argument “that his candidacy brought us W and Cheney” has been proven false and dead wrong many times. But it keeps on popping up like the zombie concept it is. Would you like some sources that disprove it? (remember it’s almost impossible to kill a zombie concept).
Yikes, Duane, I’m not sure who the zombies are anymore. Real Clear Politics made a cogent statistical case for the Nader effect, but others have used polling data to show the opposite. I don’t mean that Nader shouldn’t have run. But let’s join hands and agree to blame the Bush family, the corrupt officials in FL and the Supreme Court.
Duane, can I infer that the logical conclusion of your argument is that the course of a Gore administration would have been the same as that as one of Dubya? Realize this is all speculation, but please speculate!
No, I wouldn’t infer that illogical conclusion.
The NY Times
“All the news that’s counterfeit
To print”, is what you’ll find in it
The NY Times and Washington Post treat Bernie like a tennis ball, batting him back and forth, with Paul Krugman acting as the ref.
“The Krugman Class”
“Chattering classes”
“Bernie Bros”
“Unwashed masses”
All of those
Can not ever
Equal me
No-bel clever
As you see
I don’t know what else to say but damn, SomeDAM: you’ve done it again!
What do you mean by the expression “the Krugman class”?
I hope everyone realizes that Paul Krugman is a HUGE fan of Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
A quote from Krugman’s March 28 twitter feed:
“Elizabeth Warren has a housing plan — and like every one of her policy proposals, it looks really good!”
Krugman has written numerous stories since January praising Warren’s proposals.
Are we supposed to think there is something wrong or corrupt about a columnist who likes Warren? I don’t get it.
I think Sen. Warren is great and she is offering thoughtful proposals and if Paul Krugman notices that, bully for him!
Thanks, SomeDAM. Insightful poems.
Always from SomeDAM. Our poet laureate!
It strikes me as misguided to suggest that the NYT deserves the “newspaper of record” status you award them. Is there such a thing? I believe we have entered a new yellow journalism phase in America that supports a right of center body politic. As a moderate throughout my life, I have seen the definition of what that means move so far to the right that my friends all see me as a left wing rabble rouser. Consider my policy beliefs and tell me why this is not moderation:
In foreign policy, we demonstrably failed to act properly to prevent Hitler in the 1930s. The power vacuum the isolationist United States created, along with the concentration of wealth in Wall Street, produced a war so terrible that we never again can wait until a regime becomes too powerful to again create such a catastrophe. That said, intervention in the domestic affairs of another country rationalized by our own economic interest is a prescription for disaster. Nor should we place our children at risk whimsically, in distant places where victory is at best questionable.
Economically, I have always believed that a great deal of good has arisen from our system. Markets are real, and have positive effects on standard of living. But markets are not sacrosanct, and I favor a governmental referee to make sure that the forces of monopoly do not tyrannize the body politic.
Domestically, I support policy in general that can be shown to create a better society. This obviously includes education, where I would support an equitable distribution of taxes collected among all the communities. That way we prevent some children from getting fresh salmon for dinner and others being forced to eat potted meat.
What revolutionary ideas are in those beliefs?
The New York Times: The Newspaper of Broken Records
Bernie’s bad..pft..bad..pft..bad..pft..bad…
When the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal of Corporate Apologetics and Trumpeteering are ALL united on some point, you know that it’s rubbing the oligarchy raw. They are feeling the Bern, and not in a good way.
Given the stale stature of these mainstream newspapers I’m moved to suggest that sometimes a “Berning” sensation is the result of a venerable disease.
LMAO!
And what a pass we’ve come to when papers this extremist are mainstream.
“It strikes me. . . ”
Remember Roy, that us peeons who do not live in the major coastal metropolitan areas, us bumpkins, don’t know what the hell we are talking about. Only if one reads and listens to the mouthpieces of the city monied classes can one be truly edumacated.
Right now I feel pretty emaciated. The city monied classes have created a health care system that put my father-in-law in his home rather than undergoing continued rehab. I was over there building a ramp for the wheelchair to go up and down three times a week for dialysis. I am pretty tired.
I feel like something struck me. The point is that he should have been able to get more therapy. I assume it was an insurance decision. He already has Medicare, so Medicare for all is no solution. This is just one example of the problems that exist that keep me from voting for someone. Most of my life has been spent voting against someone.
Generally agree: a large part of what I could have said, as well. Seems very sensible, if one is concerned with the world that is, and it’s future. Which, sadly, many don’t seem to be.
Problem is that the meanings of the terms “revolutionary” and “radical” are relative to one’s own point of view. Therefore, the NY Times, being beholden to Wall Street and other such Corporate Corpuscles, just can’t bring itself to be dispassionate about the selfish and bratty policies the latter depend on. Bite the hand, and all that…
As part of any analysis, always try to determine what’s in it, and for whom. Now hat’s a really revolutionary and radical stance. Terrifies the Powers That Be.
Bernie’s message is resonating. It will engender neo-liberal backlash. The Times is a neo-liberal newspaper. Those who support Bernie (and Warren) know that to win, neo-liberal “supporters” like the NY Times will have to be defeated. The main question for Sanders (and Warren) supporters is whether they believe neo-liberal Democrats will get behind Sanders over Trump. Articles like this one make it hard for Sanders supporters to believe the Times, and other neo-liberal Democrats, will choose Bernie over the Donald. Why? Because, at bottom, neo-liberal Democrats support privatization as the principal means of addressing poverty, educational inequities, foreign policy choices, income inequality, and so forth. (After the history of the last thirty years, they still believe this nonsense!) And, the Donald (and Reagan and Thatcher), despite everything else about him, is in line with these neo-lib Dems on this fundamental point: unfettered private capital is our savior, not robust participatory democracy.
I fear this article is a very bad sign of things to come. FDR Dems are not to be found at the NY Times. (FDR Dems support unions, government regulation of industry, support of public education and public services, progressive taxation, and regulation of Wall St. Does the Times favor, and fight for, these things?)
Respectfully- a correction, Steven,
Neo-liberals are driven by a desire to keep elites in control. They don’t “believe” privatization,… will impact income fairness. The rationale is merely used as PR cover. Either I’m correct or, we have to conclude that Neo-liberals are too stupid to understand more than 30 years of evidence.
Why should the elites give up what’s making them rich? Which is precisely what 40 years of neoliberal economics has done, with the support of the two branches of the GOP. They don’t care that their unfettered free-market BS is destroying the planet and killing people, because the people it’s killing aren’t in their class and therefore are irrelevant.
They aren’t stupid; they think we are. They think they’ve sufficiently indoctrinated us via the corporate media, including the NY Times and the Washington Post, which still never manages to mention when quoting CIA sources that its owner has a huge contract with the agency. Conflict of interest, much? Sadly, people still believe they’re getting the facts from the MSM, but they aren’t; and what they do get is carefully constructed to demonize anyone who dares challenge the acceptable narrative. Including Bernie Sanders.
Now, Sanders has company, as Tulsi Gabbard’s unrelenting anti-war message has gained considerable ground among the war-weary US voting population. There is even a program afoot to divide Sanders and Gabbard supporters using Astroturf trolls on social media who claim to be “Sanders supporters” trashing Gabbard. Unfortunately for them, we’re watching for just that kind of anti-progressive propaganda.
Sanders/Gabbard 20/20, with Elizabeth Warren as Senate Majority Leader—how to stop the coming apocalypse.
Thanks for the heads up.
The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. That said, the elites- Bill Gates, the Center for American Progress which he bankrolls and, the hedge funds of DFER are democracy’s enemy.
Wonderful analysis of the NYT bias against Bernie, superb in reading between the lines. The negative tilt in NYT’s coverage of him makes the news report into a stealth editorial against Bernie. I’ve taught journalism, and designed problem-units about the mythical “wall” between editorial and news reporting.
Thank you, Ira. Exactly right. It is an editorial disguised as news reporting. I assume that Dana Goldstein inserted the research, and Ember editorialized; Ember co-wrote the other article critiquing Sanders’ “extremist” views on war. The news is out. Sanders doesn’t like war and foreign adventurism.
Diane, I just caught this posting today on Common Dreams about Sydney Ember and her coverage of Bernie Sanders. After reading it, I really question Ms. Ember’s ethics. One would think that the NYtimes would be more rigorous about adhering to journalistic standards.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/29/how-nyt-reporter-sydney-ember-uses-corporate-sources-attack-bernie-sanders
It is hard to believe that this can happen at such paper as the NYT. Of course, then the NYT is quoted in thousands of other media outlets.
Freedom of the press, as all other freedoms, cannot just be declared and hope that people will be reasonable and will not misuse it. Appropriate rules are also needed to be given.
Paul Krugman was also very critical of Al Gore when Gore was running against Bush, particularly Gore’s support of what Krugman called Pop Science.
I will never forget an ignorant piece Krugman wrote that was critical of complexity theorists and other scientists that Gore was taking advice from.
Krugman mocked the scientists and the fact that Gore was actually seeking their advice (as opposed to listening to real economic geniuses (did) like Krugman who were too stupid to become scientists and know nothing about science)
With ignorant “Liberals” like Krugman providing their worthless critiques, who needs Sean Hannity?
YES; so many “progressive” leaders, legislators and pundits who cannot imagine speaking against war and private interests
Paul Krugman on 11-14-16: ‘Let’s be clear: Installing Donald Trump in the White House is an epic mistake. In the long run, its consequences may well be apocalyptic, if only because we have probably lost our last, best chance to rein in runaway climate change.’
When it comes to climate change, Krugman and Gore are on the same page in 2019.
Krugman gets more things right than wrong. I was disgusted with him when he trashed Bernie during 2016 but he has been right about most things economic. He was an HRC fan; guess what, I voted for HRC in the general election (but Bernie in the primary).
Krugman was completely wrong about the effects of globalization, a “mistake” which contributed in no small measure to the disgruntlement of voters in key Midwestern states and Trump’s rise to power.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-paul-krugman-so-wrong/
“the mythical ‘wall’ between editorial and news reporting”
Exactly
Paul Krugman explains his criticism of Bernie Sanders
92nd Street Y
Published on May 2, 2016
The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman tells Financial Times columnist Gillian Tett why he is so critical of Bernie Sanders’ campaign.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting it.
Krugman starts out by saying that in a choice between Bernie and Trump, it would be an EASY decision. Are Krugman’s critics agreeing to that point about candidates other than Bernie? The fact that he isn’t saying “having Bernie would be a disaster as he’s no better than Trump and if Bernie wins I’ll be working hard to get people to vote for anyone but Bernie” makes me respect him more.
I thought one criticism here was particularly apt: that he was critical of the Bernie campaign because he saw “a general tendency to say well if you’re not with us, that must be because you are corrupted and that’s not the kind of thing I like to associate myself with and so I found that pretty upsetting.”
Krugman clearly supports Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He is a progressive who likes Warren much better than Bernie. He may be wrong, but it is a perfectly legitimate view to prefer Elizabeth Warren and her well-thought out policies to Bernie as Krugman does.
Candidates don’t win with lengthy policy platforms that have caveats for every occasion which is what Krugman requires for his support. Ask HRC how many people read her platform and ask Trump to state his platform coherently.
If Krugman is writing a protocol for the election of a academic department chair, he may have a point.
Trump platform: MAGA.
Make of it what you will.
“Candidates don’t win with lengthy policy platforms that have caveats for every occasion which is what Krugman requires for his support. ”
I sure hope you are not saying that we should all do everything we can to quash Elizabeth Warren’s campaign because she can’t win. Isn’t that what people said about Bernie? Isn’t that what people said about Trump?
Maybe if we all support the candidates we like best and then not trying to undermine whoever does wins the primary, Democrats will win. I find it offensive that anyone would try to tear down Senator Warren because her platform is too thoughtful and we need someone who will say the equivalent of MAGA.
Krugman made it absolutely clear he would vote for Bernie over Trump if Bernie won the primary. If everyone cared about this country as much as Krugman did, they would do the same no matter who wins the primary.
When Bernie wins the primary and Krugman spends every minute of every waking day bashing him as a danger to this country and no better than Trump, then Krugman would be rightly criticized. But Krugman already indicated he won’t do that so I don’t understand why his critics are so angry Krugman would support Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the primary. Sen. Warren is a legitimate choice even if people claim “she can never win the general election” just like they believe Bernie can’t win it. If all you care about is winning, vote for Biden. I keep hearing he is the only one who can defeat Trump. I don’t believe it, but then I also don’t believe that we should bash Elizabeth Warren for the sole reason that her policies are too well thought out when she is supposed to be saying MAGA to prove she is a real winner.
The criticism Krugman leveled at Bernie is too easily used by Fox to undermine the Sanders candidacy. I will defend Warren and Montana’s Governor because they are liberals. I will vote for the Democrat whoever it is, even if it is a centrist DINO. But, until the party selects someone like Booker, I will criticize the person as a centrist. The propaganda machine at Fox can’t use that criticism to make any points that advantage Trump.
NYC-
Position platforms with caveats to cover contingencies appeal to those who relish polemic arguments or the practice of disputation. Those voters number in the tens of thousands.
“No cuts to Social Security” attracts the interest of millions of voters.
Linda,
I’m really interested in how what Paul Krugman says in that interview about Bernie provides fodder for Fox News.
Again, he disagreed about policies or said they were naive. Those criticisms were leveled at Trump again and again! They have no power.
What does have power are character attacks. Convincing voters that there is something corrupt and dishonest about the Democrat who is a liar who cannot — and I repeat cannot — be trusted.
Character attacks destroyed the following Democrats who voters just “knew” were corrupt, dishonest, lying exaggerators by the time of the election: Al Gore, John Kerry, HRC.
Character attacks are exactly what the Republicans are trying to do to Sen. Warren when they mislead voters into thinking she has lied about her Native American heritage to get ahead.
Krugman didn’t attack Bernie’s character. Neither did HRC when she ran against him. Neither did the Republicans because Bernie didn’t win.
You will know what a character attack is if and when Bernie wins the nomination. If that happens, then between the end of primaries and the election, Bernie will be portrayed as the most dishonest, corrupt, frightening candidate in history by the far right propaganda machine.
Will it work? It depends whether the disaffected supporters of other Democratic candidates help it and give lots of media interviews so that the public understands that “even the Democrats” agree that Bernie is the most dishonest, corrupt, frightening candidate in history.
While the propaganda machine tried that with Obama (remember the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the “cling to their guns”?)
All of those manufactured “controversies” died because disaffected HRC supporters did not keep repeating that they were evidence of Obama’s corrupt character. They did the opposite — they basically said “shut up and stop manufacturing controversies because your own Republican candidate is so awful”.
That’s how you fight the character attacks propaganda. By shutting it down instead of treating it as a legitimate concern.
The 2020 election will be about what every single election since I remember has been about.
TRUST.
Voters don’t care if a candidate offers some policies they might not like if they trust that candidate more than the one who is offering ideas they may like, but who they are certain are just lying to them.
MAGA: Make the A**h*** GO AWAY!
