It's a bill to make it easier for more eligible voters to actually vote.
The Senate majority leader said the For The People Act, proposed by Democrats, doesn’t “pass the laugh test.”
He and other Republicans believe that more of the newly enabled voters would be Democrats than would be Republicans.
Har, har.
“Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues are advertising it as a package of urgent measures to save American democracy,” McConnell said. “What it really seems to be is a package of urgent measures to rewrite the rules of American politics for the exclusive benefit of the Democratic Party.”
The act contains a package of reforms geared toward making voting more accessible to all Americans. It faced swift condemnation from McConnell, who penned an op-ed against the bill earlier this month, and House Republicans, who accused Democrats of trying to manipulate elections.
The bill would force President Donald Trump, as well as future presidential candidates, to release their tax returns and would require super PACs to make their private donors public as a way of incentivizing smaller donations.
The bill also aims to make Election Day a paid holiday for federal workers ― a proposal that might encourage private businesses to do likewise, thus allowing more voters to get to the polls.
There are some indicators that show increasing voter turnout might benefit Democratic candidates. FiveThirtyEight found after the 2016 presidential election that registered voters who didn’t cast ballots tended to lean more Democrat than registered voters who turned out.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
They always pick Venezuela
A nation ruined by incompetent loons and American economic warfare, both.
They never point to Canada, right next door, as an example of how things go for a country with, basically, a Medicare for All system.
Unless they want to point out that Canadians often come to big city hospitals in the US with top national care for very special doctoring.
Just as do people from Wyoming, the Dakotas, or Nebraska, I imagine.
Must be their socialism screws up health care.
Wait. What?
They never point to Canada, right next door, as an example of how things go for a country with, basically, a Medicare for All system.
Unless they want to point out that Canadians often come to big city hospitals in the US with top national care for very special doctoring.
Just as do people from Wyoming, the Dakotas, or Nebraska, I imagine.
Must be their socialism screws up health care.
Wait. What?
Wealth tax no, universal medical coverage yes.
Elizabeth Warren really doesn't like capitalism, and it shows.
Leave assets alone.
Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax the super-rich has been tried before. Here's what happened.
AOC's 70% tax on income over $ 10 million is fine, and it's not actually an attack on private wealth per se.
Medicare for all is not the only way to get health coverage for all.
But it is a way.
Leave assets alone.
Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax the super-rich has been tried before. Here's what happened.
AOC's 70% tax on income over $ 10 million is fine, and it's not actually an attack on private wealth per se.
Medicare for all is not the only way to get health coverage for all.
But it is a way.
What am I missing?
Schultz is Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan.
He's sooooo not Ralph Nader.
So WTF?
Why is everyone saying he'll split the left and guarantee Bozo's reelection?
(And is that really his point?)
Dear billionaires: stop running for president
He and Bloomberg this morning are singing the same tune on AOC's tax plan (That's crazy talk!) and Medicare for All (We can't afford it! Oh, and socialism! Venezuela! The Democrats will turn us into Venezuela!)
He's sooooo not Ralph Nader.
So WTF?
Why is everyone saying he'll split the left and guarantee Bozo's reelection?
(And is that really his point?)
Dear billionaires: stop running for president
He and Bloomberg this morning are singing the same tune on AOC's tax plan (That's crazy talk!) and Medicare for All (We can't afford it! Oh, and socialism! Venezuela! The Democrats will turn us into Venezuela!)
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Asshole bikers were for Trump, remember?
All about race and rah-rah.
Tariffs devastate Harley-Davidson profit in fourth quarter of 2018
Their buyers are superannuated white guys with biker thug fantasies.
Or biker thug lives.
Tariffs devastate Harley-Davidson profit in fourth quarter of 2018
Their buyers are superannuated white guys with biker thug fantasies.
Or biker thug lives.
A misstep for Nancy
She should have made him wait until after the budget issues were fully resolved.
That means after any additional shutdown.
When does that two week the government is living on expire?
Trump accepts Pelosi's State of the Union invite
President Donald Trump has accepted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's invitation to give his State of the Union address on February 5, the White House announced Monday evening.
Update.
Or maybe not.
Does he stand up in front of likely the biggest audience he's ever had and bluster, threaten, and bully?
Does he again own whatever damage he does when the Democrats don't give him wall money?
That means after any additional shutdown.
When does that two week the government is living on expire?
Trump accepts Pelosi's State of the Union invite
President Donald Trump has accepted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's invitation to give his State of the Union address on February 5, the White House announced Monday evening.
Update.
Or maybe not.
Does he stand up in front of likely the biggest audience he's ever had and bluster, threaten, and bully?
Does he again own whatever damage he does when the Democrats don't give him wall money?
Let Bozo be Bozo
People are getting really sick of this.
Biden, Harris top candidates among Democratic voters, while majority of Americans say they won't vote for Trump, new poll shows
Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris are the two Democratic candidates leading the large field of potential 2020 challengers to President Donald Trump, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
However, a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters remain undecided about which candidate they want as their party's nominee to take on Trump, whom a majority will "definitely not vote for" if he's up for re-election, the Post-ABC poll out Tuesday showed.
. . . .
Fifty-six percent of all Americans said they would "definitely not vote for" Trump should he be the 2020 Republican nominee.
Three in four Republicans and Republican-leaning voters approve of Trump's job performance, yet when asked separately, nearly 1 in 3 say they'd like the Republican Party to nominate someone other than Trump to be its 2020 candidate for president.
Biden, Harris top candidates among Democratic voters, while majority of Americans say they won't vote for Trump, new poll shows
Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris are the two Democratic candidates leading the large field of potential 2020 challengers to President Donald Trump, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
However, a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters remain undecided about which candidate they want as their party's nominee to take on Trump, whom a majority will "definitely not vote for" if he's up for re-election, the Post-ABC poll out Tuesday showed.
. . . .
Fifty-six percent of all Americans said they would "definitely not vote for" Trump should he be the 2020 Republican nominee.
Three in four Republicans and Republican-leaning voters approve of Trump's job performance, yet when asked separately, nearly 1 in 3 say they'd like the Republican Party to nominate someone other than Trump to be its 2020 candidate for president.
Monday, January 28, 2019
But there is NOTHING he could do to get money for his wall
Do newsies just not get it?
Like Trump, they see and hear what they want to see and hear?
Shutdown debacle leaves Trump with stark choices
But whether the President is simply defiant or in denial or is yet to process the lessons of the 35-day impasse that ended with his capitulation on Friday, he's facing wrenching political choices.
Going forward, he would have to adopt a fundamental change of approach if he is to wring money for his border wall from Congress and revive a presidency badly damaged by his loss to Democrats in the first clash of the new era of divided government.
Bollocks.
Like Trump, they see and hear what they want to see and hear?
Shutdown debacle leaves Trump with stark choices
But whether the President is simply defiant or in denial or is yet to process the lessons of the 35-day impasse that ended with his capitulation on Friday, he's facing wrenching political choices.
Going forward, he would have to adopt a fundamental change of approach if he is to wring money for his border wall from Congress and revive a presidency badly damaged by his loss to Democrats in the first clash of the new era of divided government.
Bollocks.
Trump trolls the Democrats
Trump tweets a challenge.
Howard Schultz doesn’t have the “guts” to run for President!
Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the “smartest person.”
Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!
So far, Schultz's patter is the same as Trump's was, as Perot's was, as Blumberg's has been.
He's going to save us from the failed political parties and useless professional politicians and finally do what Americans know needs to be done.
And it turns out to be what the Republicans say it is, pretty much.
Idiot voters eat this stuff up.
The media are just loving this.
Could it be that Dems who say he scares them are trying to fool the Republicans into not trying to stop him splitting the right?
If he went into the GOP primaries against Bozo, he might win.
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: 'I am seriously thinking of running for President'
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said on Sunday he is seriously considering running for president as a "centrist independent" in 2020.
"We're living at a most fragile time," Schultz told CBS's Scott Pelley in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired on Sunday.
"Not only the fact that this President is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged every single day in revenge politics."
. . . .
When asked if he is worried about siphoning votes away from Democrats, Schultz told CBS, "I want to see the American people win. I want to see America win.
"I don't care if you're a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican.
"Bring me your ideas. And I will be an independent person who will embrace those ideas because I am not, in any way, in bed with a party."
Schultz said he sees "extremes" in both the Republican and Democratic political parties.
"Every American deserves the right to have access to quality health care.
"But what the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as the wall.
"And that is free health care for all, which the country cannot afford," Schultz said.
England. Canada. Many countries can afford it.
But not America.
Guess we're not Number One, eh?
Howard Schultz doesn’t have the “guts” to run for President!
Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the “smartest person.”
Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!
So far, Schultz's patter is the same as Trump's was, as Perot's was, as Blumberg's has been.
He's going to save us from the failed political parties and useless professional politicians and finally do what Americans know needs to be done.
And it turns out to be what the Republicans say it is, pretty much.
Idiot voters eat this stuff up.
The media are just loving this.
Could it be that Dems who say he scares them are trying to fool the Republicans into not trying to stop him splitting the right?
If he went into the GOP primaries against Bozo, he might win.
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: 'I am seriously thinking of running for President'
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said on Sunday he is seriously considering running for president as a "centrist independent" in 2020.
"We're living at a most fragile time," Schultz told CBS's Scott Pelley in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired on Sunday.
"Not only the fact that this President is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged every single day in revenge politics."
. . . .
When asked if he is worried about siphoning votes away from Democrats, Schultz told CBS, "I want to see the American people win. I want to see America win.
"I don't care if you're a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican.
"Bring me your ideas. And I will be an independent person who will embrace those ideas because I am not, in any way, in bed with a party."
Schultz said he sees "extremes" in both the Republican and Democratic political parties.
"Every American deserves the right to have access to quality health care.
"But what the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as the wall.
"And that is free health care for all, which the country cannot afford," Schultz said.
England. Canada. Many countries can afford it.
But not America.
Guess we're not Number One, eh?
Absolutely brilliant television
Maybe not brilliant history, or brilliant political comment.
But amazing TV.
Black Earth Rising
How did John Goodman know to jump into this?
How on Earth did they find Michaela Coel, who is amazing in her role?
Wonderful.
Is this the best thing Blick has ever done?
Thank you, Netflix.
But amazing TV.
Black Earth Rising
How did John Goodman know to jump into this?
How on Earth did they find Michaela Coel, who is amazing in her role?
Wonderful.
Is this the best thing Blick has ever done?
Thank you, Netflix.
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Roy Blunt: Nope?
GOP Senator Roy Blunt says use of national emergency to build the wall sets a bad precedent
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said if President Donald Trump invoked his emergency powers to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border it would be a “bad precedent.”
Blunt said, “I happen to agree with the president on barriers at the border and on border security as an important first step, but there might be a future president that I don’t agree with that thinks something else is an emergency.
"I think it’s a bad precedent. I hope the president doesn’t have to go there.
"If we’ll do our job, he won’t even have to consider going there three weeks from now.”
But that bit at the end makes it sound like he's willing to go there to get the wall money, all the same.
Just like the Duce.
Meanwhile, Mick Mulvaney is still telling us on TV that Trump will "defend the nation" and "secure the border" with or without the congress.
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said if President Donald Trump invoked his emergency powers to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border it would be a “bad precedent.”
Blunt said, “I happen to agree with the president on barriers at the border and on border security as an important first step, but there might be a future president that I don’t agree with that thinks something else is an emergency.
"I think it’s a bad precedent. I hope the president doesn’t have to go there.
"If we’ll do our job, he won’t even have to consider going there three weeks from now.”
But that bit at the end makes it sound like he's willing to go there to get the wall money, all the same.
Just like the Duce.
Meanwhile, Mick Mulvaney is still telling us on TV that Trump will "defend the nation" and "secure the border" with or without the congress.
"Little Marco" would fight it? How?
Maybe partly this is just his entirely justified dislike of the Duce.
But maybe it's also concern that stupid judges might let Trump get away with it, thus eroding the separation of powers and the ability of the congress to check the presidency and making the presidency a more authoritarian-friendly institution.
Marco Rubio: Declaring National Emergency for Border Wall Is a 'Terrible Idea'
Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Sunday that President Trump declaring a national emergency to build a border wall would be a “terrible idea.”
“It's just not a good precedent to set in terms of action. It doesn't mean that I don't want border security. I do. I just think that's the wrong way to achieve it,” Rubio said on Meet the Press.
Rubio: "I will fight Trump"
TODD: You have said you are opposed to the national emergency option.
In three weeks, I know you have no appetite on either side of the aisle for another shutdown.
So if that’s the only way to keep the government funded, he goes national emergency, how defiant are you on this option?
Will you fight the president on this or not?
RUBIO: I don’t think it’s a good I think it will be a terrible idea.
I hope he doesn’t do it.
TODD: But would you fight him on it?
RUBIO: Sure.
Because I think it’s important.
Look I don’t think we will have to fight.
I’m not sure they will do that. I know it’s an option they looked at.
But now you are at the mercy of a district court and ultimately an appellate court.
It may not withstand if you look at some of the other rulings we have seen.
The other is the precedent it would set. It’s not a good precedent to set.
It doesn’t mean I don’t want border security.
I do.
I think that’s the wrong way to achieve it.
It doesn’t provide certainty.
You could wind up in a theatric victory at the front and not get it done.
The best way to do it is to have a law that funds border security so we know it’s going to happen.
But maybe it's also concern that stupid judges might let Trump get away with it, thus eroding the separation of powers and the ability of the congress to check the presidency and making the presidency a more authoritarian-friendly institution.
Marco Rubio: Declaring National Emergency for Border Wall Is a 'Terrible Idea'
Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Sunday that President Trump declaring a national emergency to build a border wall would be a “terrible idea.”
“It's just not a good precedent to set in terms of action. It doesn't mean that I don't want border security. I do. I just think that's the wrong way to achieve it,” Rubio said on Meet the Press.
Rubio: "I will fight Trump"
TODD: You have said you are opposed to the national emergency option.
In three weeks, I know you have no appetite on either side of the aisle for another shutdown.
So if that’s the only way to keep the government funded, he goes national emergency, how defiant are you on this option?
Will you fight the president on this or not?
RUBIO: I don’t think it’s a good I think it will be a terrible idea.
I hope he doesn’t do it.
TODD: But would you fight him on it?
RUBIO: Sure.
Because I think it’s important.
Look I don’t think we will have to fight.
I’m not sure they will do that. I know it’s an option they looked at.
But now you are at the mercy of a district court and ultimately an appellate court.
It may not withstand if you look at some of the other rulings we have seen.
The other is the precedent it would set. It’s not a good precedent to set.
It doesn’t mean I don’t want border security.
I do.
I think that’s the wrong way to achieve it.
It doesn’t provide certainty.
You could wind up in a theatric victory at the front and not get it done.
The best way to do it is to have a law that funds border security so we know it’s going to happen.
Why do the Turks support this incompetent ass?
Venezuela's Maduro denounces election call but says ready to talk
The Guardian and the too far left everywhere are more worried about US intervention than the utter mess this fool and the Bolivarian Revolution have made of the country.
But so long as the Venezuela military continue to support him, I don't see any room for intervention, anyway.
And considering that pretty much nobody but the Russians, the Cubans, and the Turks (why?) support him and everybody else is sick of him, why would the US have to intervene alone, anyway?
Neighboring countries might be willing to help.
The Guardian and the too far left everywhere are more worried about US intervention than the utter mess this fool and the Bolivarian Revolution have made of the country.
But so long as the Venezuela military continue to support him, I don't see any room for intervention, anyway.
And considering that pretty much nobody but the Russians, the Cubans, and the Turks (why?) support him and everybody else is sick of him, why would the US have to intervene alone, anyway?
Neighboring countries might be willing to help.
Why do they think he'd take Democratic votes?
The guy sounds like the usual right wing corporate asshole who wants to run as an independent.
I don't even know why he's a Democrat, himself.
From what I have seen, he echoes the right that "we can't afford it" and "we need to cut entitlements?"
So far right from AOC and Bernie that he really is in the wrong party.
He'll draw Republicans sick of Bozo, if he goes around talking like that.
I don't even know why he's a Democrat, himself.
From what I have seen, he echoes the right that "we can't afford it" and "we need to cut entitlements?"
So far right from AOC and Bernie that he really is in the wrong party.
He'll draw Republicans sick of Bozo, if he goes around talking like that.
How Trump went down
Inside the White House
Will Trump just stop doing the job when he finally realizes he's not getting any wall money any time over the next two years?
Will he become a ghost haunting the White House?
Pictures on Friday of delayed aircraft at LaGuardia Airport in his hometown — the same tarmac Trump's black, red and gold Boeing 757 is usually staged — sealed what had been a days-long realization that the shutdown must end, according to officials.
The previous evening, Trump heard from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a phone call that Republicans could no longer hold the line in support of his border wall demands.
Trump, who was briefed by aides of looming law enforcement and airport problems, later phoned McConnell back to tell him he was ready to end the stalemate.
. . . .
Trump remains hopeful that some moderate Democrats will join him in supporting funding for a border wall after the funding measure expires in mid-February.
Administration officials say he would be willing to accept less than the $5.7 billion he has insisted upon in an attempt to strike an accord.
Acknowledging a new political reality with Pelosi in charge, one adviser said the only way forward for Trump is "compromise," with little room for the no-holds-barred approach favored by advisers like Stephen Miller, the immigration hardliner.
"Today is not a cave but a grave for Stephen Miller policies," the adviser said, acknowledging it's not clear at all that Trump is ready to make that kind of course correction.
. . . .
Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and other senior aides have tried to gauge which issues Trump wants to take up after the border fight is done— be it drug pricing, trade, infrastructure, or something else.
But they've made little progress.
Trump does expect to meet next month with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but even those plans have taken second billing to the border standoff.
That's a bad omen for some conservatives and policy-minded officials, many of whom say they believe Trump doesn't appreciate how finite his presidency really is.
For Trump, the border wall -- which began as a rhetorical device at his campaign rallies — has become something much larger, an extension of himself so personal that he can't let it go.
Will Trump just stop doing the job when he finally realizes he's not getting any wall money any time over the next two years?
Will he become a ghost haunting the White House?
Pictures on Friday of delayed aircraft at LaGuardia Airport in his hometown — the same tarmac Trump's black, red and gold Boeing 757 is usually staged — sealed what had been a days-long realization that the shutdown must end, according to officials.
The previous evening, Trump heard from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a phone call that Republicans could no longer hold the line in support of his border wall demands.
Trump, who was briefed by aides of looming law enforcement and airport problems, later phoned McConnell back to tell him he was ready to end the stalemate.
. . . .
Trump remains hopeful that some moderate Democrats will join him in supporting funding for a border wall after the funding measure expires in mid-February.
Administration officials say he would be willing to accept less than the $5.7 billion he has insisted upon in an attempt to strike an accord.
Acknowledging a new political reality with Pelosi in charge, one adviser said the only way forward for Trump is "compromise," with little room for the no-holds-barred approach favored by advisers like Stephen Miller, the immigration hardliner.
"Today is not a cave but a grave for Stephen Miller policies," the adviser said, acknowledging it's not clear at all that Trump is ready to make that kind of course correction.
. . . .
Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and other senior aides have tried to gauge which issues Trump wants to take up after the border fight is done— be it drug pricing, trade, infrastructure, or something else.
But they've made little progress.
Trump does expect to meet next month with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but even those plans have taken second billing to the border standoff.
That's a bad omen for some conservatives and policy-minded officials, many of whom say they believe Trump doesn't appreciate how finite his presidency really is.
For Trump, the border wall -- which began as a rhetorical device at his campaign rallies — has become something much larger, an extension of himself so personal that he can't let it go.
Bozo going mad
Trump Invents 14 Million Additional Illegal Aliens
The money numbers are equally insane.
When he realizes he's flat out not getting his wall, and that everybody in the world has seen him fail, will his head fly clean off?