And don’t need another NEO-Liberal in office.
NYC-
Neo-liberals and the GOP label Sanders’ democratic socialism as “naive”.
Every industrialized nation provides healthcare for its citizens except the U.S. where families have median incomes less than $60,000 and where family health care costs are $28,000. Presenting Medicare for all as naive could fill hours of Fox programming.
Linda,
I just don’t think that Fox News calling Bernie’s proposals “naive” is going to undermine his campaign. I could be naive myself about that, but I would be happy if that is what they are stuck having to use.
As long as they don’t start portraying Bernie as corrupt and attacking his character, Fox News attacks calling a policy “naive” aren’t likely to turn voters off.
I DuckDuckGo’d and found this response on what Fox had to say about Bernie. [I had to click that I wanted to read fake news when I didn’t want to subscribe to this media. BS.]
………………………………………
WATCH: Fox News hosts corner Bernie Sanders’ hypocrisy on taxes. His response says it all.
APRIL 16, 2019
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, was cornered over his hypocrisy on taxes during a Fox News town hall Monday, dodging tough questions from two Fox News hosts.
Ditch the fake news ==> Click here to get news you can trust sent right to your inbox. It’s free!
What happened?
Sanders — who is now officially confirmed as a member of the infamous “one percent” after he released his past 10 years of tax returns — was asked why he accepts the lower tax rate afforded to him by Republican-passed tax reform when he advocates the wealthiest Americans pay their “fair share.”
“Your taxes do show you’re a millionaire,” Fox News host Bret Baier said. “But your marginal tax rate [in 2018] was 26 percent because of President Trump’s tax cuts. So why not say: ‘I’m leading this revolution, I’m going to take those.’?”
Sanders responded: “Pffttt…come on…I am— I paid the taxes that I owe.”
Without directly answering Baier’s question, Sanders launched into a broadside against President Donald Trump…
https://www.theblaze.com/news/bernie-sanders-taxes-fox-news-town-hall
Trump’s platform: MAGA, since: “L’Etat, ces Moi!”
So, if Sanders wins the nomination after Krugman gets done trashing him and his Bernie Bros, Krugman is going to turn around and back Sanders?
Oh, Paul Most High, Lord of Lord’s. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your boundless generosity and willingness to forgive the sins of all — especially those of Bernie Sanders!
Ha ha ha ha.
Ayone who would actually believe Krugman to be sincere in his newfound support for Sanders at that point would be an idiot, pretty much by definition.
How did Krugman “trash” Sanders?
Did he say “don’t trust Bernie, he’s no better than Trump”? Did he trash Bernie’s character as corrupt?
Give me a break. Krugman disagrees with Bernie on policies and thinks his policies are naive or wrong. if the HRC haters who really trashed her had limited themselves to policy disagreements instead of working hard to promote the absolutely right wing lie that she was corrupt, dishonest, and planned to sell out this country to corporate interests who would make her rich, she would have won.
Every poll showed that voters did not trust HRC. That is what trashing is. Convincing the public that the candidate you don’t like is a blatant liar who is not to be trusted. Krugman never does that to Bernie. A small number of Bernie bros did that all the time to the other candidates – insisted they were corrupt. That’s what Krugman says and why Krugman was put off by Bernie’s campaign. If you didn’t agree with everything he wanted, you were corrupt.
That’s what Elizabeth Warren haters are trying to do to her. Trash her character and say she isn’t to be trusted — she has spent her life lying about her heritage, don’t you know.
That’s trashing. It’s what was done to HRC and the way you talk about Krugman is trashing him. You attack his character as if his support of Sen. Elizabeth Warren instead of Bernie means he cannot be trusted.
“Forgive the sins” — that speaks volumes about you and not Krugman. Krugman never said Bernie was a sinner. There is a difference in how criticism is made and some of it is designed to destroy a candidate’s character and some just to criticize policy.
Krugman wants Elizabeth Warren. She is just as legitimate of a candidate as Bernie and there is something very off-putting about people who decide that supporting Warren over Sanders must mean you are corrupt or a sell-out.
And I say that as someone who is thrilled at Bernie’s education policy which makes him currently my favorite candidate (although the primary is a long way away).
That doesn’t mean that some criticisms of Bernie aren’t valid (not character attacks but policy disagreements) or mean that the critic must be corrupt.
Labeling Sanders supporters as Bernie Bros is just one example of Krugman’s not sot so subtle way of trashing.
But hardly a surprise that some would not recognize it as such.
“Labeling Sanders supporters as Bernie Bros is just one example of Krugman’s not sot so subtle way of trashing.”
I agree, it is wrong to call some supporters of Sanders “Bernie Bros” and I should watch it and refrain from using that expression.
But this is a glaring example of what privilege looks like.
I only wish that the attacks that HRC had on her character were limited to calling her supporters “fem nazis” or “pantsuit wearing men-haters” or some other ridiculous label for her supporters. HRC would have easily won the election since every poll showed that “trust” was the deciding issue and whether supporters were Bernie Bros or pantsuit wearing fem nazis does not make the public doubt a candidate’s trustworthiness. Calling his supporters Bernie Bros does not immediately convince voters “that candidate is a liar”.
Think about what position of privilege one must have where they feel gravely injured because someone referred to their supporters as “Bernie Bros” and they believe the harm they experienced was no different than having their candidate mischaracterized as a corrupt liar whose word on anything can’t be trusted because he plans to sell out this country for his own greed.
Even Sen. Warren – who has been the recipient of far more harmful attacks than calling her supporters the equivalent of “Bernie Bros” — hasn’t claimed to be the victim of the “trashing”.
I have no doubt Sen. Warren would love if the only trashing she got was her supporters getting called “fem nazis” or something else.
She has already received far worse and she isn’t whining.
You will probably find no disagreement with me about Warren (whom I would have no problem voting for) so don’t waste your breath.
And we are also never going to agree about Krugman, so again, don’t waste your breath.
Despite having been very wrong about many things — not least of all, about the impacts of globalization — he continues to project an air of superiority, regularly dismissing people out of hand with his idiotic labels. As they say, he is too clever by half.
Pathetically, he also waves around his his faux “Nobel” (which, hilariously, was awarded by the Swedish Central bank for his wrong ideas about globalization), at every opportunity to wow some and dismiss others (any who disagree with him). It’s not a real Nobel prize but you would certainly never have get any inkling of that from Krugman’s waving of his “award.”
https://www.alternet.org/2012/10/there-no-nobel-prize-economics/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economics-nobel-isnt-really-a-nobel/
Friedrich Hyek clearly had someone like Krugman in mind when he warned about The Pretence of knowledge
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1974/hayek/lecture/
Hyek famously stated that the prize he himself received (not a real Nobel, which actually does not include economics)
“confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess”
Krugman obviously did not get the memo.
Paul Krugman, our liberal deep thinker. What would we do without his thoughtful thrpoughts? What’s with his burping, though?
NYC-
Your complaint about Fox and Bernie supporters is…. They convinced
voters that Trump was more trust worthy than Clinton. And, they convinced voters that Trump had fewer character flaws than Clinton?
You can continue to assume that’s why Hillary lost and to reject the answers others provided during and after the campaign.
Based on your assumption, you can admonish neo-liberals to limit their criticisms of progressives to the labeling of their ideas as unrealistic. You can admonish all Dems to route their criticisms of other Dems to page 105 of their policy statements. You can admonish Putin and other foreign nations’ leaders who want Trump in 2020, to avoid character assassinations of Dems.
A show of hands- will that make a win happen for Dems in 2020?
I don’t get it.
If a candidate can’t muster enough votes to win the primary, why do you believe he can muster enough to win the general?
I don’t support Biden but apparently a lot of Americans do.
HRC lost for the same reason Kerry and Gore lost. They got trashed in the media. Obama’s character was never trashed that way.
All of them basically were offering the same policies. Only Obama won.
Not sure what your point is.
My point is that no democrat – whether Bernie or Biden — will win the general election if their characters get trashed the way HRC, Gore, and Kerry’s did.
I believe either Bernie or Biden or Warren will win against Trump if they are portrayed the way Obama was and not trashed like HRC, Gore and Kerry.
Right now my choice is Bernie because I like his education policies, but I reserve the right to change my mind over the next 10 months! I also like Warren.
But I don’t want to see any of the democrats’ characters trashed the way HRC,Gore,Kerry were. If any of the democrats are treated the way Obama was and there are no attacks on their character, whoever wins the nomination will win the general, just like Obama did.
Policies really don’t matter. I wish that was different. Republicans have been winning and winning despite offering policies that every poll shows voters do not want. But they’d rather vote for a politician they trust than one they don’t.
Incidentally, Friedrich Hayek (who is oft rightly criticized , along with Miton Friedman,for his no holds barredfree market stance) had some very astute things to say in his faux Nobel speech
In fact, he identified the crux of the problem with economists weighing in on everything from economics to education
“This brings me to the crucial issue. Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.
It can hardly be denied that such a demand quite arbitrarily limits the facts which are to be admitted as possible causes of the events which occur in the real world. This view, which is often quite naively accepted as required by scientific procedure, has some rather paradoxical consequences. We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information. And because the effects of these facts in any particular instance cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply disregarded by those sworn to admit only what they regard as scientific evidence: they thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant.”
/// End quote
In other words, economists pick out only those factors that lend themselves to quantification (test scores in the case of education) and basically pretend that those are the only factors that matter.
This leads to what Hayek (and lots of people who have commented here) recognize as utterly ridiculous conclusions (eg, about student “growth”, teacher “value” VAM, school performance and all the rest).
The approach taken by economists is really just stupid on its face, but lots of policymakers and school administrators nonetheless treat it as if it were “scientific” and worthy of being taken seriously
I really wish that people would start using a different word for non-physical “sciences”, and the activities there should not be called “research”, and the theories should be called “opinions”.
As far as I can see, the excuse is always statistics: as soon as an activity starts using statistics, it’s considered science.
Let’s face it, some human activities are simply way too complicated (or too unpredictable, too subjective) to be described by quantitative means.
As for economics: To me the most famous story is when Einstein asked the head of the Institute for Adnaced Studies at Princeton to give a position to Schrődinger (the most recognized name in 20th century physics after Einstein’s), his request was ignored and they hired an economist instead. Schrödinger at the time already had the Nobel prize and originally Einstein was the direct excuse for the creation of the Institute.
Were was Paul Krugman on the whole VAM issue, particularly when the bogus study of Chetty et Al was being lauded in the pages of Krugman’s own paper , The NY Times?
Surely, krugman possesses the minimal analytical skill needed to understand that VAM was/is simply a oke in general and that the Chetty et Al conclusions (fire low VAM performing teachers sooner rather than later) were unjustified and indeed cruel.
But Krugman was utterly silent.
Of course. Admitting that VAM was/is a fiction created out of whole cloth by delusional (at best) economists would have meant admitting that Krugman’s chosen field of economics is not a science (by far, the most generous assessment).
Here’s an example of the method Paul Krugman employs to effectively trash Bernie Sanders and his ideas and policies
Paul Krugman Deems 170 Policy Experts Who Support Sanders’ Wall Street Reforms ‘Un-Serious’
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/paul-krugman-deems-170-policy-experts-who-support-sanders-wall-street-reforms-un-serious/
Of course, Krugman is clever in his approach, so as to appear to be above the tray. He leverages his credentials (leaning on his “Nobel” reputation) to essentially dismiss out of hand anyone who would disagree with him, relegating them to the class of “unserious people” and calling their ideas “silly”, for example.
Make no mistake: Krugman understands full well what he is doing when he knowingly labels 170 policy experts, including several top economists like Dean Baker “unserious” (is, unworthy of serious consideration, to say nothing of debate)
This is not unusual for Krugman. It is his preferred MO to use his “academic cred” to end an argument before it even begins.
Krugman might be great when it comes to lots of issues, but that is completely irrelevant when it comes to his behavior toward Sanders in particular. The latter is simply dishonest.
“Why I did Paul Krugman and the Washington Post editorial board—both of whom know better—misrepresent that it was Sanders rather than the New York Daily News editorial board that was wrong about what Dodd-Frank provides, and about whether it would be Treasury or instead the financial institutions themselves that would determine the method of paring down?”
https://angrybearblog.com/2016/04/why-did-paul-krugman-and-also-the-washington-post-editorial-board-both-of-whom-know-better-misrepresent-that-it-was-sanders-rather-than-the-new-york-daily-news-editorial-board-that-is.html
Why? I don’t know. Maybe because Krugman is willing to distort the truth if it serves his purposes?
“The irony is that in most of the cases where Sanders supposedly did not know what he was talking about, he was actually largely on the mark” — Dean Baker
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Economist-Dean-Baker-Disse-by-Joan-Brunwasser-Bernie-Sanders-Presidential-Campaign_Dean-Baker_Double-Standards_Interviews-160411-138.html
Krugman also trashed Bernie’s Medicare for All plan, claiming that Sanders was low balling the costs just to pick up votes, just like what the Republicans do to pass tax cuts, according to Krugman
Guess what? An in depth study of Sanders health care plan showed it to be everything Sanders claimed and MORE
In-Depth Analysis by Team of UMass Amherst Economists Shows Viability of Medicare For All
https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/depth-analysis-team-umass-amherst
Surprise!
Krugman has a nasty habit of dismissing complex issues with a wave of his hand (he loves hand waving arguments that don’t require thinking) and a few snide remarks in his NY Times column without even bothering to understand them. He does it because he knows lots of people will just accept his BS because of his (fake) “Nobel” .
I don’t know why so many Democrats believe his every word, but they do.
Poet- Thanks for calling out Krugman’s schtick.
“I don’t know why so many Democrats believe his every word, but they do.”
And that is exactly the kinds of arguments that have to stop. How insulting. I don’t “believe every word” that any person says, including Bernie, especially when Bernie insisted that white voters who won’t vote for an African-American candidate are not racist. That doesn’t mean that just because i didn’t like that offensive and racist statement Bernie made that I don’t think he can still be a good candidate nor do I think he is irredeemable racist. I’m supporting him right now and I guess some people could insist that makes me a racist, too. Do you really want to have the kind of primary where you believe it is correct for a Booker supporter to call all supporters of Bernie racist because Bernie said a racist thing? I don’t want that kind of primary although the far right would love it if we had it.
Krugman has made mistakes and he makes no claims to being perfect. But he believes in facts and that is why he likes the proposals Elizabeth Warren is offering.
There is so much of that kind of gratuitous insulting of anyone who has any disagreement with Bernie or anyone that might find a particular argument persuasive. That’s what Krugman was talking about. The innuendo that anyone who disagrees with Bernie is an enemy and corrupt or evil or simply a blind follower.
I wish you’d stop it. People who support Warren instead of Bernie are not the enemy. Neither were people who supported HRC. There is no agreed upon one single way that government must work which is why Warren’s policies are not exactly like Bernie’s. Deciding you prefer one better is not a sign of corruption. Or blind following.
“I wish you’d stop it. ”
Stop what? Quoting Krugman and pointing out that he is not backing up any of his claims with facts—he just gives opinions knowing full well, people assume, there are thoughts behind them. Saying Krugman is BSing is a perfectly fair assessment of his writing and his interview.
In Hungary, we say, those who lie have hiccups. I guess in America, you burp. At least Krugman does. Hiccups and burping are the simptom of the same thing: your body doesn’t like it when you BS, and tries to suppress it.
I need to stop??
Ha ha ha!.
How about Krugman?
He’s the one with the NY Times column that reaches millions of people with his misrepresentations of Sanders, his policies and supporters (aka Bernie Bros. In one blog post Krugman actually said Bernie was becoming a Bernie Bro. How mature of Krugman is that?)
Nycsp
The only time I mentioned Warren above was to say I would have no problem voting for her!!
“You will probably find no disagreement with me about Warren (whom I would have no problem voting for) so don’t waste your breath.”
I said that to make it perfectly clear that my problem is specifically with Krugman.
So, I really must offer you my congratulations, You have (again) attributed to me a stance that I never even implied (to say nothing of never articulated) when you say
“I wish you’d stop it. People who support Warren instead of Bernie are not the enemy. Neither were people who supported HRC. There is no agreed upon one single way that government must work which is why Warren’s policies are not exactly like Bernie’s. Deciding you prefer one better is not a sign of corruption. Or blind following.”
Finally, (and not incidentally) Krugman’s trashing of Sanders is not just something I dreamed up in my own (admittedly twisted) brain
Here’s what Krugman’s fellow economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University said back in 2016
“Paul Krugman’s daily attacks on Bernie Sanders are remarkably ill-informed. He’s a repetitious mouthpiece for the status quo.”
Any Democratic candidate with a long political history will be under serious scrutiny. Journalists should report on a candidate’s history without editorializing. Bernie can stand on his record as it is an admirable one. That is why so many young people follow him. They admire him for being on the right side of social justice and war. Neoliberals despise him for his consistency and honesty. Bernie may divide the Democratic party, but he is within his right to run for office. The NYT and the DNC would not be so defensive if they did not feel threatened by Bernie. If he fails to get the nomination, I hope his supporters have the good sense to support whomever the Democrats nominate. Desperate times call for unity. We cannot afford another four years of Trump.
CAP (Gates-funded) is scared of Sanders and AOC. How will CAP get money from the rich if the 99% have a government of the people, by the people and, for the people? WaPo, NYT and other media always quote CAP as the liberal voice. It reflects part the takeover of both parties by the Republican, Koch like-minded richest 0.1%.
The DNC better get their act together. Bernie failed to get the nomination last time because the DNC wanted HRC as the candidate to run against Trump. It didn’t work out so well. People didn’t like HRC and they didn’t like Trump and many didn’t make it to the polls to decide who to vote “against”. People want to vote “for” something or “for” someone….not the lesser of 2 evils. I voted HRC because she was a lesser of 2 evils and it did not make me feel good about the future of Democracy.
Bernie failed to get the nomination last time because African-American voters in southern states preferred HRC over Bernie and each state’s votes went to the winner of the primary.
The DNC didn’t change the rules in 2016 to benefit HRC. The votes of African-Americans in southern states have been counted for quite a while and the fact that they liked HRC better than Bernie is why HRC won the primary. The DNC can’t force those voters to vote for a candidate they don’t like just because they believe that candidate will be better against Trump just like they couldn’t force them in 2016 no matter how much some Bernie voters resented them for allowing those southern state voters’ preferences to count instead of disenfranchising voters in southern states because Dems won’t win them anyway.
The very NY Times that is so harsh on Bernie was also incredibly biased against HRC. She was one of the most popular Democrats and most admired until the NYT turned her into a corrupt mirror of the corrupt Trump.
The public needs to get the NY Times to stop its aggressively anti-Democrat coverage that its cowardly reporters do in order to prove to Fox News that they meet the Fox News definition of “fair and balanced”.
If 2020 sees a rehash of 2016 and the NY Times turns whoever the Democratic candidate is into a corrupt caricature like they did to HRC, Trump will probably win.
NYC- your opinion about the blackballing of firms who work for congressional primary candidates against incumbents and DCCC funding for DINO’s like Dan Lipinski, who are running in guaranteed Democratic districts?
I oppose the blackballing of firms and I am glad that lots of Democrats spoke out against it. It is worthy of criticism.
Does that reflect some deep seated corruption? Not really — it was something that was done right out in the open and got a lot of criticism. I support all the groups withholding donations because of it.
I do think in the long run that if this blackballing continues, it will be better for challengers not to use the same tired overpaid Democratic consulting firms. I assume there are good people who will work with up and coming candidates and put their beliefs before their bank accounts.
But I don’t support that policy.
^^I do hope everyone also understands that means that a primary challenger to AOC or any of the new progressive Congress members can’t use those firms either. The policy helps incumbents who are far left, progressive, moderate, and conservative. It isn’t designed to only help conservatives or moderates.
It is still a bad policy, but it should be pointed out that there was a wave of progressives elected in 2018 and all of those new “incumbents” would benefit.
Bernie has a lot of work to do with minorities. Vermont is not exactly a melting pot, Google minorities in VT, and you will fin that it is almost 95% white. I don’t know what he has been doing to increase his credibility, but recognizing the problems created by unfettered charter schools is a start.
Bernie chose as campaign co-chairs, Nina Turner, a former state representative from Ohio who is Black and, as a second co-chair, the mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
“Why you fool, it’s the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They’re all right already. They’ll believe anything.”
― C.S. Lewis, quote from That Hideous Strength
LMAO.
retired teacher,
AGREE.
I like Bernie, but I would really like to know what he has been able to accomplish in Congress. What has he voted for? Who has he worked with? Has he been able to work across the aisle? I don’t mean those words as a challenge. I really do want to know. I remember Ted Cruz was apparently disliked by most of his own party. Even though I would never have voted for him, the fact that he didn’t even play well with others in his own camp was telling.
I seems to me that a fair number of people here do not like to hear the word compromise. Votes on bills get cited as a way to prove that someone is not who they say they are, but I never see why that person voted for a bill. Since most bills seem to come with multiple provisions, it is not too hard to see someone wanting one provision enough to not reject another, or agreeing not to reject a provision someone else wants in order to get what they want. That doesn’t mean they have sold out. There is always another day. Even if Bernie doesn’t win, he has left a legacy that has allowed new voices to piggyback on his agenda and push it along. Even if Biden ends up as the nominee, he will be forced further left if the pressure is kept on.
Looks like one of the rare times when T***p has it right. The New York Times is failing its readers and the general public with its Burn the Bern coverage and “analysis.” In the piece on his Reagan-era antiwar activity, is there any mention of the inconvenient fact that the semi-covert U.S. military action in Nicaragua opposed by Mayor Sanders crossed the border into illegality to the degree that numerous government officials, including a secretary of defense, were indicted?
If Trump reversed position and claimed he was going to do something about climate change, the richest 0.1% who are DINO’s for that issue alone, would pull the lever for Trump in 2020.
The NYT is making money from digital journalism, moving fast and breaking things, less original investigative journalism, more looking for stuff on the Internet and mouthing press releases. The number of NYT employees is well over 1,000.
The hit jobs on Sanders are one thing if launched as an op-ed and another thing if offerd as if being serious journalism. Diane is being critical of an article that pretends to be serious journalism but is really functioning as an op ed.
There is a Catch 22 problem in calling out the Times for shabby reporting. The criticism feeds the narrative of fake news even when the intent is to be justifiably alarmed about sloppy reporting and not-so-benign ignorance of a ton of facts, readilly available, but not fitting the favored narratives about this candidate.
https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/02/the-new-york-times-is-getting-close-to-becoming-a-majority-digital-company/?relatedstory
I agree with your catch 22 statement. It reminds us that there is a force on the right of American politics that never would call out its news sources, even when they are blatant about their lies. The right thrives precisely because of the wink and nod behavior of its constituency.
In science there is no catch 22 involved with pointing out stuff that is false.
The catch 22 only seems to occur in politics and it seems to be largely artificial.
It only occurs because once you go down the “split the difference” road (holding back on criticism because you think it might hurt your chances later on), there is no turning back.
You can’t win with the latter, no matter how hard you try
Imagine if Robert Frost had written “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took them both, and that’s no lie! And that has made all the difference.”
That’s politics for you.
Thanks, SDP. Love it. Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took them both. That’s called the Big Straddle.
“The catch 22 only seems to occur in politics and the military.”
I don’t actually see that article as negative. It sort of floors me that people could see these wars any other way. I /do/ judge him by what he said 35 years ago. He was right then and is now.
Agreed! The corporations and 1% are afraid of Bernie’s economic policy that will make them pay their fair share for the common good. They will smear his reputation and do anything they can to undermine his candidacy.
There is history here.
The NY Times has been criticized in the past for antiSanders bias, so they have learned to hide their bias in seemingly neutral language.
“Mr. Sanders’s deep-rooted foreign policy values have the potential to not only earn him support from voters who have grown tired of overseas wars, but also make him vulnerable to attack from rivals in both parties who are eager to depict him as too radical for the presidency.”
That’s code for ” Sanders is unelectable”
And, given their track record, it’s hard not to see the irony in the NY Times telling us who is unelectable.
The assumption in the article seems to be that some people would be repelled by someone who has been anti-war for 35 years. The older I get, the more I think that war is a breakdown of diplomacy and should be avoided at all costs. The cost of war in blood and treasure is far greater than diplomacy.
Yes, Diane! It’s amazing to me how little focus there is on peace as a common goal.
Beautifully, perfectly said, Diane!!! Yes. Yes. Yes.
There are a few people who see war as an opportunity. Death & destruction are mere externalities. I suppose Bernie won’t be getting campaign donations from this group.
“Defense executives from around the country crowded into Goldman Sachs’ glimmering tower in downtown Manhattan in mid-May, eager to present before a conference of bankers and financial analysts.
While much of the world was on edge over simmering tension in the Middle East, as the U.S. and its allies have stoked tensions with Iran, the businessmen at the conference talked of opportunity.
Eric DeMarco, the president of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, addressed the conference, arguing that his company is “very well-aligned” for the shift in the military budget away from asymmetrical fighting toward nation-state warfare.
The rising threat of war with Iran, Russia, and China, DeMarco continued, could threaten U.S. naval power, which could require ballistic missile threat upgrades, the type of systems Kratos Defense specializes in.
Large arms manufacturers from across the industry have similarly told investors that escalating conflict with Iran could be good for business.”
I had a similar reaction, Ryan.
Over and over again in the media, Bernie is either mocked or ignored as some sort of far lefty kook.The mainstream media work overtime to marginalize Bernie. They claim he’s a millionaire who owns 3 homes, partially true but overblown and inaccurate. Of course Bernie is relatively wealthy as a senator earning a very good salary with great benefits and so what if he became a millionaire with the success of his book. Bernie gets my vote, got my vote in the 2016 primary. I am not optimistic that he will win since he is so demonized in the media as some kind of far lefty fringe candidate and with the right wing media calling him either a communist, a maniac or free things advocate. They claim that Bernie will raise taxes which is true; he will raise taxes on the wealthy and the corporations and there will be a very small raise in taxes on the 99% to help fund Medicare for all. Here’s the thing, any increase in taxes will be offset by not having to pay insurance premiums and by lower drug costs. Bernie is the best of the field but he will be called a socialist (he’s a democratic socialist), commie, racist, USSR lover (he visited the USSR many decades ago) and an enemy of American apple pie capitalism and free enterprise. They will also slam him for his age.
All that being said, I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or Pence in the general election. To vote Green or some other loser candidate would be very foolish.
My work with blue-collar whites indicates that THEY like Bernie. The question is, do they outnumber the upper class folks who will be repelled by Bernie?
Median family income is under $60,000. Republicans do everything they can to keep the poor from the polls. America’s correlation between income and voting reflects oligarchy.
Also, women stupidly vote Republican. Reportedly, one out of 3 NEA members voted for Trump.
Huh? Sounds like good news to me. Neither blue-collars nor median-householders in general are “the poor.” There were plenty of them at Bernie rallies in the MW/ SW. And I often heard folks interviewed in rural/ small towns saying they’d vote either for Bernie or Trump. Many more of them may be drawn to Bernie if four yrs of Trump has not delivered the economic improvements they’d hoped for.
(1) 53% of White women voted for Trump.
(2) When median family income is $60,000, half the population has less than that. Romney assigned 47 as the per cent of Americans who draw income from government programs (noted, Social Security and Medicare are worker savings programs administered by the government).
How union workers vote, rather in block or distinguished by membership in service, government, building trades, manufacturing, or …may be one of the deciding factors in which party wins in 2020.
By opposing immigration, Trump made himself the candidate for those
who fear losing their jobs. The fact that their argument is invalid doesn’t alter their voting.
Simple, huh?
I disagree with your assertion that the NYT will tear down Biden in the same manner as Bernie. Bernie is a threat to the power elite that owns all major media outlets and they will continue to smear him in order to hold onto their power.
Agree, Arts Smart.
Meghan McCain’s support for Biden and CAP’s opposition to Bernie wraps it up in a nutshell.
I agree.
Agree, Arts Smart!
The NYT tore down the Clintons, too. Both in 1998 and in 2016.
I agree the newspaper will tear down Bernie, but I expect it will do the same to any Democrat. The newspaper destroyed Gore, too.
How sad that the DeVos family’s lack of $$$ support makes the news. Amash spoke out against Trump and these wealthy folks can’t stand that.
………………………………………..
DeVos family ends longtime Amash support
The powerful DeVos family of West Michigan is ending its longtime support of Congressman Justin Amash.
Lansing — The powerful DeVos family of West Michigan is ending its longtime support of U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, the libertarian Republican who has repeatedly clashed with President Donald Trump.
The family has not made any political contributions to Amash this cycle, and “they have no plans to do so,” said family spokesman Nick Wasmiller.
The GOP megadonors decided to cut ties with Amash before his latest dust-up with the president and his assertion that Trump engaged in “impeachable conduct,” Wasmiller told The Detroit News…
“People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation — and therefore cannot be impeached — are resting their argument on several falsehoods,” Amash wrote.
In a brief interview Wednesday, Amash repeated his conclusion that many of his House colleagues haven’t read the Mueller report.
“My job is to defend the Constitution,” he said. “I’m laying out the information I want to lay out, and it’s not about, you know, getting on TV or anything like that. I want to make sure that I’m presenting it in the most clear-cut, sober way possible.”
Trump responded Sunday to Amash’s declaration by calling him a “loser.” Other top GOP officials criticized him, including Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel and Michigan Republican Party Chair Laura Cox.
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which Amash co-founded, have also lambasted Amash’s comments, though haven’t said he’ll be removed from the group…
Check out this story on detroitnews.com: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/22/devos-family-ends-longtime-amash-support/3768422002/
What I mean is the contributions of the wealthy is a corrupt way to keep their political toadies in line. This type of money invested by the wealthy is determining what happens politically. It works for the 1% and not for the rest of us.