Border Patrol Sought Info on Trump’s Claims About Women Being Bound and Gagged
Who at the BP is so stupid he hasn't yet realized the Duce is just making shit up all the time?
The money numbers are equally insane.
When he realizes he's flat out not getting his wall, and that everybody in the world has seen him fail, will his head fly clean off?
Border Patrol Sought Info on Trump’s Claims About Women Being Bound and Gagged
Who at the BP is so stupid he hasn't yet realized the Duce is just making shit up all the time?
Doesn't sound like somebody looking to cut a deal
Roger Stone: Mueller's Indictment Is As 'Thin As Piss On A Rock'
Or maybe it's just smoke to mislead Trump and court a pardon while secretly dealing.
Trump ally Roger Stone on Sunday defiantly said that special counsel Robert Mueller's charges against him would ultimately fail because the indictment is a thin as "piss on a rock."
Or maybe it's just smoke to mislead Trump and court a pardon while secretly dealing.
Trump ally Roger Stone on Sunday defiantly said that special counsel Robert Mueller's charges against him would ultimately fail because the indictment is a thin as "piss on a rock."
Saturday, January 26, 2019
So, the Bulwark want a candidate more Trumpist than Trump?
This from Charlie Sykes' never-Trumpist online replacement for the defunct Weekly Standard?
Is this a joke?
Or is the presidency now definitively and forever, rather than merely for the duration, a joke?
Is the United States, currently a global laughing-stock because of Trump, to become a permanent one?
And a permanent banana republic, given Coulter only yesterday demanded Trump start construction, with nary a hint as to how he was supposed to lawfully do that?
All signs indicate she cares less about lawful and constitutional government than Trump.
5 Reasons Ann Coulter Should Run for President
On the other hand, maybe it is a joke.
Is this a joke?
Or is the presidency now definitively and forever, rather than merely for the duration, a joke?
Is the United States, currently a global laughing-stock because of Trump, to become a permanent one?
And a permanent banana republic, given Coulter only yesterday demanded Trump start construction, with nary a hint as to how he was supposed to lawfully do that?
All signs indicate she cares less about lawful and constitutional government than Trump.
5 Reasons Ann Coulter Should Run for President
On the other hand, maybe it is a joke.
The Duce is setting himself up for further humiliation
Trump tries to bounce back after horrible day damages presidency
This morning he tweeted the same lying nonsense.
The only lie about the wall he does not hourly repeat is that Mexico will pay for it.
21 days goes very quickly.
Negotiations with Democrats will start immediately.
Will not be easy to make a deal, both parties very dug in.
The case for National Security has been greatly enhanced by what has been happening at the Border & through dialogue.
We will build the Wall!
And this.
"If he gives in now, that's the end of 2019 in terms of him being an effective President," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, said on Fox News earlier this month.
"That's probably the end of his presidency."
Graham is known for hyperbole.
But his comment encapsulates the challenge that the President now has in battling to regain his authority.
His safest move, I think, if he remains unwilling to appear to totally give up on his wall, is to declare a national emergency and hope the flood of new conservative judges appointed on his watch will surprise the nation with the news that he can do whatever he wants in the name of an emergency he is entirely free to invent.
Another shutdown would not work out any better for him than this one, and might provoke the Republicans to rebel.
Even being told to pound sand with his emergency by the courts would do him and the GOP less harm than another shutdown.
Always assuming Nancy and Chuck are never going to give him more than that one dollar for the wall.
Thing is, a significant majority of Americans think the wall is bollocks, already.
If he keeps trying to build it he just keeps annoying all those folks.
Who will be even more annoyed if he actually does build it - all of it or even part of it.
This morning he tweeted the same lying nonsense.
The only lie about the wall he does not hourly repeat is that Mexico will pay for it.
21 days goes very quickly.
Negotiations with Democrats will start immediately.
Will not be easy to make a deal, both parties very dug in.
The case for National Security has been greatly enhanced by what has been happening at the Border & through dialogue.
We will build the Wall!
And this.
"If he gives in now, that's the end of 2019 in terms of him being an effective President," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, said on Fox News earlier this month.
"That's probably the end of his presidency."
Graham is known for hyperbole.
But his comment encapsulates the challenge that the President now has in battling to regain his authority.
His safest move, I think, if he remains unwilling to appear to totally give up on his wall, is to declare a national emergency and hope the flood of new conservative judges appointed on his watch will surprise the nation with the news that he can do whatever he wants in the name of an emergency he is entirely free to invent.
Another shutdown would not work out any better for him than this one, and might provoke the Republicans to rebel.
Even being told to pound sand with his emergency by the courts would do him and the GOP less harm than another shutdown.
Always assuming Nancy and Chuck are never going to give him more than that one dollar for the wall.
Thing is, a significant majority of Americans think the wall is bollocks, already.
If he keeps trying to build it he just keeps annoying all those folks.
Who will be even more annoyed if he actually does build it - all of it or even part of it.
Europe joins in
Venezuela crisis: Maduro given ultimatum by European leaders
Spain, Germany, France and the UK have warned Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro that he must call elections within eight days - or they will officially recognise the opposition.
Spain, Germany, France and the UK have warned Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro that he must call elections within eight days - or they will officially recognise the opposition.
What is the wall?
During the campaign, Trump was touting a 2,000 mile long, thirty feet high, concrete wall along the Mexican border, inspired by the Great Wall of China and some wall or other the Israelis have put up.
And probably, secretly, in his head, by the Berlin Wall.
Democrats generally and some Republicans, especially those from border regions, have opposed Trump's two thousand mile wall.
Trump has backed off to a wall about half that length, and recent modifications to his plan have concerned the materials of which the wall is to be made.
It is not entirely clear whether his proposal, now, is merely to replace and add a bit of length to the less than 700 miles of existing fencing, but in any case BBC, in a story dated 21 January 2019, says no design has been approved and no construction has taken place.
Considering that by far most illegals are people who arrive legally and then overstay their visas, while a good part of the people coming across from Mexico are legitimate asylum seekers, the wall seems a waste of good money on a wrong-headed cause.
But the Trump rabble like it, mostly out of white Nativism, it seems.
Before Mr Trump took office, there were 654 miles (just over 1,000km) of barrier along the southern border - made up of 354 miles of barriers to stop pedestrians and 300 miles of anti-vehicle fencing.
In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Mr Trump promised to build a wall along the border's entire 2,000-mile length.
He later clarified that it would only cover half of that - with nature, such as mountains and rivers, helping to take care of the rest.
. . . .
The 650 miles of fencing built under President George W Bush cost an estimated $7bn, and it could not be described as fulfilling Mr Trump's promises of a "tall, powerful, beautiful" barrier.
However, Mr Trump is now asking for $5.7bn in addition to the $1.7bn already allocated for new and replacement barriers.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously estimated a wall spanning half the border would cost up to $25bn, but it has now said it is still looking at options to determine the price tag.
US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) says that, on average, it costs approximately $6.5m per mile to construct a new border wall or replace existing legacy fence.
Oh, and this.
It was an eye-catching claim from the White House press secretary.
"Last year alone there were nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists that CBP picked up that came across our southern border," Sarah Sanders told Fox and Friends on Friday.
That is not true. Even her colleague, Kellyanne Conway, later called it "an unfortunate misstatement".
So where did that figure come from?
A White House briefing report on immigration says 3,755 known or suspected terrorists were prevented from entering the US in the fiscal year 2017.
But that includes terror suspects who have been stopped at any US border, and the vast majority are stopped at airports.
"The debate is over a land border wall. To include airport statistics is irrelevant and misleading," says Todd Bensman from the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank which favours lower immigration.
Bensman, a former counter-terrorism intelligence manager who worked at the Texas border, analysed data from a "reliable intelligence community source" and concluded that more than 100 migrants on terror watchlists were apprehended at the southern border between 2012-17.
Data from NBC News seems to support his assertion. It learnt that in the first half of 2018 six immigrants on the terror watchlist were stopped at the southern border
No-one who has crossed the US southern border illegally from 1975 to the end of 2017 has been responsible for a terror attack on US soil, according to David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute.
Seven so-called "special interest aliens" were convicted of planning an attack on US soil, during that time, says the libertarian think tank's report.
But that category includes any visitor from a country deemed by the US intelligence community as a risk. In the past it has been a list of 50 countries.
And probably, secretly, in his head, by the Berlin Wall.
Democrats generally and some Republicans, especially those from border regions, have opposed Trump's two thousand mile wall.
Trump has backed off to a wall about half that length, and recent modifications to his plan have concerned the materials of which the wall is to be made.
It is not entirely clear whether his proposal, now, is merely to replace and add a bit of length to the less than 700 miles of existing fencing, but in any case BBC, in a story dated 21 January 2019, says no design has been approved and no construction has taken place.
Considering that by far most illegals are people who arrive legally and then overstay their visas, while a good part of the people coming across from Mexico are legitimate asylum seekers, the wall seems a waste of good money on a wrong-headed cause.
But the Trump rabble like it, mostly out of white Nativism, it seems.
Before Mr Trump took office, there were 654 miles (just over 1,000km) of barrier along the southern border - made up of 354 miles of barriers to stop pedestrians and 300 miles of anti-vehicle fencing.
In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Mr Trump promised to build a wall along the border's entire 2,000-mile length.
He later clarified that it would only cover half of that - with nature, such as mountains and rivers, helping to take care of the rest.
. . . .
The 650 miles of fencing built under President George W Bush cost an estimated $7bn, and it could not be described as fulfilling Mr Trump's promises of a "tall, powerful, beautiful" barrier.
However, Mr Trump is now asking for $5.7bn in addition to the $1.7bn already allocated for new and replacement barriers.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously estimated a wall spanning half the border would cost up to $25bn, but it has now said it is still looking at options to determine the price tag.
US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) says that, on average, it costs approximately $6.5m per mile to construct a new border wall or replace existing legacy fence.
Oh, and this.
It was an eye-catching claim from the White House press secretary.
"Last year alone there were nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists that CBP picked up that came across our southern border," Sarah Sanders told Fox and Friends on Friday.