Those of us who don’t have millions to invest don’t get a voice, unless we elect someone like Warren or Bernie.
Justin Amash held a town hall in Grand Rapids last night, in the DeVos Center for Arts and Worship (I kid you not).
He didn’t know what to expect.
He was greeted with standing ovations and gratitude by his constituents.
Seeing that Town Hall made my day. He was wonderful and the venue was not disclosed until the end. I almost fell off my recliner ( easier than you may think).
Amazing how context can make us all crazy and turn Justin Amash into a hero just by not being a psychopath. Other than being able to read and comprehend the Mueller report, Amash is basically a Libertarian, Tea Party idiot.
But gotta like that he’s at least honest enough to call a pumpkin a pumpkin.
Amash threatens the grift for Betsy and her brother.
This bit of ‘wisdom’ come from The Onion. Hypocrisy seems to be working. Also, any lie told often enough becomes a ‘fact’.
…………
Report: Massive Hypocrisy Just Flat-Out Gets The Job Done
WASHINGTON—Revealing that bald-faced lies and shameless double standards are the most reliable way to outmaneuver one’s opponents, a report released Wednesday confirmed that massive hypocrisy just flat-out gets the job done. “Changing your stance based on temporary expediency has proven time and again to be a slam dunk in terms of advancing an agenda,” read the report, which went on to state that there are no major downsides to doing one thing one year and doing the exact opposite the next because the majority of people do not remember anything that happens in the world for more than a week or so. “Whether you are engaged in a carefully calculated strategy of dishonesty or just spouting the first lie that comes into your head, hypocrisy works wonders. You will never be held accountable and will instead be admired for your strength and pragmatism as a leader. Evidence also suggests the only way to defeat a hypocrite in power is to become an even bigger hypocrite yourself.” The report went on to conclude that not only is brazen, amoral hypocrisy the best way to enact your personal vision, it’s also fun.
The Onion is so brilliant (& also fun).
Unfortunately, its satire has become true. Every hilarious monologue on Colbert is based on what’s happening RE: IQ45 every single day–every misspelled Twitter (& “……..”), every mispronounced word (“orange” for “origin”), every oxymoronic (or just plain moronic) proclamation, “I’m a stabile genius.”
Also, funny how the comments morphed from the NYT to The Onion. To continue down the NYT & WaPo path, I agree with all of you who’d said that the corporates & neo-libs (DINOs by any other name) do NOT–have never wanted Bernie. Nor do they want Tulsi (don’t hear/read/see anything much about her on ms media) or Warren. No–like those who anointed HRC–they’ll push Biden in the same way. And, in the same way, Biden will lose–he’s been there already, & the there he’s been (i.e., his spotty past) isn’t enough to beat Agent Orange. He’ll be Joe! (get the comparison–Jeb!) up there; IQ45 will rip into him like a bucket of KFC.
&–not getting deep into this–but so many of us know that there was massive election fraud (NOT voter fraud–there’s a big difference; in fact, remember how it was proven that voters were purged from the rolls in the 2016 NYC Dem Primary?) in the 2016 Dem Primaries (& IA Caucus) all over the country &, yes, it was perpetrated by the Dem leadership. Not to mention the early endorsements–for which the rank-&-file were neither surveyed nor consulted–from the NEA & the AFT (remember the NEA leaders of several states–MA–Barbara Madeloni {sp-?}, e.g., protested the early endorsement?). So, no, Bernie didn’t “lose” the primaries. Check out Jonathan Simon, who’s an election fraud expert. Check out the documentary, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
In Chicago, 5 plaintiffs from an election protection group filed an election fraud lawsuit, but it was eventually tossed. In order for a legal remedy to occur, the campaign or the candidate him/her self must challenge the election results. In fact, the Chicago group has such a letter making said request of Bernie/Bernie’s campaign (&, if you’re voting for Warren or Tulsi, you can send the letter to them).
I’m still waiting for a link to the letter; when I have it, I will post it here.
We absolutely cannot afford a repeat of 2016 in the 2020 Dem primaries.
Should that occur, we will suffer another 11/9/16.
The net is closing in on the Orange Moron.
………………………….
After Mueller Statement, More 2020 Democrats Call for Impeachment
May 29, 2019
Previously, only a few candidates had called for beginning impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Now, a majority of the Democratic field has expressed support.
Robert S. Mueller III’s statement on Wednesday, in which he reiterated the conclusions of his investigation and declined to clear President Trump, seemed to open a dam in the Democratic presidential field.
Before Mr. Mueller spoke, seven of the 23 candidates had endorsed impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump. By midafternoon, 10 had done so, with others edging closer.
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York came out explicitly in favor of impeachment proceedings for the first time on Wednesday.
They joined Senators Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Representatives Seth Moulton of Massachusetts and Eric Swalwell of California, the former housing secretary Julián Castro, former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas and Mayor Wayne Messam of Miramar, Fla., who had previously voiced their support for impeachment proceedings.
But several leading candidates were more hesitant. A representative for former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said in a statement that Mr. Biden “agrees with Speaker Pelosi that no one would relish what would certainly be a divisive impeachment process, but that it may be unavoidable if this administration continues on its path.” As he left a campaign event in Dallas on Wednesday, Mr. Biden did not stop to engage a sizable group of reporters who shouted questions about Mr. Mueller toward him.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, too, avoided an outright endorsement of beginning impeachment proceedings, but tweeted, “If the House Judiciary Committee deems it necessary, I will support their decision.”…
Can someone explain to me two things:
1) Why is the narrative that Bernie undermined the Democrats in 2016. Yes, I know he was not a Dem. But the party offered nothing to him when he showed remarkable strength and awareness of voter hunger for something other than the warmed-over bilge supported by the DNC. So, I would contend that the Dems undermined the old guy with fresh ideas.
2) Why did the NYT torpedo Klobuchar the moment she declared? They basically wrote an opposition research piece on her nastiness as a boss. What about Amy had them so locked and loaded to kill her nascent campaign?
I sure don’t know the answer to that.
I don’t know why the NY Times also made it their personal mission – all through summer and fall of 2016 – to destroy HRC and mischaracterize her in headline after headline as the most corrupt candidate ever to run for President.
I don’t know why the NY Times also ran headlines the week before the 2016 election declaring that the Trump campaign had been absolutely exonerated of all wrongdoing with regards to Russia. I don’t know why the NY Times at the same time was also running headlines designed to convince readers that “new evidence” found in Anthony Weiner’s laptop incriminated HRC.
Actually, I do have a theory:
Everything the NY Times does is in service to what is of utmost importance to their cowardly editors — to prove to Fox News viewers that they can be just as “fair and balanced” as Fox News.
That means that the NY Times editors and reporters tell themselves they must blow up every small issue involving a Democratic candidate and turn that candidate into one of the most corrupt, awful, personally reprehensible candidates in either party to ever run for President. Only by mischaracterizing every candidate in the Democratic party as corrupt do NY Times reporters and editors feel comfortable writing anything even lightly critical of Trump. And every story about Trump must be couched in a “he said, she said and we have no idea what is true about Trump, but we do know the Democrats we are writing about are the most corrupt candidates ever.”
They are fascist enablers and they believe that pleasing Fox News viewers is how to be a good journalist.
NYC public school parent: “They are fascist enablers and they believe that pleasing Fox News viewers is how to be a good journalist.”
I sent some articles from both WaPo and NYT to my brother a Fox enthusiast who loves Hannity and Rush L. He told me that both the NYT, WaPo and CNN were ‘fake’ news and that I should listen to Hannity to learn something.
Obviously, what NYT publishes is not catering to all the Fox watchers.
………………………………………
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy the FAKE NEWS and failing @nytimes and either run it correctly or let it fold with dignity!
102K
8:00 AM – Jan 29, 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy
53.8K people are talking about this
“Obviously, what NYT publishes is not catering to all the Fox watchers.”
I agree! Nothing but non-stop praise of their great leader Trump and non-stop attacks on all Democrats will please Fox News viewers.
But that doesn’t stop the NY Times from trying because they are still so worried that someone at Fox will call them “biased” if they actually report the incriminating facts about Trump without also turning Democrats into politicians who are just as corrupt.
I view the NY Times the way I view Robert Mueller. Mueller’s office went out of their way to publicly criticize a Buzzfeed article because Mueller felt it was “inaccurate” — which meant that it was unfair to Trump. Remember that the article said Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress and Mueller’s office felt very strongly they needed the public to know that was inaccurate because Trump just told Michael Cohen what to say – which just happened to be a blatant lie — as opposed to specifically saying “I order you to lie, Michael”.
Mueller didn’t want the public to know any of those details, however. What was important to Mueller was that he “correct the record” to make sure the public did not think Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress. Mueller didn’t actually correct the record by explaining what Trump did do, but simply said that the Buzzfeed story was inaccurate so that the public would have the impression that Trump’s actions with Cohen were all upright and proper.
Meanwhile, when it came to William Barr completely misleading the public about what the Mueller report said, Mueller was happy to remain silent and let Barr’s false statements mislead the public into believing that Trump was totally exonerated.
Now the fact the Mueller bent over backward to attack Buzzfeed and then bent over backward to allow William Barr’s lies to stand unanswered was all to convince Fox News viewers that he was “fair and balanced”.
Of course, Fox News viewers will never believe Mueller is fair and balanced unless Mueller announces that Trump is the most honest President in history. Fox News viewers will never believe Mueller is fair and balanced unless Mueller locks up HRC and every single Democrat who ever criticized Trump and charges them with high treason.
But Mueller will still worry about looking “biased” to people who believe that facts are “biased” if they show Trump doing anything wrong.
And so will the NY Times.
It doesn’t matter whether always putting their finger on the scale for Trump and against Democrats makes Fox News like them. They do it anyway so when they are criticized they can say “look how we attacked Democrats” and feel really pleased with themselves.
What does it say about the NYTimes that they hired David Brooks five months after he wrote in the Weekly Standard that the Iraq war was over – one month after the invasion.
The NYTImes hired hack climate change denier Bret Stephens who said that belief in climate change is mass hysteria. When asked about
Black Lives Matter, Stephens said it has some “thuggish” elements about it.
THESE are the people the NYTImes hires to explain the world to their readers.
The Kentucky Catholic boys high school student at the pro-birth rally in DC who is seen in a video blocking the path of a Native American wears the same smirk that David Brooks does.
Fred–You are absolutely correct about the Dems undermining Bernie.
They also literally silenced his supporters at the 2016 Dem Convention (did not allow Nina Turner to speak, turned down sound/covered up Bernie signs/overshadowed Bernie delegates {I know this for a fact because I know & have spoken w/numerous delegates} & other such sabotage). Remember, the odious & aggressive chair DWS was replaced by Donna Brazile (who now–well,well!–wrote a tell-all, now is persona non grata, & works for—FOX News!!!)
Read more about this in my above comment.
Also, I recommend that people read Code Red: Computerized Election Theft & the New American Century–Election 2016 Edition by Jonathan Simon (not specifically about the 2016 Dem Primaries, but about many elections; a specific portion about the 2016 elections can be found on pages 256-257).
Yes, Virginia (& ILL-Annoy & NY& OHIO & GA….), U.S.election fraud
(outside of foreign influence/hacking) does, indeed, exist, & is, in fact, rampant.
Yes, it’s not just the Democratic leaders that are the problem. It’s a large number of the rank and file who believe anything and everything the “leaders” tell them. They behave like a pack of rabbid dogs toward anyone who does not toe the party line.
These people love to point out how dumb Republicans are, but there is no need to look outward to see dummies. All they need to do is look in the mirror.
The core problem is tribalism.
I have become convinced that the sort of tribalism exhibited by the major parties is eventually going to lead to the end of the human species.
Tribalism was originally selected for (innthe Darwinian sense)because it lent a survival advantage to individual groups back in the days when the number of humans was small and when the impact of tribal warfare was minimal. At worst, one small tribe might get wiped out, but it made no difference to the species as a whole.
But today, tribalism is effectively the curse of the human race.
Any advantage that it once lent is greatly outweighed by the obvious disadvantages. Not least of these is that the nation tribes have nuclear weapons pointed at each other.
I don’t recall hearing more on this but it proves that the Saudi’s manipulated Trump and treated him like royalty. He falls for this every time. Selling munitions to the Saudi’s is a really bad idea. They use American made bombs and artillery to kill innocent people.
…………………………….
Trump’s administration reportedly looked for ways to help Saudi Arabia build a nuclear weapon
Feb. 19, 2019
President Donald Trump’s administration has participated in several secretive and highly suspicious activities that suggest the US is now clearing a path for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to build a nuclear bomb.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a report on Tuesday with whistleblowers saying Trump administration officials tried to transfer sensitive nuclear secrets to one of the world’s last true monarchies.
“The Trump Administration’s interactions with Saudi Arabia have been shrouded in secrecy, raising significant questions about the nature of the relationship,” the report said, citing Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s close relationship with the Saudi royal family and Trump’s response to the killing of the Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi…
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-officials-sought-to-help-saudi-arabia-build-nuclear-weapons-2019-2?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop
Don the Con lacks any real moral position on anything, but the one that he has adopted can be summed up in this single word–tribalism. My read: Putin has decided that the way to undermine the Western alliance is to encourage tribalism in the United States and Europe–to set the members of the NATO alliance against themselves.
The party has learned nothing. Bernie is the best candidate and the establishment dems are in horror. In the end Trump could win again if the democrats substitute Biden for Hillary and people like me do not fall in line. There is nothing radical about any of Bernie’s proposals.
“The party” that you speak of includes poor, working class, middle class and affluent voters who are African-American, Latinx, Muslim, Jewish, Asian-American, White, Christian, etc. etc. etc.
They live in the north, south, east, west, midwest, etc. etc. etc.
Some of those voters will love Bernie and some will love Sen. Warren more. Some of those voters will love Biden and some will love Kamala Harris more. etc. etc. etc.
You either believe in democracy or you decide that it is worth throwing away democracy to prove a point because you are mad that the majority of Democratic voters all over the country, of all races, religions and socio-economic backgrounds did not vote for the candidate you wanted and so you’d rather have Trump.
No one can tell you what to do if the majority of those voters decide to vote for someone other than the candidate you prefer. But the choice to allow Trump to win is yours and yours alone.
Since we don’t know which candidate will ultimately win the primary, I say this now because there is a fairly good chance a progressive candidate will win and more conservative voters who wanted Biden will face this choice.
But whether it is Biden voters or Bernie voters who prefer to throw a temper tantrum instead of voting for the candidate that is democratically elected via the primary system that is not designed to make it easier for one candidate or another to win.
It would be nice if we all agree that the primary system is a fair one before we know who will win the nomination. It is the people who insist that the system is fair only when their candidate wins and the system is corrupt only if their candidate loses who are the real hypocrites.
I noticed that Bernie won quite a few states in 2016 and HRC won quite a few states. I’m sure the most hypocritical supporters of each candidate will claim that the primaries in the states their candidate won were legitimate and the primaries in the states their candidate lost were corrupt. When the truth is that sometimes voters prefer a different candidate.
Anyone who doesn’t vote for the Democratic candidate is voting to add 3 more far right Supreme Court justices to the bench. That’s their decision and their decision alone and it is a cop out to blame anyone else when they got exactly what they knew they were voting for.
Amen. Given who Trump is, we should gleefully support Mitt Romney were he the Democratic candidate!
Ponderosa: George W, whom I thought was the dumbest American president ever, is starting to look mostly sane compared to Trump.
I bought a desk calendar that had the daily quotes from W. It’s even worse to see the daily Tweets from the Orange ‘oranges’ moron.
Ponderosa, I lived in Massachusetts when Romney was Governor. He was a conciliator. He was constantly looking for a third way that would unite the left and right. Obamacare, ofc, was Romneycare before it was Obamacare. And, ofc, he is a genius in comparison to IQ45, but who isn’t.
NYC-
You think there were people in states where the majority voted for Bernie who believe the state’s Democratic Party rigged the system for him?
I didn’t see any reporting on that.
“There is nothing radical about any of Bernie’s proposals.” Yep. In many of the countries of Europe, he would be considered a moderate.
Mueller’s Statement Puts Pressure on House Democrats to Begin Impeachment
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich’s Facebook Page
29 May 19
In an astounding and unexpected news conference at the Justice Department this morning, Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, came as close as ever to calling on Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. He said:
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
He noted that while Justice Department policy prohibits charging a sitting president with a crime, the Constitution provides for another process — a clear reference to the ability of Congress to impeach.
He stressed that Russia’s systematic effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential election “deserves the attention of every American.”
He said he would not testify before Congress because his report was “his testimony.”
Mueller’s statement puts increasing pressure on House Democrats (the Republicans are Trump zombies) to begin an impeachment inquiry. I believe they must. What do you think?
Here is the spew from the WH. “President Trump has stood up to Russia since day one.”
“From day one, President Trump has taken action to defend America from Russian meddling.”
…………………………………………………………………
1600 Daily
The White House • May 29, 2019
Press Secretary Sarah Sanders responds to the end of the Special Counsel investigation
This morning, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced the completion of his investigation with a short, prepared address from the Department of Justice headquarters.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders issued the following statement:
“The Special Counsel has completed the investigation, closed his office, and has closed the case. Mr. Mueller explicitly said that he has nothing to add beyond the report, and therefore, does not plan to testify before Congress. The report was clear—there was no collusion, no conspiracy—and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. Special Counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report. After two years, the Special Counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same.”
After a two-year, $35 million investigation that involved 500 witnesses, 500 search warrants, and 2,800 subpoenas, the Special Counsel’s office found no evidence that President Donald J. Trump, any member of his campaign team, or indeed any American citizen conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.
It’s time to move forward. Mueller announced that he will step down from his role at the Department of Justice now that his investigation is complete, and he concluded today’s remarks by calling on Americans to unite against a real threat: “multiple, systematic efforts” by a foreign government to interfere with our country.
“That allegation deserves the attention of every American,” he said.
From day one, President Trump has taken action to defend America from Russian meddling. The Trump Administration has maintained the closure of 2 Russian compounds—and the expulsion of 35 diplomats—in response to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Last April, the Administration also imposed sanctions against 7 Russian oligarchs, 12 companies they own or control, and 17 senior Russian officials to ensure the oligarchs who profit from Russia’s destabilizing activities face consequences.
“We have been far tougher on Russia than anybody—anybody,” the President says.
President Trump knows that a strong, united, and energy-independent America is the last thing Russia wants to see. An internally divided, dysfunctional Washington, on the other hand, would give Moscow the victory it craves. Which path will Congress choose?
President Trump has stood up to Russia since day one.
Vice President Pence: It’s time for Democrats to focus on the American people.
If you want a great laugh, watch the Netflix special: Wanda Sykes, “Not Normal.” Nobody does the Tangerine Tyrant like Wanda.
For the “New York Times” claiming that Bernie is the one who “touched a nerve” with the Democratic Party by opposing robbing public schools to pay for corporate executives, I have two words: teachers strikes. It’s not Bernie, it’s us. Red. 4. Ed.
“Mr. Sanders’s activities during his mayoralty bring into relief the fervently anti-imperialist worldview that continues to guide him.”
Which is the very thing that makes him electable to me.
Btw, just the way the quoted sentence is formulated boils my blood. Why not just say “Mr Sanders has been an anti-imperialist all his life.” Nah, we cannot just say that, since that would sound like a direct accusation of Mr Sanders with the highest crime of all: being an antiimperialist. Such direct accusation may not be suitable for sensitive ears like women’s and children’s.
Máté Wierdl: “Such direct accusation may not be suitable for sensitive ears like women’s and children’s.”
It certainly doesn’t bother my sensitive ears. [After all the nonsense/garbage/lies that are thrown around, maybe I’m no longer sensitive.]
I don’t get it. I thought it was good to be an anti-imperialist.
“Mr. Sanders’s activities during his mayoralty bring into relief the fervently anti-imperialist worldview that continues to guide him.”
His “mayoralty?” I have trouble even saying that out loud.
Who talks like that, anyway?
I must admit that I have never met anyone who does.
But that must be because I have always hung out with the uncultured dregs (aka, the scientists and engineers)
“I must admit that I have never met anyone who does.”
I guess you haven’t lived in the South?
I lived in Florida for a year, but that was in 4th grade and I doubt I would have remembered Mayoralty, even if I had heard someone say the word.
I have spent some brief stints in Florida since, but again no mayoralty hearings.
So maybe it’s some places other than Florida where it is used?
Ah, no, I am not saying mayorality is used often or that it’s a real word at all. But politicians do have these kinds of words coming out of their mouths down here.
All the News that’s Fit to Print
Sanders Mayoralty
Started it all
Anti Imperialty
Start of his fall
Mayoral meetings
Socialist meanings
Fervently guided
With Commies united
Anti-American
Stance thru it all
SDP,
Thanks for your zeal
the truth to reveal:
More and more do learn
The Times fears the Bern
Fitting the news
Intended to spurn
“Such direct accusation may not be suitable for sensitive ears like women’s and children’s.” What a delicious bit of satire, there, Mate!!!
It seems to me that Mueller stated the WHOLE problem when he said, “if his team “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” How can that be twisted to support the GOP’s ‘move on from the investigations because the case is closed”? Even Trump’s lawyers did not want Trump to testify because they were afraid that he would incriminate himself.
What is wrong with this country to blindly accept this?
…………………………
As Pelosi noted, the vast majority of House Democrats are not in favor of impeachment, saying that only 35 or 38 are at the moment, meaning that many more will need to come forward and that public sentiment will need to swing decidedly to their side, something Pelosi preaches over and over no matter the issue.
According to The Hill’s whip list, 40 House Democrats support opening an impeachment inquiry….
Mueller’s surprise nine-minute address gave fuel to the Democratic arguments toward impeachment proceedings after he said that if his team “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” The comment, along with Mueller saying that he could not bring charges against the president due to guidance from the Department of Justice, set off a firestorm, primarily from 2020 Democrats, some of whom had already called for the president’s impeachment, and led to new calls from those who had previously steered clear of pressing for an inquiry.
Most notably, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) called for Trump’s impeachment, while others, including South Bend Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) and former Vice President Joe Biden (D), opened the door to potentially backing impeachment proceedings. Others used the opportunity to double down on their previous impeachment calls, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas).
In total, 10 notable 2020 presidential candidates endorsed impeachment proceedings against Trump within a few hours of Mueller’s remarks (The New York Times).
As for Republicans, they became even more entrenched in their support for Trump after Mueller’s comments. The common refrain, led by the White House, was to endorse his preference not to testify before Congress and move on from the investigations, adding that the “case is closed.”
If Mueller’s investigation found the evidence, he had the opportunity to report that it warranted indictment. Instead, Mueller maximized every opportunity to avoid decision responsibility (unless it was to exonerate). And in so doing, he weakened potential impeachment proceedings.
The public is forced to reconcile Mueller’s double negative with no indictments of Trump Jr,. Erik Prince, etc. Did Mueller preemptively deny a grand jury a role in indictment?
It was Mueller’s choice to use two years and millions of tax dollars to position Congress with the task of doing its own investigation and to deny them the opinion of the special counsel.
Mueller can’t even bring himself to utter the word for the alternative process, “impeachment”. Mueller, who was assigned as special counsel in the Justice Department went as far as to say, he didn’t have the right to suggest possible guilt unless it was proven citing that citizens are innocent until proven guilty. Either the special counsel process failed the United States or Mueller’s interpretation of it, did.
Mueller put at risk the faith of the American people in another of its institutions. And, Pelosi’s direction going forward won’t alter that.
You are absolutely correct.
Mueller is a Republican coward whose actions are tempered by his strong need to “prove” to the Fox News viewing far right Americans that he is “fair and balanced”.
Mueller demonstrated that he believes his duty is ultimately only to himself. As a mainstream Republican all his life, Mueller would rather do things to make Fox News people like him than do the right thing because doing the right thing would cause them to shout that he is biased. Mueller put himself before his country.
Gail Collins described Bob Mueller best when she showed by example the type of person Mueller demonstrated he was at yesterday’s press conference:
“Bobby, did Sylvia pull the class bunny’s tail while I was out of the room?”
“Teacher, if I had confidence that Sylvia clearly did not commit any infraction of the bunny rules, I would have said so.”
At that point, one would hope said teacher would write a letter to Bobby’s mom, expressing concern that the kid might grow up to be a self-protective weenie.”
Mueller is a self-protective weenie. He would prefer to throw American under a bus than stand up for the truth but doesn’t have Trump’s ability to blatantly lie to hide the truth, so he offers his disingenuous press conference in which he hopes people will overlook his self-protective weenie-ness.
Not one long-term DC Republican has opposed Trump’s functioning as United States President. Why did anyone think Mueller would be different?
For a time, I was thinking, “What the heck does Trump have on Pelosi?” But here’s what I suspect she’s thinking: Trump, having been Trump, is easily defeatable in 2020. Another Republican candidate might be a lot stronger. She is probably right about that. And given that she probably is, the Republicans should, for their own good, be screaming for impeachment in order to clear a path for their savior.
Impeachment is off the table”
Table should be
Clear and clean
Donald would be
Really mean
Keep impeachment
Off my desk!
Cuz besmirchment
Is a mess
Catastrophic flooding in the Midwest due to the global warming that IQ45 denies has delayed dramatically the planting of soybean and corn crops. Planted late, those crops are likely to may up in the sun. It’s going to be a bad, bad year for farmers, many of whom voted for this oh-so-stable genius. This is happening at the same time that farmers are being hit hard by Trump’s stupid tariffs. And now Trump has just announced that he is placing increased tariffs on ALL goods coming from Mexico, tariffs that American will pay.
Why did Putin pay to get Donald elected? Perhaps it was to destroy the environment and economy of the United States and to undermine all our alliances. At any rate, Vlad is getting quite the return on his investment in Agent Orange.
And, ofc, IQ45 continues to say that China is paying for the tariffs we’ve placed on Chinese goods. I guess that if you are the conman son of a multimillionaire with a buddy in the Registrar’s office, you can skip the Econ classes at Wharton.
Bob Shepherd: The orange pea brain still knows everything. Mexico will pay for the tariffs just like China is paying for theirs. He obviously doesn’t learn. No wonder Trump made sure nobody could get hold of his transcripts. This was a huge embarrassment that he had to hide. If his grades had been any good, he’d have flaunted them.
…………………….
The late Professor William T. Kelley, who taught marketing at Wharton for 31 years and had Trump in his classroom, said, “Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had,” in a conversation with his close friend Frank DiPrima.
Kelley made the comment while Trump was already a public figure, but had not yet ventured into politics.
The professor “often referred to Trump’s arrogance when he told of this—that Trump came to Wharton thinking he already knew everything.”
yup. The man is an embarrassment to his country.
The more I see of him, the more I think that he is quite literally insane.
cx: burn up in the sun, ofc
This is just sick! What is to be expected from the yellow-haired, orange-faced pea brain? McCain had the courage to keep ACA from being dropped and saving millions from loosing their health insurance. He stood up to Trump when most of the GOP are spineless.
……………………………………..
AP sources: White House wanted USS McCain moved for Trump
May 29, 2019
The White House wanted the U.S. Navy to keep a warship named for the late Sen. John McCain out of President Donald Trump’s view during his trip to Japan, three U.S. officials said Wednesday.
As first reported by The Wall Street Journal, a U.S. Indo-Pacific Command official wrote an email to Navy and Air Force officials about Trump’s arrival in Japan over Memorial Day weekend. It included instructions for the proper landing areas for helicopters and preparations for the USS Wasp, the ship on which the president was to speak.
The official then issued a third instruction: “USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” according to the email, which was obtained by the Journal and whose existence was confirmed to The Associated Press.
The three U.S. officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private email correspondence…
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/report-wh-wanted-uss-john-mccain-moved-for-trump-japan-trip
McCain’s ACA vote was payback. He didn’t encourage his fellow Republicans to vote with him.
And you know that McCain didn’t speak to any other Republicans about his feelings on the ACA how? I don’t remember this contention being reported.
Sarah Palin, a maverick like John, could share her knowledge about the subject. McCain selected her to be one breath away from the Presidency.
Linda: McCain regretted his picking of Sarah Palin. “Guns, babies and Jesus’ is what she stood for. Glad she didn’t go very far.
McCain also said he regretted telling South Carolinians that his platform allowed them to keep their confederate flag. His regret came after he stopped his campaign to win South Carolina’s vote.
Up until his death, McCain chose to be among the people in the party of Trump (the GOP), which shows us the measure of the man.
McCain Remains
McCain remains
Are six feet down
But also reigns
Above the ground
Remains on ocean
Remains on ship
Remain’s a notion
That won’t quit
“notion” – exactly.
Bernie is the oligarch’s worst nightmare.
Feel the Bern!
Got to the NYT too late to comment there on this. I found it highly annoying that the opinion article claimed there are only 15% “for-profit” charters in the US. And of course some dunderhead kept repeating the claim throughout the thread & nobody gave context to counter this misleading bit of non-info. One poster from CA bragged that their schools don’t allow “for profits”– that will only be true after 7/1/19 when their new law disallowing charters that sub ops to for-profit charter-mgts takes effect.
The for profits in CA will do a workaround
The for profit charters will almost certainly use the pattern of “nonprofits” like College Board, which pays it’s execs lavishly and holds money in offshore tax havens to make it look like they are not making any “profits.”
The claim by California officials that they are going to go after the for profit charters is simply a ruse to make people believe something is being done about them.
These people are so uncreative that they can’t even think of an original way to scam the public.
Speaking of uncreative (never you, SomeDAM!) : Biden cheats off Bernie’s paper:
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1133789734944137216?s=20
Last time Biden was accosted for plagiarizing (during his brief 1988 campaign), be explained it away by saying
“My intent was not to deceive anyone. For if it were, I would not have been so blatant.”