That is not true. Even her colleague, Kellyanne Conway, later called it "an unfortunate misstatement".
So where did that figure come from?
A White House briefing report on immigration says 3,755 known or suspected terrorists were prevented from entering the US in the fiscal year 2017.
But that includes terror suspects who have been stopped at any US border, and the vast majority are stopped at airports.
"The debate is over a land border wall. To include airport statistics is irrelevant and misleading," says Todd Bensman from the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank which favours lower immigration.
Bensman, a former counter-terrorism intelligence manager who worked at the Texas border, analysed data from a "reliable intelligence community source" and concluded that more than 100 migrants on terror watchlists were apprehended at the southern border between 2012-17.
Data from NBC News seems to support his assertion. It learnt that in the first half of 2018 six immigrants on the terror watchlist were stopped at the southern border
No-one who has crossed the US southern border illegally from 1975 to the end of 2017 has been responsible for a terror attack on US soil, according to David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute.
Seven so-called "special interest aliens" were convicted of planning an attack on US soil, during that time, says the libertarian think tank's report.
But that category includes any visitor from a country deemed by the US intelligence community as a risk. In the past it has been a list of 50 countries.
Friday, January 25, 2019
For the next two years, the most interesting and consequential political leader in DC will be Nancy Pelosi
The key feature of republican rule is not that the power of the government is limited vis-Ã -vis civil society, as libertarians and other partisans of bare-knuckle capitalism and the power of corporations, the rich, and the owners of the means of production would have it.
That is to say, limited vis-Ã -vis corporations, the rich, and the owners of the means of production.
It is that the power of individual officials of the government is limited.
No one is "the Decider", C student GW notwithstanding.
Dispersal of power among multitudes of officials is the key to preservation of republican liberties.
Tyranny is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
Totalitarianism is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
Monarchy in any form is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
The power to make laws in our republic is dispersed among 535 congresspeople in two separate houses.
The highest authority to interpret the laws and the constitution is dispersed among the several justices of the Supreme Court.
Only the powers to see that the laws are faithfully executed and of ultimate command of the armed forces are put into the hands of one person.
And yet Nancy Pelosi was able to teach Bozo, the president of the United States and so the most powerful individual official in the American republic, what dispersal of power, what checks and balances, means.
A lesson he managed somehow not to learn with the failure of repeal of Obamacare in the senate by one vote.
Asked after Trump's speech today whether now at last she and the Democrats would give the Duce some wall money, Nancy said no.
‘Have I not been clear about the wall?’ Pelosi signals Trump still won’t get what he wants
Democrats say they will not agree to provide funding for the wall, period.
If they were willing to entertain that, they would’ve done so before the government shutdown in December or in the more than a month since as roughly 800,000 federal workers went without pay.
“Have I not been clear on the wall?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday when one asked if Democrats would continue to object to wall funding in the upcoming negotiations.
“I’ve been very clear.”
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer was more direct: “Democrats are against the wall.”
Trump agreed to reopen government “without preconditions,” the New York Democrat noted, as he proudly pointed out that the agreement endorses the position Democrats have held throughout the shutdown.
“Our unity is our power,” Pelosi said.
“And that is what maybe the president underestimated.”
That is to say, limited vis-Ã -vis corporations, the rich, and the owners of the means of production.
It is that the power of individual officials of the government is limited.
No one is "the Decider", C student GW notwithstanding.
Dispersal of power among multitudes of officials is the key to preservation of republican liberties.
Tyranny is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
Totalitarianism is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
Monarchy in any form is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
The power to make laws in our republic is dispersed among 535 congresspeople in two separate houses.
The highest authority to interpret the laws and the constitution is dispersed among the several justices of the Supreme Court.
Only the powers to see that the laws are faithfully executed and of ultimate command of the armed forces are put into the hands of one person.
And yet Nancy Pelosi was able to teach Bozo, the president of the United States and so the most powerful individual official in the American republic, what dispersal of power, what checks and balances, means.
A lesson he managed somehow not to learn with the failure of repeal of Obamacare in the senate by one vote.
Asked after Trump's speech today whether now at last she and the Democrats would give the Duce some wall money, Nancy said no.
‘Have I not been clear about the wall?’ Pelosi signals Trump still won’t get what he wants
Democrats say they will not agree to provide funding for the wall, period.
If they were willing to entertain that, they would’ve done so before the government shutdown in December or in the more than a month since as roughly 800,000 federal workers went without pay.
“Have I not been clear on the wall?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday when one asked if Democrats would continue to object to wall funding in the upcoming negotiations.
“I’ve been very clear.”
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer was more direct: “Democrats are against the wall.”
Trump agreed to reopen government “without preconditions,” the New York Democrat noted, as he proudly pointed out that the agreement endorses the position Democrats have held throughout the shutdown.
“Our unity is our power,” Pelosi said.
“And that is what maybe the president underestimated.”
Is Trump abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban?
Afghanistan's Ghani says 45,000 security personnel killed since 2014
And how do you suppose that will work out?
The man who lied that he had totally defeated ISIS when no one else could is about to let the Taliban triumph when no one else would, it seems.
And how do you suppose that will work out?
The man who lied that he had totally defeated ISIS when no one else could is about to let the Taliban triumph when no one else would, it seems.
A way out for Venezuela?
Venezuela
Maduro could renounce the presidency if he’s able to choose a new leader who subscribes to the same political ideology he does.
He is a chavista, someone who believes former President Hugo Chávez’s brand of populist, authoritarian socialism is the best way to govern.
Chávez is a legendary figure in Venezuela who transformed the country’s political and economic landscape by nationalizing industries and funneling enormous amounts of government money into social programs.
Under his rule, Venezuela’s unemployment rate decreased by nearly 50 percent, income per capita more than doubled, the poverty rate fell by more than half, education improved, and infant mortality rates declined.
But he also stacked the country’s courts with political allies, passed laws restricting the ability of journalists to criticize the government, and consistently sought ways to remove checks on his power.
Maduro tried to follow Chávez’s playbook, but the results were ruinous for the country.
Oil prices crashed in late 2014, and the economy crashed with it.
And after political opponents took control of the National Assembly in December 15, he tried to dissolve it while placing his cronies in the Supreme Court and elsewhere.
What Venezuela got was an increasingly authoritarian leader overseeing a crumbling economy.
Now, roughly 80 percent of the country — and thousands on the streets — oppose him.
That may compel leaders of Maduro’s socialist party to ask him to step aside and see if another chavista can do better as president.
There are at least four people, including a governor and a mayor, waiting in the wings for their moment.
This may be it.
If this scenario plays out, it means Venezuela’s future will look fairly similar to if Maduro remains in office.
Basically: new face, same government.
The mounting domestic and international pressure may ultimately prove too much for Maduro, forcing him to cut a deal with the opposition and step aside.
It’s unclear what that deal might look like.
Maduro could renounce the presidency if he’s able to choose a new leader who subscribes to the same political ideology he does.
He is a chavista, someone who believes former President Hugo Chávez’s brand of populist, authoritarian socialism is the best way to govern.
Chávez is a legendary figure in Venezuela who transformed the country’s political and economic landscape by nationalizing industries and funneling enormous amounts of government money into social programs.
Under his rule, Venezuela’s unemployment rate decreased by nearly 50 percent, income per capita more than doubled, the poverty rate fell by more than half, education improved, and infant mortality rates declined.
But he also stacked the country’s courts with political allies, passed laws restricting the ability of journalists to criticize the government, and consistently sought ways to remove checks on his power.
Maduro tried to follow Chávez’s playbook, but the results were ruinous for the country.
Oil prices crashed in late 2014, and the economy crashed with it.
And after political opponents took control of the National Assembly in December 15, he tried to dissolve it while placing his cronies in the Supreme Court and elsewhere.
What Venezuela got was an increasingly authoritarian leader overseeing a crumbling economy.
Now, roughly 80 percent of the country — and thousands on the streets — oppose him.
That may compel leaders of Maduro’s socialist party to ask him to step aside and see if another chavista can do better as president.
There are at least four people, including a governor and a mayor, waiting in the wings for their moment.
This may be it.
If this scenario plays out, it means Venezuela’s future will look fairly similar to if Maduro remains in office.
Basically: new face, same government.
The mounting domestic and international pressure may ultimately prove too much for Maduro, forcing him to cut a deal with the opposition and step aside.
It’s unclear what that deal might look like.
One possibility is Maduro agrees to remain in power until a fair election is held and then departs so the winner can take over.
Another is Maduro willingly hands the country over to Guaidó as a caretaker while he calls for new elections.
Late on Thursday, Guaidó told Univision that he might consider offering Maduro amnesty if he willingly leaves office.
Late on Thursday, Guaidó told Univision that he might consider offering Maduro amnesty if he willingly leaves office.
“In transitional periods, we’ve seen similar things happening,” he said.
“We can’t discard any element. We have to be firm, to get humanitarian assistance. Our priority is our people.”
The hope is that a new leader, presumably not from Maduro’s socialist party, would steer the country back toward a democracy.
The hope is that a new leader, presumably not from Maduro’s socialist party, would steer the country back toward a democracy.
But even this rosy outcome has its challenges.
That’s because some of Maduro policies remain popular, particularly his party’s emphasis on spending large amounts of state revenue on funding social programs such as free medical care and affordable food.
That’s because some of Maduro policies remain popular, particularly his party’s emphasis on spending large amounts of state revenue on funding social programs such as free medical care and affordable food.
And a new leader would almost certainly have to make tough choices — including cutting funding for some of those programs — to end Venezuela’s economic collapse.
That could lead citizens to bristle, and possibly push out, the new leader in a short amount of time.
That could lead citizens to bristle, and possibly push out, the new leader in a short amount of time.
In other words, the person who replaces Maduro with sincere hopes of fixing Venezuela will have a very tough job — and may not be very popular for doing it.
Trump flinches
Agreeing to reopen the government for three weeks in return for talks involving the Democrats but no wall money, Bozo promised that if he doesn't get his wall money at the end of that time he will either again shut down the government or declare a national emergency and build his wall on his own.