Fortunately, he can use the same excuse this time.
Just Biden his time.
Christine,
I looked at that link and that criticism was unwarranted.
Frankly, that was my LEAST favorite part of Bernie’s education proposal because that line was right out of the education reformer’s PR handbook.
In fact, right on the DFER website it says: “so that all students, no matter their race, socioeconomic status, or zip-code receive a high-quality education be it in a traditional district-run public school or public charter school.”
I see that phrase in every ed reformer’s speech.
It isn’t one politician plagiarizing another. It is both politicians spouting the DFER language that justifies “choice” — i.e. private charters. I’m giving Bernie the benefit of the doubt that it was unintentional, but I wish he hadn’t used that same tired trope the leaders of DFER use in all their speeches.
I support Bernie and not Biden, by the way. But David Sirota’s post was concerning to me and I hope he starts being more classy himself. That tweet made Sirota look really bad, not Biden.
SDP, for-profit charters were already disallowed in CA, I think since ‘90’s, so there are probably already bunches of convoluted schemes passing cuts of the public per-pupil allotment around to various parties under a guise other than profit. Like that thing where one CA district gets a cut by authorizing charters in a far-away district… At least those are pubsch districts, so presumably how that cut is spent is public info. [District X transparently rips off District Y, swell.] Or the nutty multi-level deals in NJ enabling charters to fund their facilities [Peter pays Paul who pays Tom; Dick & Harry reimburse & NJ taxpayers cover the losses]—which took yrs to untangle & only recently exposé’d.
But so many charters authorized by non-profits have gotten by w/subbing ops to for-profit charter-mgt cos, which is quite explicitly ruled out by the CA law passed last September. Those charter-mgt corps surely won’t go away—they’ll have to re-brand & devise new accounting measures.
Bethree
Actually, for profit charters were JUSt disallowed in CA a few months ago under a bill signed by outgoing governor Jerry Brown.
So the scenario I suggested is actually very plausible.
I guess I missed some of the nuance of what it means to be for profit charter in CA.
But it appears to be a distinction without a difference.
In September 7, 2018, Governor Brown signed AB-406, which prohibits charters from operating as, or be operated by, “a for-profit corporation, a for-profit educational management organization, or a for-profit charter management organization.” Not only did Jerry Brown and CCSA support the signing; they now publicly “celebrated” the same ban that they very recently opposed.
https://progressive.org/public-school-shakedown/california-just-banned-for-profit-charters-180927/
Diane, what a great post. Thank you!
We no longer have papers of record in this country, only Corporatist fishwrap filled with reich wing screeds. Thanks for pointing out that the NYT (“All the news that fits (our Masters’ agendas)”) is no different.
agreed
Good article. Carol
Robert De Niro: Robert Mueller, We Need to Hear More
May 29, 2019
You said that your investigation’s work “speaks for itself.” It doesn’t.
…There’s a lot of speculation about the president being tone-deaf to facts, but there’s not much disagreement about the tone. Whether you take delight in it as his loyal supporters do or you’re the unfortunate target of his angry rhetoric, the hostile way he expresses himself registers with everyone. Nor is there much credible disagreement that the president treats lies, exaggerations and bullying as everyday weapons in his communication toolbox. These onslaughts of rhetoric aimed at his opposition mostly leave his antagonists sputtering in response, but I don’t think an in-kind response will be very effective either.
Say what you will about the president — and I have — when it comes to that lying, exaggerating, bullying thing, no one can touch him. He has set up a world where it seems as if those disapproving of him can effectively challenge him only by becoming just like him. He’s bringing down the level of the entire playing field.
And here, Mr. Mueller, is where you come in — where you need to come in. In your news conference, you said that your investigation’s work “speaks for itself.” It doesn’t. It may speak for itself to lawyers and lawmakers who have the patience and obligation to read through the more than 400 pages of carefully chosen words and nuanced conclusions (with all due respect, as good a read as it is, you’re no Stephen King).
You’ve characterized the report as your testimony, but you wouldn’t accept that reason from anyone your office interviewed. Additional information and illumination emerge from responses to questions…
THIS is EXACTLY the message I hate! They are saying just let the DNC choose our Neoliberal candidate! “Anyone but Trump” is nothing more than Neoliberal propaganda and MSM manufacturing consent behind the corporate Dem Party! The sheep who parrot this mantra are nothing more than brainwashed sheep!
It’s called “Preemptive Surrender”.https://medium.com/@kathycopelandpadden/preemptive-surrender-i-love-bernie-but-ill-vote-for-the-eventual-democratic-nominee-no-matter-d46fc0a63711?fbclid=IwAR3td-7W9E6nAublApmIJyJ0lRGSr6aA2cdSbE_zSpVNZnIl-_z83LRRrd0
No one is “surrendering” and only far right wing propaganda mavens would accuse anyone who strongly supports one candidate who ends up not winning the nomination and then votes for whoever the nominee is as “surrendering”. There will be a fair primary just like there was in 2016 when Bernie won some states and HRC won more.
We don’t know who will win the most states with the most delegates in the 2020 primary yet. We don’t know who the nominee will be who runs agains the right wing racist, offensive, woman-hating, immigrant-hating Trump. But we do know that right wing Trump supporters are desperate to convince people not to vote for whoever the nominee is.
We aren’t falling for it this time. If you personally plan not to support whoever the nominee is, you are helping the far right racist agenda. No one can decide but you whether to help elect Trump, but those who don’t vote for the eventual winner of the Democratic primary –whether it is Bernie, Warren, or Biden or another candidate — are making the choice to allow Trump to do whatever he wants. They alone are responsible for their vote.
That right wing propaganda worked once. I hope it doesn’t work again although I know people will certainly claim that if Biden wins, then no progressive should vote for him, or if Bernie wins then no one except far left Commies should vote for him or if Elizabeth Warren wins then no one except those that want a corrupt lying woman should vote for her.
But anyone who posts that is a far right winger who wants Trump to win so his racist and fascist views can corrupt this nation.
Thank you for taking NYT to task for publishing these pieces.
I am losing faith in our media, especially
the print media. I expect so much more of them.
This is an exact repeat of this shameful journalism that rose up leading to the 2016 so-called election.
Who do we trust now?
The Big Ignorant Bully is threatening Mexico. How high will the price of avocados and other products from Mexico cost? Amnesty is an international law and a domestic one.
…………………………………………………………….
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied,..
25.1K
6:30 PM – May 30, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
14K people are talking about this
In a presidential statement that followed Mr. Trump’s tweet, he said that tariffs would be raised to 10 percent on July 1 “if the crisis persists,” and then by another 5 percent each month for three months.
This is a humanitarian crisis. Trump has no ability to feel compassion and this is the result. People die while trying to cross and Customs and Border Patrol agents are destroying water and food caches that are found in the desert.
I feel SO helpless in the face of man’s inhumanity to those who are suffering.
……………………………………….
Saving Migrant Lives Could Land This Man in Jail
MAY 30, 2019
By Amy Goodman & Denis Moynihan
“Every life is sacred, and every soul is a precious gift from heaven.” So said President Donald J. Trump at the National Prayer Breakfast last Feb. 7. Trump’s Christian posturing would be laughable if his policies weren’t so cruel and often deadly. Take, for example, asylum-seekers crossing our southern border. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing violence in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico. Increasingly militarized and violent enforcement of border security has driven desperate migrants further from official ports of entry, forcing many to embark on dangerous treks through the scorching deserts of the American Southwest. Scott Warren, a geographer and educator who volunteers with the humanitarian aid groups No More Deaths and Ajo Samaritans, is on trial now in federal court in Tucson, Arizona. If convicted, he could spend 20 years in prison for giving migrants in need, according to his indictment, “food, water, beds and clean clothes.”
Before heading to his first day in court Wednesday, Warren appeared on the “Democracy Now!” news hour: “Many have died while making the journey. For decades, activists in the region have left food and water in the desert to help lessen the death toll. Increasingly, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents destroy water and food caches that they find in the desert.”…
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/30/saving_migrant_lives_could_land_this
This is a sick society. People who need help vote against their own best interests and then complain when help doesn’t come.
………..
The Centers for Disease Control recorded 47,173 suicides in 2017, and there were an estimated 1.4 million total attempts. Many of society’s plagues strike heavier at women and minorities, but suicide in America is dominated by white men, who account for 70 percent of all cases. Middle-aged men walk the point. Men in the United States average 22 suicides per 100,000 people, with those ages 45 to 64 representing the fastest-growing group, up from 20.8 per 100,000 in 1999 to 30.1 in 2017. The states with the highest rates are Montana, with 28.9 per 100,000 people; Alaska, at 27 per 100,000; and Wyoming, at 26.9 per 100,000 — all roughly double the national rate. New Mexico, Idaho and Utah round out the top six states. All but Alaska fall in the Mountain time zone.
Teen suicides correlate with high stakes testing.
If those who commit suicide get high test scores, economists would undoubtedly conclude from the correlation that suicides are the cause of the high scores and that we therefore need policies that increase the number of suicides
There’s probably a fax “Nobel” for the first person to describe how this all works.
Raj Chetty should get right on it.
I would be interested to know how those middle aged men were making their livings. I suspect that the inability to support themselves and their families plays a role in those stats given that those states are heavily rural. I read an article recently about the growing suicide rate among small family farmers.
This is how Trump’s buddy Kim operates. Describing North Korea’s economic potential as “AWESOME,” Trump said it is “a great opportunity, like almost none other in history, for my friend Kim Jong Un.
…………………………………………………….
North Korea Executed and Purged Top Nuclear Negotiators, South Korean Report Says
May 30, 2019
The report comes amid speculation that the North’s leader is changing tack after his summit meeting with President Trump failed to lift punishing sanctions.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea has executed its special envoy to the United States on spying charges, as its leader, Kim Jong-un, has engineered a sweeping purge of the country’s top nuclear negotiators after the breakdown of his second summit meeting with President Trump, a major South Korean daily reported on Friday.
Kim Hyok-chol, the envoy, was executed by firing squad in March at the Mirim airfield in a suburb of Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, Chosun Ilbo, South Korea’s largest daily, reported on Friday, citing an anonymous source. Mr. Kim faced the charge that he was “won over by the American imperialists to betray the supreme leader,” the newspaper said.
Four officials of the North Korean Foreign Ministry were also executed, the South Korean daily reported, without providing any hint of who its source might be or how it obtained the information….
Chosun Ilbo, the South Korean newspaper, reported Friday that Kim Yong-chol, a senior Workers’ Party vice chairman who visited the White House as the main point man for diplomacy with the United States, had also been purged, sentenced to forced labor in a remote northern province.
Also sent to a prison camp was Kim Song-hye, a senior female nuclear negotiator who teamed up with Kim Hyok-chol in working-level negotiations ahead of the Kim-Trump summit, the South Korean newspaper said. North Korea even sent a summit translator to a prison camp for committing a translation mistake, it said…
Looks like Mueller’s mediocre attempt to not say anything riled up the orange pea brain. ………………………….
Trump Accuses Mueller of a Personal Vendetta as Calls for Impeachment Grow
May 30, 2019
President Trump dismissed comments from Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, that the Russia inquiry did not clear the president of wrongdoing. “He’s somebody that dislikes Donald Trump.”
COLORADO SPRINGS — President Trump lashed out angrily at Robert S. Mueller III on Thursday, accusing him of pursuing a personal vendetta as Mr. Trump sought to counter increasing calls among Democrats for his impeachment.
A day after Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, spoke out for the first time and refused to exonerate the president, Mr. Trump dismissed the Mueller investigation as hopelessly tarnished and expressed aggravation that he could not shake allegations of wrongdoing that have dogged him since the early days of his administration.
“I think he is a total conflicted person,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Mueller before flying to Colorado to deliver the commencement address at the Air Force Academy. “I think Mueller is a true Never Trumper. He’s somebody that dislikes Donald Trump. He’s somebody that didn’t get a job that he requested that he wanted very badly, and then he was appointed.”…
Elizabeth Warren has a plan to ensure sitting presidents can be indicted
“If Donald Trump were anyone other than the President … he would be in handcuffs and indicted.”
MELANIE SCHMITZMAY 31, 2019, 10:54 AM
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wants Congress to pass a law making it legal to indict a sitting president, in the wake of the troubling allegations against President Donald Trump outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.
“If Donald Trump were anyone other than the President of the United States right now, he would be in handcuffs and indicted,” the 2020 candidate wrote in a Medium post Friday morning, citing numerous accusations against the president outlined in Mueller’s 400-plus page report, which was made public last month following a two-year investigation.
Current Justice Department (DOJ) policy prevents a sitting president from being charged with a crime, an opinion authored by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
In the wake of Mueller’s investigation, which found at least 10 instances in which Trump may have committed obstruction of justice, many are questioning whether the rule — which is binding, but not equivalent to Supreme Court rulings, as The Washington Post noted — needs to be re-evaluated…
https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-warren-change-the-law-so-sitting-presidents-can-be-indicted-e4aa16c213cf/
Looks like Fox is spewing its ‘no criminal conspiracy’ lie and the public is swallowing it.
……………..
Poll: Majority oppose Trump impeachment, but most Democrats support it
5/31/2018
A majority of voters oppose impeaching and removing President Trumpbut a strong majority of Democrats are in favor of doing so, according to the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey.
Sixty-eight percent of voters said Democrats in Congress should accept Mueller’s finding that there was no criminal conspiracy and 65 percent said Democrats should accept Attorney General William Barr’s conclusion that the president did not obstruct justice.
Sixty-three percent of voters said the investigations into Trump are hurting the country. Fifty-eight percent of voters said it’s time for Congress to turn the page on the Russia investigations…
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446382-poll-majority-oppose-trump-impeachment-but-most-democrats-support-it
I frequently have this thought: wouldn’t you all love to see “nevertheless, she persisted” Sen. Warren debate IQ45? It would be like a verbal Ali & any top opponent in the boxing ring. Every time she opens/would open her mouth, her braininess comes pouring out (as opposed to the “stabile genius”). She wouldn’t be a Jeb! or a Joe! (As to Biden, I already made my KFC analogy, & I’m stickin’ with it!), & she wouldn’t allow IQ45 to follow her around the stage like a stalker & creep (although I did like the way HRC ignored him–doing that is like ignoring the kid acting out in class {just for the attention} to “extinguish” the bad behavior). Anyway, she’d intellectually rip him to shreds…
Greenpeace Gives Joe Biden a D- on Climate Change Report Card
By Ari Natter, Bloomberg
31 May 19
Joe Biden got a D-minus on a climate change report card ranking Democratic presidential candidates released Thursday by the liberal environmental group Greenpeace.
Biden, the Democratic front runner, has yet to release a detailed plan on how he will combat climate change. But the scorecard evaluated 19 candidates on their commitments to ending the use of fossil fuels and support for environmental policies based on statements, legislative records and published plans. Some candidates also responded to a 29-question survey from the environmental group.