So, this will turn out to be a surrender or not depending on what happens in three weeks, since I can't see Pelosi giving him more than the dollar she mentioned some weeks ago.
But during these three weeks the pressure for her to give him rather more wall money than that from wusses among Democrats and in generally pro-Democratic media will escalate.
She has from the first not only called the wall stupid but labeled it immoral.
She has from the first said, in any negotiations, she would be willing to give him some wall money, exactly one dollar.
So we'll see not only whether Trump has surrendered, but whether Pelosi will.
Trump Concedes to Democrats After Month-Long Shutdown and Will Reopen the Government — Temporarily
And of course the TV broadcast another ten or twenty minutes of him lying to us all about Democrats, immigrants legal and not, and blah blah blah.
Only yesterday Mick Mulvaney was telling us the White House was planning on continuing the shutdown for months, if the Dems wouldn't first give the Duce his $5.7 billion in wall money.
Recall that for King Charles I it was about ship money.
It's always about money, for these assholes.
So, this will turn out to be a surrender or not depending on what happens in three weeks, since I can't see Pelosi giving him more than the dollar she mentioned some weeks ago.
But during these three weeks the pressure for her to give him rather more wall money than that from wusses among Democrats and in generally pro-Democratic media will escalate.
She has from the first not only called the wall stupid but labeled it immoral.
She has from the first said, in any negotiations, she would be willing to give him some wall money, exactly one dollar.
So we'll see not only whether Trump has surrendered, but whether Pelosi will.
Trump Concedes to Democrats After Month-Long Shutdown and Will Reopen the Government — Temporarily
And of course the TV broadcast another ten or twenty minutes of him lying to us all about Democrats, immigrants legal and not, and blah blah blah.
Only yesterday Mick Mulvaney was telling us the White House was planning on continuing the shutdown for months, if the Dems wouldn't first give the Duce his $5.7 billion in wall money.
Recall that for King Charles I it was about ship money.
It's always about money, for these assholes.
The end of a nightmare for Venezuela?
The too far left of the Democratic Party is stooging for Maduro and already damning a coup that hasn't happened and the US for supporting it.
The Venezuelan military isn't going to dump Maduro.
His civilian political opponents, committed to legitimate republican government far more than he is, are trying to.
Trump of course does not give a fig for legitimate republican government.
His only concern is the truly epically failing, utterly incompetent quasi-socialism of the Bolivarian Revolution, more aspirational than real, that's wrecked the Venezuelan economy.
That is true as well of these too far leftists.
The only difference is he wants the socialist chaos to end and they want to protect it.
New liberals in Congress call Trump’s Venezuela action ‘a U.S. backed coup’
It is in no way a surprise that the also too far left Bernie also opposes any suggestion of US interference in Venezuela.
Three members of Congress, California Rep. Ro Khanna, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, have released statements condemning the U.S. action in Venezuela, which so far amounts to the recognitio of Guaidó, $20 million in humanitarian assistance to the Venezuelan opposition and the threat of further action if Nicolas Maduro, whom the administration sees as an illegitimate president, resorts to violence.
. . . .
The position of Gabbard, Khanna and Omar is not shared by a majority of Democrats in Congress, including congressional leaders.
. . . .
The U.S. is not alone in its decision to recognize Guaidó.
The United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil and Colombia, and most other Latin American nations have also recognized the opposition leader.
China, Russia, Turkey, Cuba and Bolivia are opposed to the decision, while Mexico, Uruguay and the European Union have called for more dialogue.
Gabbard, a noted opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign countries who is running for president in 2020, also opposed the decision.
“The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela,’ Gabbard tweeted.
“Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don’t want other countries to choose our leaders — so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.”
. . . .
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is mulling a 2020 presidential bid of his own, condemned recent events in Venezuela but also said the U.S. should “not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups.”
His comments condemning Venezuela’s economic situation drew criticism from some of his supporters.
“We must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups — as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil & the DR, [Domincan Republic]” Sanders said in a statement.
“The US has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American nations; we must not go down that road again.”
South Florida Democrats, including Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Shalala and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, whose districts have significant numbers of Venezuelans, are supportive of the administration’s steps and have introduced bills that would hinder Maduro’s ability to obtain arms and sell oil.
Mucarsel-Powell also spoke at a pro-Venezuela opposition rally on Wednesday in Washington, and Wasserman Schultz is hosting an event with Venezuelan community leaders in her district on Friday.
The Democratic Socialists of America, which count U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as members, also called the decision to recognize Guaidó a “U.S.-backed coup.”
Former U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelo pointed out to Omar that Guaidó’s political party, Popular Will, is described as center-left or center. Guaido’s party includes the first transgender congresswoman elected in Latin America, and party leader Leopoldo Lopez remains under house arrest by Maduro’s regime.
“You’d think a progressive would be a little more supportive. But no, the sick obsession w/ Donald Trump is blinding,” Curbelo tweeted.
Curbelo is wrong.
It's not about Trump, it's about the further left's genuine commitment to socialism.
And by "socialism" here I mean the real thing and not the so-called "social democracy" that represents a penchant within liberalism for moderate increases in the dosage of public provision of goods or services within a fundamentally capitalist society.
Think of Bernie's signature agenda items, Medicare for All and free tuition for undergrads at public colleges and universities.
As for the DSA, of which I was for a time a member, even in the days of Michael Harrington, himself personally an anti-Communist and supporter of the US in the Vietnam War, the organization always had a strong wing that prioritized socialism - real socialism, collective ownership of the means of production - over democracy so far that they defended every one of the Latin American socialist dictatorships and every effort to create new ones.
Not to mention Mao and Soviet Russia.
In short, they were Leninists, Communists, who lied about what they were.
The Venezuelan military isn't going to dump Maduro.
His civilian political opponents, committed to legitimate republican government far more than he is, are trying to.
Trump of course does not give a fig for legitimate republican government.
His only concern is the truly epically failing, utterly incompetent quasi-socialism of the Bolivarian Revolution, more aspirational than real, that's wrecked the Venezuelan economy.
That is true as well of these too far leftists.
The only difference is he wants the socialist chaos to end and they want to protect it.
New liberals in Congress call Trump’s Venezuela action ‘a U.S. backed coup’
It is in no way a surprise that the also too far left Bernie also opposes any suggestion of US interference in Venezuela.
Three members of Congress, California Rep. Ro Khanna, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, have released statements condemning the U.S. action in Venezuela, which so far amounts to the recognitio of Guaidó, $20 million in humanitarian assistance to the Venezuelan opposition and the threat of further action if Nicolas Maduro, whom the administration sees as an illegitimate president, resorts to violence.
. . . .
The position of Gabbard, Khanna and Omar is not shared by a majority of Democrats in Congress, including congressional leaders.
. . . .
The U.S. is not alone in its decision to recognize Guaidó.
The United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil and Colombia, and most other Latin American nations have also recognized the opposition leader.
China, Russia, Turkey, Cuba and Bolivia are opposed to the decision, while Mexico, Uruguay and the European Union have called for more dialogue.
Gabbard, a noted opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign countries who is running for president in 2020, also opposed the decision.
“The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela,’ Gabbard tweeted.
“Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don’t want other countries to choose our leaders — so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.”
. . . .
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is mulling a 2020 presidential bid of his own, condemned recent events in Venezuela but also said the U.S. should “not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups.”
His comments condemning Venezuela’s economic situation drew criticism from some of his supporters.
“We must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups — as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil & the DR, [Domincan Republic]” Sanders said in a statement.
“The US has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American nations; we must not go down that road again.”
South Florida Democrats, including Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Shalala and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, whose districts have significant numbers of Venezuelans, are supportive of the administration’s steps and have introduced bills that would hinder Maduro’s ability to obtain arms and sell oil.
Mucarsel-Powell also spoke at a pro-Venezuela opposition rally on Wednesday in Washington, and Wasserman Schultz is hosting an event with Venezuelan community leaders in her district on Friday.
The Democratic Socialists of America, which count U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as members, also called the decision to recognize Guaidó a “U.S.-backed coup.”
Former U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelo pointed out to Omar that Guaidó’s political party, Popular Will, is described as center-left or center. Guaido’s party includes the first transgender congresswoman elected in Latin America, and party leader Leopoldo Lopez remains under house arrest by Maduro’s regime.
“You’d think a progressive would be a little more supportive. But no, the sick obsession w/ Donald Trump is blinding,” Curbelo tweeted.
Curbelo is wrong.
It's not about Trump, it's about the further left's genuine commitment to socialism.
And by "socialism" here I mean the real thing and not the so-called "social democracy" that represents a penchant within liberalism for moderate increases in the dosage of public provision of goods or services within a fundamentally capitalist society.
Think of Bernie's signature agenda items, Medicare for All and free tuition for undergrads at public colleges and universities.
As for the DSA, of which I was for a time a member, even in the days of Michael Harrington, himself personally an anti-Communist and supporter of the US in the Vietnam War, the organization always had a strong wing that prioritized socialism - real socialism, collective ownership of the means of production - over democracy so far that they defended every one of the Latin American socialist dictatorships and every effort to create new ones.
Not to mention Mao and Soviet Russia.
In short, they were Leninists, Communists, who lied about what they were.
How exactly could he even do that?
Coulter to Trump: Break Ground Today!
Does she not understand how the government works, at all, either?
They so live in an alternate reality, these loonies.
Does she not understand how the government works, at all, either?
They so live in an alternate reality, these loonies.
Team Trump
Sarah Sanders, Trump himself, Manafort, Stone, Giuliani, Hannity, Limbaugh - all these people and an entire network of sources of fake news and conspiracy theories look more and more like Baghdad Bob announcing massive Iraqi victories and crushing losses of the invading Americans to TV newsies in the last days of Saddam's regime.
Newsies were actually laughing at him during his press conferences.
Of course, the Trump folks were laughable from the beginning, from the days of their insisting his inauguration crowds were the biggest ever, and much bigger than Obama's.
It's just that newsies were so unused to press conferences in the White House being as absurd as those of Baghdad Bob that they reacted with shock and dismay rather than unrestrained mockery and laughter.
About Bob:
His pronouncements [during the Iraq War] included claims that American soldiers were committing suicide "by the hundreds" outside the city, and denial that there were any American tanks in Baghdad, when in fact they were only several hundred meters away from the press conference where he was speaking and the combat sounds of the nearing American troops could already be heard in the background of the broadcast.
On another occasion he spoke of the disastrous outcomes of previous foreign attempts to invade Iraq, citing an unspecified Western history book and inviting the journalists present to come to his home to read it.
His last public appearance as Information Minister was on 8 April 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender".
When asked where he had got his information he replied, "authentic sources—many authentic sources".
He pointed out that he "was a professional, doing his job".
Newsies were actually laughing at him during his press conferences.
Of course, the Trump folks were laughable from the beginning, from the days of their insisting his inauguration crowds were the biggest ever, and much bigger than Obama's.
It's just that newsies were so unused to press conferences in the White House being as absurd as those of Baghdad Bob that they reacted with shock and dismay rather than unrestrained mockery and laughter.
About Bob:
His pronouncements [during the Iraq War] included claims that American soldiers were committing suicide "by the hundreds" outside the city, and denial that there were any American tanks in Baghdad, when in fact they were only several hundred meters away from the press conference where he was speaking and the combat sounds of the nearing American troops could already be heard in the background of the broadcast.
On another occasion he spoke of the disastrous outcomes of previous foreign attempts to invade Iraq, citing an unspecified Western history book and inviting the journalists present to come to his home to read it.
His last public appearance as Information Minister was on 8 April 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender".
When asked where he had got his information he replied, "authentic sources—many authentic sources".
He pointed out that he "was a professional, doing his job".
Trump tantrum consequences
FAA Shuts LaGuardia Due To Trump Shutdown
The Federal Aviation Administration has halted all flights entering LaGuardia Airport in New York due to staffing issues with the airport’s air traffic controllers.
All departing flights are subject to an average ground delay of 40 minutes due to the staffing shortage, according to the FAA's website.
The FAA also says air traffic is delayed at Philadelphia International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey due to staffing issues.
The Federal Aviation Administration has halted all flights entering LaGuardia Airport in New York due to staffing issues with the airport’s air traffic controllers.
All departing flights are subject to an average ground delay of 40 minutes due to the staffing shortage, according to the FAA's website.
The FAA also says air traffic is delayed at Philadelphia International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey due to staffing issues.
Unpaid federal agents at work
Paul Manafort Will Appear in Court Over Allegations He Lied to Investigators
Mueller's guys told he judge he lied so often to them after he made a deal that the deal is off and he deserves no credit for being a cooperating witness, which, effectively, he was not.
A TV newsie, as if scratching his head, wondered why Manafort would screw up the deal.
My guess?
He thinks he doesn't need a deal, he can count on a pardon.
Stone indictment details his contacts with Trump camp about WikiLeaks
Arrested by marshals, his apartment raided with a search warrant, 7 charges for witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and perjury in connection with his role and the role of others in obtaining Hillary's emails from Wikileaks.
Newsies again ask why he did such risky things, and again the answer is that he expects a pardon.
Trump's response to the arrest: "Witch hunt!"
And of course the real outrage is that somebody tipped off CNN to be there to video the raid and arrest.
Sarah Sanders reacts to Roger Stone indictment with misleading spin
She should disgust herself.
But then so should all these clowns, especially Bozo.
I guess we could ask how Trump could be so stupid as to openly ask the Russians for Hillary's emails on TV, or tell Lester Holt during a TV interview that he fired Comey over Russiagate.
But Tillerson told us.
He's a moron.
Mueller's guys told he judge he lied so often to them after he made a deal that the deal is off and he deserves no credit for being a cooperating witness, which, effectively, he was not.
A TV newsie, as if scratching his head, wondered why Manafort would screw up the deal.
My guess?
He thinks he doesn't need a deal, he can count on a pardon.
Stone indictment details his contacts with Trump camp about WikiLeaks
Arrested by marshals, his apartment raided with a search warrant, 7 charges for witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and perjury in connection with his role and the role of others in obtaining Hillary's emails from Wikileaks.
Newsies again ask why he did such risky things, and again the answer is that he expects a pardon.
Trump's response to the arrest: "Witch hunt!"
And of course the real outrage is that somebody tipped off CNN to be there to video the raid and arrest.
Sarah Sanders reacts to Roger Stone indictment with misleading spin
She should disgust herself.
But then so should all these clowns, especially Bozo.
I guess we could ask how Trump could be so stupid as to openly ask the Russians for Hillary's emails on TV, or tell Lester Holt during a TV interview that he fired Comey over Russiagate.
But Tillerson told us.
He's a moron.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Not really up to him
Michael Cohen subpoenaed by Senate Intelligence Committee
Yes the chair is a Republican who decided this was necessary.
President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was subpoenaed Thursday to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, a source close to Cohen told CNN.
It is not clear how Cohen will respond.
The source said that Cohen has the same concerns regarding the safety of his family that led him to postpone his scheduled public appearance before the House Oversight Committee next month.
Senate Intelligence traditionally does their interviews behind closed doors, not publicly.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, declined to comment on the subpoena.
A spokeswoman for the committee also declined to comment.
The congressional subpoena is the first of potentially several that Cohen could face before he reports to prison on March 6 for his three-year jail sentence after pleading guilty to tax and campaign finance crimes, as well as lying to Congress in his 2017 congressional testimony.
House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings of Maryland and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California both said this week that they expect Cohen to testify before their panels — House Oversight in public and House Intelligence behind closed doors — and could also issue subpoenas to compel Cohen's appearance.
Yes the chair is a Republican who decided this was necessary.
President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was subpoenaed Thursday to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, a source close to Cohen told CNN.
It is not clear how Cohen will respond.
The source said that Cohen has the same concerns regarding the safety of his family that led him to postpone his scheduled public appearance before the House Oversight Committee next month.
Senate Intelligence traditionally does their interviews behind closed doors, not publicly.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, declined to comment on the subpoena.
A spokeswoman for the committee also declined to comment.
The congressional subpoena is the first of potentially several that Cohen could face before he reports to prison on March 6 for his three-year jail sentence after pleading guilty to tax and campaign finance crimes, as well as lying to Congress in his 2017 congressional testimony.
House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings of Maryland and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California both said this week that they expect Cohen to testify before their panels — House Oversight in public and House Intelligence behind closed doors — and could also issue subpoenas to compel Cohen's appearance.
Whose side are you on, oh whose side are you on?
Trump aides keep telling struggling workers to suck it up
We're two federal paychecks into the longest government shutdown in history and government workers are hurting. But key people in President Donald Trump's orbit have offered little in the way of comfort in recent days.
Get a loan, suggested Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary. It's just a "little bit of pain," said the President's daughter-in-law and campaign aide Lara Trump.
Ross' Commerce Department currently lacks funding and most of the more than 45,000 employees who work for him are facing down their second straight paycheck of $0.00.
We're two federal paychecks into the longest government shutdown in history and government workers are hurting. But key people in President Donald Trump's orbit have offered little in the way of comfort in recent days.
Get a loan, suggested Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary. It's just a "little bit of pain," said the President's daughter-in-law and campaign aide Lara Trump.
Ross' Commerce Department currently lacks funding and most of the more than 45,000 employees who work for him are facing down their second straight paycheck of $0.00.
Democrats block wall money in the senate; Republicans block money to reopen the government
Shutdown continues: Senate blocks bills to fund government amid fight over Trump border wall
The Senate blocked dueling bills to fund the government on Thursday, leaving no clear path to ending the longest government shutdown ever.
Both a Republican-backed proposal and a measure supported by Democrats did not get the 60 votes needed to pass — though a plan to reopen the government without funding for President Donald Trump's border wall earned more votes.
The failures to find a resolution come as 800,000 federal workers already stretched for cash start to miss another paycheck on Friday.
A GOP-backed measure to fund Trump's border wall and offer limited legal protections for some immigrants failed in a 50-47 vote.
Three senators — Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republicans Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Mike Lee of Utah — broke with their parties.
A plan supported by Democrats fared better, with a 52-44 vote.
Five Republican senators supported it: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah.
The Senate blocked dueling bills to fund the government on Thursday, leaving no clear path to ending the longest government shutdown ever.
Both a Republican-backed proposal and a measure supported by Democrats did not get the 60 votes needed to pass — though a plan to reopen the government without funding for President Donald Trump's border wall earned more votes.
The failures to find a resolution come as 800,000 federal workers already stretched for cash start to miss another paycheck on Friday.
A GOP-backed measure to fund Trump's border wall and offer limited legal protections for some immigrants failed in a 50-47 vote.
Three senators — Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republicans Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Mike Lee of Utah — broke with their parties.
A plan supported by Democrats fared better, with a 52-44 vote.
Five Republican senators supported it: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah.
Elections have consequences
Medicaid Work Requirements Rejected by Maine’s New Governor
Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) notified the Trump administration on Tuesday that Maine won’t accept the terms of the pending Medicaid waiver submitted by former Republican Gov. LePage that would have applied onerous work requirements and reduced access to health care.
LePage’s waiver would also have required people who only use Medicaid to cover family planning to pay premiums, violating federal law prohibiting cost sharing for family planning services and supplies.
Mills instead directed officials in Maine’s department of health and human services (DHHS) to increase workforce training opportunities for MaineCare participants.
. . . .
Mills plans to bolster workforce training by increasing the use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding for employment services; implementing a new Higher Opportunity for Pathways to Employment (HOPE) program to support families with low incomes; connecting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients to jobs through the state’s department of labor; and connecting all these recipients with the Maine CareerCenter system, according to a statement from the governor’s office.
. . . .
CMS approved LePage’s push for Medicaid work requirements in December. Republican governors across the United States have asked the Trump administration to approve similar requirements, which have made Medicaid inaccessible for thousands of people with low incomes.