“If he wants to translate his front-runner status in the polls to actual leadership on climate, we need him to come out with a bold, concrete plan in line with the scale of the crisis we’re facing,” said Janet Redman, climate campaign director for Greenpeace USA.
The Biden campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. During a campaign swing in New Hampshire earlier this month, the candidate called for an “environmental revolution,” though he has yet join many of his Democratic campaign opponents in signing onto the Green New Deal.
“We have an existential threat,” he said. “If we don’t act quickly we’re going to basically lose everything we have.”
The report comes as the issue of climate change has emerged as a marquee issue for Democrats on the 2020 campaign trail following the release of New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious plan to fight climate change called “The Green New Deal.” Support for that initiative was part of the Greenpeace score.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee, who is basing his run for president on the need to fight climate change, received the highest score, an A-minus, on the report card. The next highest were Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who each received a B-plus from the group.
Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, who has been supportive of his state’s abundant oil and gas industry, also received a D-minus. The report gave both GOP presidential candidates Bill Weld and President Donald Trump an F.
President Biden will ensure that no child’s future is determined by their zip code, parents’ income, race, or disability.
Invest in our schools to eliminate the funding gap between white and non-white districts, and rich and poor districts. There’s an estimated $23 billion annual funding gap between white and non-white school districts today, and gaps persist between high- and low-income districts as well. Biden will work to close this gap by nearly tripling Title I funding, which goes to schools serving a high number of children from low-income families. This new funding will first be used to ensure teachers at Title I schools are paid competitively, three- and four-year olds have access to pre-school, and districts provide access to rigorous coursework across all their schools, not just a few. Once these conditions are met, districts will have the flexibility to use these funds to meet other local priorities. States without a sufficient and equitable finance system will be required to match a share of federal funds.
Improve teacher diversity. Research shows us the substantial and unique impact that teachers of color have on students of color. For example, for black students, having just one black teacher in elementary school reduces the probability of dropping out. Biden will support more innovative approaches to recruiting teachers of color, including supporting high school students in accessing dual-enrollment classes that give them an edge in teacher preparation programs, helping paraprofessionals work towards their teaching certificate, and working with historically black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions to recruit and prepare teachers.
Build the best, most innovative schools in the country in low-income communities and communities of color. Preparing our students for the workforce increasingly entails not only rigorous academics, but also problem-solving, collaboration, and technical skills. Biden will create a new competitive program challenging local communities to reinvent high school to meet these changing demands of work. This funding will be targeted first toward building the best schools in the country in low-income communities and communities of color.
Reinstate the Obama-Biden Administration’s actions to diversify our schools. As President, Biden will reinstate Department of Education guidance that supported schools in legally pursuing desegregation strategies and recognized institutions of higher education’s interests in creating diverse student bodies. And, he will provide grants to school districts to create plans and implement strategies to diversify their schools.
Make sure children with disabilities have the support to succeed. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, signed into law in 1990, promised to provide 40% of the extra cost of special education required by the bill. Currently, the federal government only covers roughly 14% of this cost, failing to live up to our commitment. The Biden Administration will fully fund this obligation within ten years. We must ensure that children with disabilities get the education and training they need to succeed.
President Biden will provide every middle and high school student a path to a successful career.
Ensure middle and high schools prepare students for good jobs. Students who participate in high-quality career and technical education are more likely to graduate, earn industry credentials, enroll in college, and have higher rates of employment and higher earnings. Like the arts and music, vocational training can often engage students in school, encourage pride for creativity and making, and teach entrepreneurial skills. Yet, American high schools have largely given up on “shop classes” in order to meet measures of accountability. The Biden Administration will invest in school vocational training and partnerships between high schools, community colleges, and employers. These partnerships will create programs that allow students to earn an industry credential upon high school graduation, a credential that readies them for a good-paying career. Career and technical education can also be used to increase access to middle- and high- school courses in computer science so that students learn computational thinking and are prepared to lead in fields such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence.
Create more opportunities for high school students to take practical classes that lead to credentials. Biden will invest in and allow Pell grants to be used for dual enrollment programs, so high school students can take classes at a community college and earn college credits or a credential prior to graduating from high school.
President Biden will start investing in our children at birth.
Provide high-quality, universal pre-kindergarten for all three- and four -year-olds. For families with young children, finding highly quality pre-K is a major financial, logistical, and emotional burden, with potentially life-long consequences for their children. As President, Biden will work with states to offer pre-K for all three- and four-year-olds. This investment will ease the burden on our families, help close the achievement gap, promote the labor participation of parents who want to work, and lift our critical early childhood education workforce out of poverty.
Provide early childhood development support to families where they are most likely to access it – the pediatrician’s office. For many families with young children, the pediatrician’s office is the one place where they interact with service providers before their child enters school. President Biden will provide funds to ensure that there is an early childhood development expert in every community health center. He will also provide grants to help cities place early childhood development experts in other pediatrician offices with a high percentage of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program patients. These experts, as part of the primary care team, will help identify whether children are reaching development milestones, help connect families to additional services like home visiting when needed, and answer parents’ questions regarding child development so every child in the U.S. is placed on the path to succeed once they start kindergarten.
Expand home visiting. Through the Affordable Care Act, President Obama and Vice President Biden funded voluntary home visiting programs, under which health and child development specialists make consistent, scheduled visits to help parents through the critical early stage of parenting. Families may receive coaching on preventive health and prenatal practices, learn how to care for their babies and about important child development milestones and behaviors, receive breastfeeding support, get connected to employment and child care, and receive general support in navigating the often-stressful early stages of parenthood. Home visiting has been found to improve school readiness, maternal, and child health, and reduce child maltreatment. President Biden will double funding for home visiting so more families benefit from this program every year.
Sound good to you? Join our campaign or make a donation to show your support!
Here is more news just put out from the WH. Obviously Trump doesn’t write any of this because there are complete sentences and the spelling is correct. Trump sends a message of ‘strength and leadership”. Horse hockeys.
………………………….
Over 1,000 Illegal Immigrants Apprehended in El Paso Sector, Largest Group Ever at Single Time
-Fox News
“More than 1,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents near the U.S.-Mexico border early Wednesday—the largest ever group of migrants ever apprehended at a single time,” John Roberts and Travis Fedschun report. “The fact is that [the Rio Grande Valley] is receiving caravan-equivalent numbers every seven days,” Sector Chief Patrol Agent Rodolfo Karisch said.
Why Trump’s Tariffs on Mexico are Needed to Cut Illegal Immigration
-Fox News
“President Trump sent a message of strength and leadership Thursday night when he announced he will impose escalating tariffs on Mexico in a bold move to halt the flow of illegal immigrants and protect our national security,” National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd writes. “The congressional inaction we are now witnessing is made worse by Mexico’s refusal to enforce its own immigration laws, which are actually much stronger than our own.”
Democrats Should Forget Impeachment and Turn the Page
-CNN
“It would be divisive for the nation and a boon to our global competitors if Democrats choose to hobble our national agenda with superfluous, partisan impeachment,” Carrie Sheffield writes. “Clearly, Mueller is moving on and it’s time for us to move on as a country, too . . . By a nearly 20-point margin, the American people do not want impeachment, according to polling by the Washington Post and ABC News.”
Petition: Sign to stop local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE
I just signed this petition to stop local law enforcement from doing ICE’s dirty work.
More than 80 law enforcement jurisdictions in 21 states have entered into agreements with ICE that deputize local police and sheriffs to do the agency’s dirty work.
In jurisdictions with these 287(g) agreements, local law enforcement collaborates with ICE to detain and even help deport people who they suspect to be immigrants.
To protect our communities and block Donald Trump’s racist, anti-immigrant agenda, we must put an end to this dangerous program. Our grassroots partners are working with local communities across the country to end 287(g) agreements. We’re working with them to push Congress to end the 287(g) program once and for all by passing the PROTECT Immigration Act.3
Will you add your name now?
In the first 16 months of the Trump administration, local law enforcement helped ICE deport more than 12,000 immigrants through these agreements. Since the program’s inception in 2006, ICE and its police deputies have torn apart countless immigrant families and communities. Now, ICE is rolling out new versions of this racist program, pushing for local governments to join “Warrant Service Officer” programs – a new iteration of 287(g) agreements designed to re-create the days when sheriffs held people on unlawful detainers everywhere.
The PROTECT Immigration Act would eliminate all 287(g) agreements nationwide in one fell-swoop. All agreements expire on June 30. Building national momentum for this important bill is key to highlighting how dangerous 287(g) agreements are and demanding that local communities don’t renew them.
Tell Congress: Stop local law enforcement from doing ICE’s dirty work. Pass the PROTECT Immigration Act.
https://act.credoaction.com/sign/End-287g-2019?sp_ref=494465756.4.196947.e.633524.2&referring_akid=32755.1912996.KLORjD&source=mailto_sp
Video: Making the Trump Baby Balloon
Thousands of protesters are preparing to greet U.S. President Donald Trump on his state visit to the U.K. next week, demonstrating against a range of his policies from immigration to climate change.
The plan is for demonstrators to take over Trafalgar Square in central London, with the main Facebook page logging 7,600 attendees and 33,000 interested people as of Friday morning. Organizers are also trying to raise 30,000 pounds ($38,000) to fly a giant balloon depicting Trump as a small-handed, diaper-clad infant — as they did during his visit last year.
“This is about sending a strong message that people in the U.K. don’t accept the divisive right-wing policies that Trump stands for, and that inviting him for a state visit is totally inappropriate,” the Stop Trump Coalition said in a statement. Another group, Stand Up To Trump, is also organizing the protests.
Last July, Trump told The Sun newspaper that while he used to love London, the balloon and the protests — organizers estimated 250,000 people took to the streets — didn’t make him “feel welcome.”
Trump is likely to be even more exposed to the protests this time. He’ll spend two days in central London, unlike last year when he largely avoided the city.
The White House declined to comment on the planned protests.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2019-05-31/making-the-trump-baby-balloon-video
This is long but there is no URL for the article. I thought that it was something worth reading.
………
After Neoliberalism
By Joseph E. Stiglitz, Project Syndicate
01 June 19
For the past 40 years, the United States and other advanced economies have been pursuing a free-market agenda of low taxes, deregulation, and cuts to social programs. There can no longer be any doubt that this approach has failed spectacularly; the only question is what will – and should – come next.
What kind of economic system is most conducive to human wellbeing? That question has come to define the current era, because, after 40 years of neoliberalism in the United States and other advanced economies, we know what doesn’t work.
The neoliberal experiment – lower taxes on the rich, deregulation of labor and product markets, financialization, and globalization – has been a spectacular failure. Growth is lower than it was in the quarter-century after World War II, and most of it has accrued to the very top of the income scale. After decades of stagnant or even falling incomes for those below them, neoliberalism must be pronounced dead and buried.
Vying to succeed it are at least three major political alternatives: far-right nationalism, center-left reformism, and the progressive left (with the center-right representing the neoliberal failure). And yet, with the exception of the progressive left, these alternatives remain beholden to some form of the ideology that has (or should have) expired.
The center-left, for example, represents neoliberalism with a human face. Its goal is to bring the policies of former US President Bill Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair into the twenty-first century, making only slight revisions to the prevailing modes of financialization and globalization. Meanwhile, the nationalist right disowns globalization, blaming migrants and foreigners for all of today’s problems. Yet as Donald Trump’s presidency has shown, it is no less committed – at least in its American variant – to tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and shrinking or eliminating social programs.
By contrast, the third camp advocates what I call progressive capitalism, which prescribes a radically different economic agenda, based on four priorities. The first is to restore the balance between markets, the state, and civil society. Slow economic growth, rising inequality, financial instability, and environmental degradation are problems born of the market, and thus cannot and will not be overcome by the market on its own. Governments have a duty to limit and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational-safety, and other types of regulation. It is also the government’s job to do what the market cannot or will not do, like actively investing in basic research, technology, education, and the health of its constituents.
The second priority is to recognize that the “wealth of nations” is the result of scientific inquiry – learning about the world around us – and social organization that allows large groups of people to work together for the common good. Markets still have a crucial role to play in facilitating social cooperation, but they serve this purpose only if they are governed by the rule of law and subject to democratic checks. Otherwise, individuals can get rich by exploiting others, extracting wealth through rent-seeking rather than creating wealth through genuine ingenuity. Many of today’s wealthy took the exploitation route to get where they are. They have been well served by Trump’s policies, which have encouraged rent-seeking while destroying the underlying sources of wealth creation. Progressive capitalism seeks to do precisely the opposite.
This brings us to the third priority: addressing the growing problem of concentrated market power. By exploiting information advantages, buying up potential competitors, and creating entry barriers, dominant firms are able to engage in large-scale rent-seeking to the detriment of everyone else. The rise in corporate market power, combined with the decline in workers’ bargaining power, goes a long way toward explaining why inequality is so high and growth so tepid. Unless government takes a more active role than neoliberalism prescribes, these problems will likely become much worse, owing to advances in robotization and artificial intelligence.
The fourth key item on the progressive agenda is to sever the link between economic power and political influence. Economic power and political influence are mutually reinforcing and self-perpetuating, especially where, as in the US, wealthy individuals and corporations may spend without limit in elections. As the US moves ever closer to a fundamentally undemocratic system of “one dollar, one vote,” the system of checks and balances so necessary for democracy likely cannot hold: nothing will be able to constrain the power of the wealthy. This is not just a moral and political problem: economies with less inequality actually perform better. Progressive-capitalist reforms thus have to begin by curtailing the influence of money in politics and reducing wealth inequality.
There is no magic bullet that can reverse the damage done by decades of neoliberalism. But a comprehensive agenda along the lines sketched above absolutely can. Much will depend on whether reformers are as resolute in combating problems like excessive market power and inequality as the private sector is in creating them.
A comprehensive agenda must focus on education, research, and the other true sources of wealth. It must protect the environment and fight climate change with the same vigilance as the Green New Dealers in the US and Extinction Rebellion in the United Kingdom. And it must provide public programs to ensure that no citizen is denied the basic requisites of a decent life. These include economic security, access to work and a living wage, health care and adequate housing, a secure retirement, and a quality education for one’s children.
This agenda is eminently affordable; in fact, we cannot afford not to enact it. The alternatives offered by nationalists and neoliberals would guarantee more stagnation, inequality, environmental degradation, and political acrimony, potentially leading to outcomes we do not even want to imagine.
Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron. Rather, it is the most viable and vibrant alternative to an ideology that has clearly failed. As such, it represents the best chance we have of escaping our current economic and political malaise.
“Growth is lower than it was in the quarter-century after World War II,”
I think the very first thing to reevaluate is the beliefe that everything, especially the economy, must grow. Isn’t the drive to make more useless products, services, buildings quickly, without examining their long term effect and need, the root of our problems?