Almost 17,000 people in Arkansas have lost their Medicaid coverage due to GOP-backed work requirements.
Last June a federal judge blocked Kentucky’s Medicaid work requirements after their legality was challenged. CMS has approved a new waiver there that’s also facing a lawsuit.
. . . .
Mills this month implemented the voter-initiated Medicaid expansion LePage tried to block in violation of the law. Maine was the first state to expand Medicaid via a ballot initiative in 2017.
Mills’ first executive order this month asked Maine’s DHHS to swiftly implement the expansion, which has enrolled more than 1,500 eligible Mainers in health-care coverage under the program as of January 18.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) notified the Trump administration on Tuesday that Maine won’t accept the terms of the pending Medicaid waiver submitted by former Republican Gov. LePage that would have applied onerous work requirements and reduced access to health care.
LePage’s waiver would also have required people who only use Medicaid to cover family planning to pay premiums, violating federal law prohibiting cost sharing for family planning services and supplies.
Mills instead directed officials in Maine’s department of health and human services (DHHS) to increase workforce training opportunities for MaineCare participants.
. . . .
Mills plans to bolster workforce training by increasing the use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding for employment services; implementing a new Higher Opportunity for Pathways to Employment (HOPE) program to support families with low incomes; connecting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients to jobs through the state’s department of labor; and connecting all these recipients with the Maine CareerCenter system, according to a statement from the governor’s office.
. . . .
CMS approved LePage’s push for Medicaid work requirements in December. Republican governors across the United States have asked the Trump administration to approve similar requirements, which have made Medicaid inaccessible for thousands of people with low incomes.
Almost 17,000 people in Arkansas have lost their Medicaid coverage due to GOP-backed work requirements.
Last June a federal judge blocked Kentucky’s Medicaid work requirements after their legality was challenged. CMS has approved a new waiver there that’s also facing a lawsuit.
. . . .
Mills this month implemented the voter-initiated Medicaid expansion LePage tried to block in violation of the law. Maine was the first state to expand Medicaid via a ballot initiative in 2017.
Mills’ first executive order this month asked Maine’s DHHS to swiftly implement the expansion, which has enrolled more than 1,500 eligible Mainers in health-care coverage under the program as of January 18.
Impeach Trump for the shutdown
Nancy Pelosi should be holding hearings on impeaching Trump for smashing the government to get his way.
The constitution says the president must see that the laws are faithfully executed.
But Bozo is deliberately hobbling his own the federal government's efforts to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
Here are just a few examples, and I am sure the reader knows of more.
We are told the FDA is not able to keep up inspections and regulatory policing.
We are told that federal courts cannot fully do their work.
We are told the FBI is not performing all it would be doing were it fully funded.
We know the TSA is not working as effectively as it would were it fully funded.
We know the work of the air traffic controllers, essential work they are required by law to perform, is being impeded by the exhaustion of funds.
Thanks to Trump's shutdown, the ability of these agencies and groups to see that the laws are faithfully executed has been and is being and is every day being more significantly impeded.
At the same time, things that the federal government itself is required by law to do are beginning not to be done or not to be done as adequately or efficiently as funds are exhausted.
Trump, by deliberately withholding funds, is hindering the relevant parts of the government from doing what they are required by law to do.
Far from seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, the malevolent moron in the White House is impeding and in some cases outright preventing their execution.
Impeach him for that.
Yes, it's a fucking high crime or misdemeanor.
And every Democrat in the country and every responsible lawyer in the country has to shout that it is.
The constitution says the president must see that the laws are faithfully executed.
But Bozo is deliberately hobbling his own the federal government's efforts to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
Here are just a few examples, and I am sure the reader knows of more.
We are told the FDA is not able to keep up inspections and regulatory policing.
We are told that federal courts cannot fully do their work.
We are told the FBI is not performing all it would be doing were it fully funded.
We know the TSA is not working as effectively as it would were it fully funded.
We know the work of the air traffic controllers, essential work they are required by law to perform, is being impeded by the exhaustion of funds.
Thanks to Trump's shutdown, the ability of these agencies and groups to see that the laws are faithfully executed has been and is being and is every day being more significantly impeded.
At the same time, things that the federal government itself is required by law to do are beginning not to be done or not to be done as adequately or efficiently as funds are exhausted.
Trump, by deliberately withholding funds, is hindering the relevant parts of the government from doing what they are required by law to do.
Far from seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, the malevolent moron in the White House is impeding and in some cases outright preventing their execution.
Impeach him for that.
Yes, it's a fucking high crime or misdemeanor.
And every Democrat in the country and every responsible lawyer in the country has to shout that it is.
The media and Trump
Lance Manion
Know who managed it?
Hillary.
And the media hated her for it because it was BORE-ING!
She even managed to force Trump to try to act like a serious potential president.
During all three debates, he struggled to lift himself up to her level.
She of course wiped the floor with him while maintaining her dignity, sanity, and control of not just her message but the terms of the debates, keeping them focused on issues and policy and demonstrating her superior knowledge, experience, and expertise.
Which caused Chuck Todd to declare her “over-prepared.”
. . . .
Bruni:
Reston and Collinson make clear that the media is going to put up a fight on that. They want it to be all Trump all the time
They're also going to do their best to make it all about personality.
You can already see how they're framing it: opposition to Trump is all about what HE is not what he's DOING.
. . . .
He’s an ignorant and incompetent boob is different from look at the damage his incompetence and ignorance are causing.
But that’s all the media want to hear the Democrats say because they want them to sink to his level.
That has the effect of putting them on the same level and they can cover the race as if it it’s between equally substance-free candidates and that saves them from the work of having to understand policy and make judgments they know they’re not qualified to make.
Dueling insult comics and drama queens means they can practice the easy sports reporting and theater reviewing instead they’re good at.
Politics is a performance art, but the way the media would have it, that’s all it is, which lets them pretend the best performance artist will make the best president without having to think about what else the job entails.
Trump didn’t change the rules.
He understood the rules.
There is a common challenge confronting all of the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls: how to take on Donald Trump while maintaining their dignity, sanity and message control…
With the campaign in its infancy, candidates are muddling through how to best take on Trump without sinking to his level of discourse…—Maeve Reston and Stephen Collinson for CNN, January 22, 2019.
Know who managed it?
Hillary.
And the media hated her for it because it was BORE-ING!
She even managed to force Trump to try to act like a serious potential president.
During all three debates, he struggled to lift himself up to her level.
She of course wiped the floor with him while maintaining her dignity, sanity, and control of not just her message but the terms of the debates, keeping them focused on issues and policy and demonstrating her superior knowledge, experience, and expertise.
Which caused Chuck Todd to declare her “over-prepared.”
. . . .
Bruni:
We can also allow his challengers to talk about themselves as much as they do about him.
In 2016, Carpenter said, that didn’t happen.
“It was deeply unfair,” she told me...
“When the whole news cycle was microphones shoved in Republican candidates’ faces and the question was always, ‘What’s your reaction to what Trump just said?,’ there’s no way to drive your own message.The Democratic contenders are going to have to establish themselves as more than just anti-Trumps. The question is will the media let them?
Reston and Collinson make clear that the media is going to put up a fight on that. They want it to be all Trump all the time
They're also going to do their best to make it all about personality.
You can already see how they're framing it: opposition to Trump is all about what HE is not what he's DOING.
. . . .
He’s an ignorant and incompetent boob is different from look at the damage his incompetence and ignorance are causing.
But that’s all the media want to hear the Democrats say because they want them to sink to his level.
That has the effect of putting them on the same level and they can cover the race as if it it’s between equally substance-free candidates and that saves them from the work of having to understand policy and make judgments they know they’re not qualified to make.
Dueling insult comics and drama queens means they can practice the easy sports reporting and theater reviewing instead they’re good at.
Politics is a performance art, but the way the media would have it, that’s all it is, which lets them pretend the best performance artist will make the best president without having to think about what else the job entails.
Trump didn’t change the rules.
He understood the rules.
Could be real. Could be psyops. Could be both.
WH Readies For Shutdown To Continue For Months
Look on the bright side.
The longer this goes on, the longer the public has to learn the lesson that we do need government.
And we need it to be Big.
It's worth repeating.
If Trump comes out of this with any wall money at all, he's won, and he's proved to himself and everyone that if he wants something badly enough he knows how to get it.
No matter how much the Congress hates it.
He and everyone will know he can always bring them to heel.
Look on the bright side.
The longer this goes on, the longer the public has to learn the lesson that we do need government.
And we need it to be Big.
It's worth repeating.
If Trump comes out of this with any wall money at all, he's won, and he's proved to himself and everyone that if he wants something badly enough he knows how to get it.
No matter how much the Congress hates it.
He and everyone will know he can always bring them to heel.
Say no to nuclear power
Former NRC Regulator's New Book Argues Against Nuclear Power
"I saw how the industry was regulated and how it works," he said. "This is a technology that's hazardous. It's a technology that at any moment really could lead to the kind of catastrophic accident we saw at Fukushima. I thought people should understand that. as you said, people are talking about nuclear power as the savior to climate change. That worries me more than the risk of a nuclear power accident because I don't think it can rise to that challenge."
. . . .
"I started in Washington as a physicist, so I looked at every issue based on the facts, made hypotheses and revised as I learned new facts. The biggest fact that changed my mind was this accident in Fukushima. I saw 100,000 people evacuated from their homes, many permanently evacuated. That's the kind of thing you should never see from a source that generates electricity. And moreover, we were promised and the industry pledged that these kinds of accidents were in the past, and here we had one in front of us. I began to realize this is a technology that simply was too hazardous to really be a future technology," he said.
"Walk us through what impact still is found there on the ground in Japan," Jonathan Lemire said.
"There's large areas of the plant still uninhabitable. Most evacuated and can't return to their homes. Lives have been disrupted. in a way we think more with wars than with energy generation. And you have a lot of radioactive water that's being stored at the site that people really don't know what to do with. So it will be decades before -- " he said.
"How likely could something like this happen in the United States?"