Who needs those new buildings on college campuses? Do we really need our own big house with that big yard, that Audi 6 that seats 6 people and accelerates to 100 mi/h in 5 seconds? Do we need that latest iphone or laptop with those lighning fast multiple processors? Do we need a Venti size latte? Do we really need that pair of underware delivered to us in two days on Amazon Smile?
I think it’s time to measure progress by long term value instead of speed, size and sales price.
Here’s hoping Trump doesn’t get re-elected and then the economy tanks.
………
US business leaders are worried about a recession popping up by the end of 2020, a new report says. Their main worry: tariffs and the Trump administration’s protectionist trade policy. The report, from the National Association for Business Economics, is based on interviews with 53 economists and is considered a leading barometer of where the business community thinks the economy is headed. The survey’s respondents think the risk of a recession starting this year is low. They put it at only a 15% chance. But the economists peg the chances of a major slowdown starting by the end of 2020 at 60%.
As the great jurist Louis Brandeis once said, “We can have democracy in this country or we can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”
Robert Reich: What is Oligarchy?
Robert Reich
Published on May 28, 2019
Robert Reich explains why American democracy has become a oligarchy.
Why All the Arguments Against Impeachment Are B.S.
By Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept
The Intercept
Published on May 31, 2019
It’ll divide the country, energize Trump’s base — and anyway, he’ll never be convicted in the Senate! Mehdi Hasan rebuts the arguments against impeachment.
Could his base be more energized?
Trump is a national security risk. He is inviting foreign powers to interfere in US elections…but only to get him elected. The GOP is silent on the issue.
………………………………………..
The President, in an Oval Office interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, said he would listen to a foreign government if it came to him with dirt on a political opponent. “I think you might want to listen,” Trump said. “There isn’t anything wrong with listening.” Remember, the President has consistently downplayed Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 contest and cast doubts on US intelligence agencies’ assessments of it. Trump’s statement also is at odds with FBI Director Christopher Wray’s comment during his confirmation hearings that politicians and their operatives should report to the FBI attempts by foreign governments to interfere in US elections. Trump told ABC, “The FBI director is wrong.”
US Sen. Kamala Harris calling Trump “a national security threat.” CNN’s Stephen Collinson said Trump’s words risk the integrity of the 2020 vote and could even open up the election to interference from foreign spies.
Feel the Bern.
…………………………….
In a speech at George Washington University on Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders laid out his vision of a democratic socialist society and made the case for why an ambitious agenda centered on economic rights for all is the only way to confront America’s deep inequities and defeat far-right authoritarianism.
“We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights,” said Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. “And that is what I mean by democratic socialism.”
Decrying an economic system that has left millions of families one accident or sickness away from complete “devastation” while billionaires thrive, Sanders said the Democratic Party must “take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry it to completion” by guaranteeing healthcare, education, housing, and a clean environment to all as a right.
Bernie Sanders
✔
@BernieSanders
In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able to fulfill that vision. Our job, 75 years later, is to complete what Roosevelt started.
That is why today, I am proposing a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights. #DemocraticSocialism.
5,550
1:46 PM – Jun 12, 2019
2,380 people are talking about this
I LOVE it. One booth has a head of Trump and visitors are given a hammer to hit him ‘over the head’. The only thing that would make this better is for the head to be wearing a long red tie.
…………………………………….
Video: Trump-bashing gets real in China…news from Hong Kong
China’s tech industry is under pressure in the US-China tech war, so someone came up with a stress reliever. Let’s just say it’s Trump-themed.
https://inks.tn/tjf?utm_source=email&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=share_button
I almost cry too when I see him. So much corruption and so many lies is hard to take.
…………………………………………….
Video: All the people who Trump says cry around him
Apparently, scores of “big, strong” men keep crying in front of President Trump.
“And I signed that, and behind me I had homebuilders and farmers mostly, and ranchers. And many of them never cried in their life, including when they born, and they were crying. Yeah,” Trump said. “It’s true, though. They were crying behind me. You know that. You know that, Pete. They were crying because we gave them back their land. We took it away. It was like eminent domain. It was terrible. We gave it back.”
President Trump, June 11, 2019
https://wapo.st/2tkYeys
Feel the Bern!
……………………………………………
RollingStone : Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
The Vermont Senator’s campaign is still trying to find its rhythm — but its message is clear
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
…Sanders then explains that the only kind of candidacy that could succeed now would be one like his own. “It won’t work,” he says, “unless you have the courage to take on the very powerful special interests that are entrenched and wield so much influence. If you want to fix the climate change problem, you can’t do it unless you frontally confront the fossil fuel industry. You want to rebuild the infrastructure? You have to take on the 1-percent, get them to pay their share.
“I believe from the bottom of my heart my approach is the only way,” Sanders says. “The middle of the road approach isn’t going to cut it.”
I asked him if he’s settled into a psychological strategy for dealing with the media negativity, which seems relentless. Specifically, did he ever think about taking the Trump approach, and embracing the negative media, turning it to his advantage?
He laughs, but only a little.
“It’s hard,” he says. “My views on the press are nothing like Trump’s. I don’t believe that the media is the enemy of the people. ‘They’re not terrible people, it’s not fake news — there are a lot of great reports in the New York Times, we use their work every day here on the campaign.
“But,” he says, “at the end of the day, the media work for huge multinational corporations. And as you know — you’re one of the few who does know — anyone with my agenda is going to attract a lot of opposition. I mean, last time, I think in a day or two, we had 16 different negative stories in the same paper [the Washington Post].
“As for finding a new way to handle it, psychologically, I think we’re getting there. I think we’re figuring that out.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism-elizabeth-warren-election-2020-848074/ – Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
Warren and Sanders have nearly identical critiques of how screwed up American capitalism has become in the global economy age. The main difference is that while Warren seems to want to fix the problem by re-invigorating those original political rights, Sanders wants to take what he calls the “next step” into guaranteeing economic security.
“I reached the conclusion that I’m the strongest candidate to beat Donald Trump, but that wasn’t all. I wouldn’t just have to beat Trump — the goal would be to create a movement to fundamentally transform the country, so the future wouldn’t be threatened by later Trumps, either.”
Sanders then explains that the only kind of candidacy that could succeed now would be one like his own. “It won’t work,” he says, “unless you have the courage to take on the very powerful special interests that are entrenched and wield so much influence. If you want to fix the climate change problem, you can’t do it unless you frontally confront the fossil fuel industry. You want to rebuild the infrastructure? You have to take on the 1-percent, get them to pay their share.
Welcome to Trump’s Corrupt State – the Mos Eisley cantina of world politics | Robert Reich
The administration and the Republican party are nests of lobbyists and con artists who make Greedo look like a saint
…Not since the sordid administration of Warren G Harding have as many grifters, crooks and cronies occupied high positions in Washington.
Trump has installed a Star Wars cantina of former lobbyists and con artists, including several whose exploits have already forced them to resign, such as Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price and Michael Flynn. Many others remain.
When he was in Congress, the current White House acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, pocketed tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from payday lenders, then proposed loosening regulations on them. Mulvaney was also acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, of all things.
When he was Trump’s special adviser on regulatory reform, the Wall Street billionaire Carl Icahn sought to gut the Environmental Protection Agency rule on ethanol credits, which was harming his oil refinery investments.
This week the Guardian reported that a real estate company partly owned by Trump son-in-law and foreign policy adviser Jared Kushner has raked in $90m from foreign investors since Kushner entered the White House, through a secret vehicle run by Goldman Sachs in the Cayman Islands. Kushner’s stake is some $50m.
All this takes conflict of interest to a new level of shamelessness.
What are Republicans doing about it? Participating in it.
The secretary of transportation, Elaine Chao, who also happens to be the wife of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has approved $78m in grants for her husband’s home state, Kentucky, including a highway improvement project twice rejected in the past. Chao has even appointed a special liaison to coordinate grants with McConnell’s office. Did I say McConnell is up for re-election next year?…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/15/welcome-to-trumps-corrupt-state-the-star-wars-cantina-of-world-politics?CMP=share_btn_link
This ignoramus is just plain scary. He’s probably testing the waters to see if it is possible.
………………………………………..
Trump Says Supporters Might ‘Demand’ That He Serve More Than Two Terms as President
By Felicia Sonmez, The Washington Post
16 June 19
resident Trump on Sunday floated the possibility of staying in office longer than two terms, suggesting in a morning tweet that his supporters might “demand that I stay longer.”
The president has previously joked about serving more than two terms, including at an event in April, when he told a crowd that he might remain in the Oval Office “at least for 10 or 14 years.”
The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution limits the presidency to two terms.
In tweets Sunday morning, Trump also voiced dissatisfaction with recent news coverage of his administration, calling both The Washington Post and the New York Times “the Enemy of the People.”
He added: “The good news is that at the end of 6 years, after America has been made GREAT again and I leave the beautiful White House (do you think the people would demand that I stay longer? KEEP AMERICA GREAT), both of these horrible papers will quickly go out of business & be forever gone!”
Last year, Trump also joked about doing away with term limits in a speech to Republican donors at his Mar-a-Lago estate in which he praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for doing so in China.
“He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great,” Trump said, according to CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.”
WINNING SOCIALISM IS ABOUT WINNING FREEDOM
BY
LUKE SAVAGE
Bernie Sanders’s speech on socialism made a bold case for real freedom — the freedom to flourish, not just the right to be left alone.
…“Freedom is an often-used word,” declared Sanders, “but it’s time we took a hard look at what that word actually means.” He continued:
Ask yourself: what does it actually mean to be free? Are you truly free if you are unable to go to a doctor when you are sick, or face financial bankruptcy when you leave the hospital? Are you truly free if you cannot afford the prescription drug you need to stay alive? Are you truly free when you spend half of your limited income on housing, and are forced to borrow money from a payday lender at 200 percent interest rates? Are you truly free if you are seventy years old and forced to work because you lack a pension or enough money to retire? Are you truly free if you are unable to go to attend college or a trade school because your family lacks the income? Are you truly free if you are forced to work sixty or eighty hours a week because you can’t find a job that pays a living wage? Are you truly free if you are a mother or father with a newborn baby but you are forced to go back to work immediately after the birth because you lack paid family leave?…
Who, after all, is ultimately responsible for problems like unemployment, low wages, high medical costs, and chronic job insecurity?…
Socialists, on the other hand, have long understood that class stratification, poverty, and economic deprivation are in fact both created and necessitated by capitalism: imposed on the majority by the imperative to generate profits, cut labor costs, and commodify every aspect of life….
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/06/sanders-democratic-socialism-speech-freedom
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin (and friends) have gone out of their way to slight Bernie, but in a different fashion. None of their critiques ever seem to mention that the programs that Sanders stands behind are extremely popular with the voting public! The deluge of critiques neglect in most every case to acknowledge the real “context” of American life as we know it—despite what Paul Samuelson and every other economist and political pundit keeps reminding us, that the economy has never been better, this academic interpretation is misleading, in that it clearly does not reference the readership’s understanding of the concept of a “good economy,” which for the average American translates as being able to earn enough to pay your bills, and still have a bit of discretionary spending left. Over the past decade, few families enjoy the reality of a colloquially understood “good economy,” and NONE of the candidates address the urgent problem as a top priority as well as Sanders. In fact, Bernie’s ENTIRE platform seeks to prioritize “People” over “profit,” which is no more radical a shift than the thievery imposed upon the country by the “conservative revolution” and the “middle of the road” DNC’s incrementalism.
Sydney Ember, the Bernie hating ‘journalist’ who also knows everything about education is seen in too many media outlets.
…………………………………
Sydney Ember VERIFIED
New York, NY
Political Reporter — The New York Times
Metro New York, Politics
As seen in: The New York Times, MSN, MSN UK, CNBC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Times of India, The Globe and Mail, The (Toronto) Star, Boston.com, Seattle Times, Indian Express, The Sunday Age, The Boston Globe, Irish Times, Yahoo, Star Tribune, Gulf News, The Canberra Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Charlotte Observer, RealClearPolitics, ABS-CBN News, Pulse Nigeria, Salt Lake Tribune, Brisbane Times, WRAL-TV (Raleigh, NC), WAtoday, Buffalo News, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, The Press Democrat, bdnews24.com, Pulse Ghana, Santa Fe New Mexican, Watertown Daily Times (Watertown, NY), Pulse Live Kenya
This is a summary of the debates on the NYT. How about being positive on the wealth tax and a fair tax code and Medicare for all instead of questioning both?
………………………………………………..
Democrats vying for the 2020 presidential nomination — 20 of them at least — took part in their first official debate last week. The candidates agreed on many issues, including President Trump (bad), the cost of education (too high) and the economy (not working as well as it should for most Americans). But they differed on how to fix those things. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts came out swinging against tech giants, arguing that Google and Amazon should be broken up. Others disagreed about what would constitute a “fair” tax code (should there, for instance, be a “wealth tax”?) and whether “Medicare for all” is a viable solution for the country’s health care woes. Get ready for more rancor as the race narrows.
……………………………
MAY 30, 2019
The New York Times has started enforcing an old company policy that discourages reporters from appearing on partisan, opinionated cable news shows, according to Vanity Fair.
The policy reportedly came back in force when NYT finance editor David Enrich was invited on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” on May 19 to discuss a story about allegedly suspicious Deutsche Bank transactions involving President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner.
Enrich accepted, but then was told by superiors to cancel the appearance because NYT was “wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow,” Vanity Fair reported.
The American Lung Association rated NW Indiana in 2013 as 16th most polluted in the nation. Nothing has been done to clean up our air but now I can rejoice because Trump has declared that “We have the cleanest air we’ve ever had”. Obviously 24,000 dying each year from smog pollution is fake news. We can embrace the thought of being 123rd on the list of clean air countries. [I’m SICK of Trump’s lies.]
…………………………………………..
Trump says he won’t take climate action because it threatens corporate profits: ‘I’m not willing to do that’
June 30, 2019
…Trump told reporters during a press conference Saturday morning that he is not ignoring the threat of the climate crisis, but he doesn’t want to take action to confront the emergency because such a move would threaten corporate profits.
“So we have the best numbers that we’ve ever had recently,” Trump said. “I’m not looking to put our companies out of business.”
“I’m not looking to create a standard that is so high that we’re going to lose 20-25 percent of our production. I’m not willing to do that,” Trump continued. “We have the cleanest water we’ve ever had, we have the cleanest air—you saw the reports come out recently. We have the cleanest air we’ve ever had. But I’m not willing to sacrifice the tremendous power of what we’ve built up over a long period of time, and what I’ve enhanced and revived.”
As the Associated Press reported after Trump claimed earlier this month that the U.S. is “setting records environmentally” with its air and water quality, the “U.S. does not have the cleanest air, and it hasn’t gotten better under the Trump administration.”
“The U.S. ranks poorly on smog pollution,which kills 24,000 Americans per year,” according to AP. “On a scale from the cleanest to the dirtiest, the U.S. is at 123 out of 195 countries measured.”..
https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/im-not-willing-to-do-that-trump-says-he-wont-take-climate-action-because-it-threatens-corporate-profits/#.XRjYacOrrMY.gmail