"You know, it's so hard to predict," he said. "The plants operate on this precipice of normal operation on one side and catastrophic failure on the other. What we know is accidents will happen. It's just a matter of when and where. It's hard to predict. which is why the industry often touts that everything's fine."
"I saw how the industry was regulated and how it works," he said. "This is a technology that's hazardous. It's a technology that at any moment really could lead to the kind of catastrophic accident we saw at Fukushima. I thought people should understand that. as you said, people are talking about nuclear power as the savior to climate change. That worries me more than the risk of a nuclear power accident because I don't think it can rise to that challenge."
. . . .
"I started in Washington as a physicist, so I looked at every issue based on the facts, made hypotheses and revised as I learned new facts. The biggest fact that changed my mind was this accident in Fukushima. I saw 100,000 people evacuated from their homes, many permanently evacuated. That's the kind of thing you should never see from a source that generates electricity. And moreover, we were promised and the industry pledged that these kinds of accidents were in the past, and here we had one in front of us. I began to realize this is a technology that simply was too hazardous to really be a future technology," he said.
"Walk us through what impact still is found there on the ground in Japan," Jonathan Lemire said.
"There's large areas of the plant still uninhabitable. Most evacuated and can't return to their homes. Lives have been disrupted. in a way we think more with wars than with energy generation. And you have a lot of radioactive water that's being stored at the site that people really don't know what to do with. So it will be decades before -- " he said.
"How likely could something like this happen in the United States?"
"You know, it's so hard to predict," he said. "The plants operate on this precipice of normal operation on one side and catastrophic failure on the other. What we know is accidents will happen. It's just a matter of when and where. It's hard to predict. which is why the industry often touts that everything's fine."
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Hate, yes. Terrorism, no. Most likely.
White veteran 'regarded fatal stabbing of black man as practice for larger attack'
Prosecutors said Jackson plunged a 2ft sword into the chest of Caughman, a self-described “can and bottle recycler”, as Caughman bent over a trash bin near his home.
The 66-year-old, whose social media accounts are full of pictures with celebrities such as Beyoncé and Oprah, managed to stagger into a nearby police station, from which he was transported to a hospital and later died.
“The defendant was motivated purely by hatred,” said the assistant district attorney Joan Illuzzi, who added that the charges could be upgraded, “as this was an act most likely of terrorism”.
Prosecutors said Jackson hated black men, especially those who dated white women.
According to investigators, Jackson, a decorated veteran of the Afghanistan war, had harbored his beliefs for at least a decade – at one point having been recorded on tape stalking black men.
Prosecutors said Jackson plunged a 2ft sword into the chest of Caughman, a self-described “can and bottle recycler”, as Caughman bent over a trash bin near his home.
The 66-year-old, whose social media accounts are full of pictures with celebrities such as Beyoncé and Oprah, managed to stagger into a nearby police station, from which he was transported to a hospital and later died.
“The defendant was motivated purely by hatred,” said the assistant district attorney Joan Illuzzi, who added that the charges could be upgraded, “as this was an act most likely of terrorism”.
Prosecutors said Jackson hated black men, especially those who dated white women.
According to investigators, Jackson, a decorated veteran of the Afghanistan war, had harbored his beliefs for at least a decade – at one point having been recorded on tape stalking black men.
So it's impossible, now? Well, not much of a loss. I guess.
MAGA Brats Defend Blackface, So That's Where The US Is Today
Is that really what the MAGA kid was talking about?
He seems to be referring to kids painting their faces different colors at sporting events, using white (actual white, not white "flesh color", as it used to be called), black, or blue face paint.
Much as people have been known at soccer games to face-paint the Union Jack onto themselves, or red white and blue stripes, or other colors representing other countries or even players.
So, no, not blackface, not really.
Just black face paint on a white face.
And while we're on the subject, when people talk about Idris Elba playing James Bond they ask the question why Bond has to be white.
They don't ask the question how a black actor can play a white character.
White actors used to play black characters in blackface, which was in legitimate theater just very heavy makeup on every inch of exposed skin making the skin appear as black as you please.
Examples include Laurence Olivier playing Othello in one great film, and the Mahdi in another (Khartoum).
White actors made similar cosmetic adjustments to their appearances while playing Indians - a whole bunch of white actors in The Plainsman and Drums Along the Mohawk.
And likewise when playing East Asians.
Warner Oland playing Charlie Chan, for example, and some other fellow playing Mister Moto, two Asian private eyes who were always much smarter and more decent than any of the white guys in the room.
But that wasn't about race, anyway, but just the usual the private eye is smarter than the cop thing, a convention older than Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Lestrade.
But anyway a white actor can't do that now, and so far as I know there was never a similar stage convention in the United States to signal audiences that a non-white actor was playing a white character.
Did white actors in Elizabethan England use blackface? I don't know.
As I understand it, in Japan, Japanese actors used to use something like whiteface to play white characters.
But that convention might have been abandoned.
Anyway, the result, it appears, is that there is no conventional visual cue to inform otherwise ignorant audiences that an actor of race x is playing a character of differing race y.
And not every character can all that readily be of just any race.
Consider Othello. Or Aaron of Titus Andronicus.
Both recently played brilliantly by black actors, of necessity.
But no loss, really.
We are long past the days when a casting director might plausibly say to himself the best available actor to play a tremendous black character is a famously brilliant white guy.
By the way, women have played men, and men women, using cross dressing and heavy makeup.
Don't recall if that nowadays raises a fuss, though the practise seems to continue.
Doesn't seem to.
But surely it is no more necessary than using white guys in blackface to play Othello?
So I guess something is lost, really, with the loss of black face.
Artistic freedom for the artists.
And the related innocence, for audiences and critics.
What should be condemned and have been lost was not whites using blackface, but whites using blackface for racist parodies and scorn.
Update.
As for the smug look on that kid Sandmann's face, if you were a 17 year old kid in his position maybe your expression wouldn't be winning, either.
Is that really what the MAGA kid was talking about?
He seems to be referring to kids painting their faces different colors at sporting events, using white (actual white, not white "flesh color", as it used to be called), black, or blue face paint.
Much as people have been known at soccer games to face-paint the Union Jack onto themselves, or red white and blue stripes, or other colors representing other countries or even players.
So, no, not blackface, not really.
Just black face paint on a white face.
And while we're on the subject, when people talk about Idris Elba playing James Bond they ask the question why Bond has to be white.
They don't ask the question how a black actor can play a white character.
White actors used to play black characters in blackface, which was in legitimate theater just very heavy makeup on every inch of exposed skin making the skin appear as black as you please.
Examples include Laurence Olivier playing Othello in one great film, and the Mahdi in another (Khartoum).
White actors made similar cosmetic adjustments to their appearances while playing Indians - a whole bunch of white actors in The Plainsman and Drums Along the Mohawk.
And likewise when playing East Asians.
Warner Oland playing Charlie Chan, for example, and some other fellow playing Mister Moto, two Asian private eyes who were always much smarter and more decent than any of the white guys in the room.
But that wasn't about race, anyway, but just the usual the private eye is smarter than the cop thing, a convention older than Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Lestrade.
But anyway a white actor can't do that now, and so far as I know there was never a similar stage convention in the United States to signal audiences that a non-white actor was playing a white character.
Did white actors in Elizabethan England use blackface? I don't know.
As I understand it, in Japan, Japanese actors used to use something like whiteface to play white characters.
But that convention might have been abandoned.
Anyway, the result, it appears, is that there is no conventional visual cue to inform otherwise ignorant audiences that an actor of race x is playing a character of differing race y.
And not every character can all that readily be of just any race.
Consider Othello. Or Aaron of Titus Andronicus.
Both recently played brilliantly by black actors, of necessity.
But no loss, really.
We are long past the days when a casting director might plausibly say to himself the best available actor to play a tremendous black character is a famously brilliant white guy.
By the way, women have played men, and men women, using cross dressing and heavy makeup.
Don't recall if that nowadays raises a fuss, though the practise seems to continue.
Doesn't seem to.
But surely it is no more necessary than using white guys in blackface to play Othello?
So I guess something is lost, really, with the loss of black face.
Artistic freedom for the artists.
And the related innocence, for audiences and critics.
What should be condemned and have been lost was not whites using blackface, but whites using blackface for racist parodies and scorn.
Update.
As for the smug look on that kid Sandmann's face, if you were a 17 year old kid in his position maybe your expression wouldn't be winning, either.
Torn between two lovers
Bolton and the "Iran must be destroyed" segment of the right, beloved of Breitbart and Fox.
On the other, sweet prince Vlad.
Trump’s anti-Iran Warsaw Conference Collapsing, as Russia says Iran should have been Invited
On the other, sweet prince Vlad.
Trump’s anti-Iran Warsaw Conference Collapsing, as Russia says Iran should have been Invited
Pelosi to Bozo: You're not the boss of me.
She gets it.
His authoritarian delusions notwithstanding.
As she has repeatedly insisted without his getting it at all, the Congress is a coequal branch of government, and just as she and Schumer could not just barge in at the White House not only uninvited but against his express will, Trump cannot barge into the house chamber.
Pelosi: No speech in House until govt opens
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is officially postponing President Donald Trump's State of the Union address until the government is fully reopened.
The California Democrat told Trump in a letter Wednesday the Democratic-controlled House won't pass the required measure for him to give the nationally televised speech from the House floor.
Pelosi acted just hours after Trump notified her that he was planning to deliver the speech next Tuesday in line with her original invitation.
Pelosi's moves have left the White House scrambling to devise an alternative plan for the speech, which is one of the president's top opportunities to lay out his agenda to the public.
Pelosi said "I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened."
His authoritarian delusions notwithstanding.
As she has repeatedly insisted without his getting it at all, the Congress is a coequal branch of government, and just as she and Schumer could not just barge in at the White House not only uninvited but against his express will, Trump cannot barge into the house chamber.
Pelosi: No speech in House until govt opens
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is officially postponing President Donald Trump's State of the Union address until the government is fully reopened.
The California Democrat told Trump in a letter Wednesday the Democratic-controlled House won't pass the required measure for him to give the nationally televised speech from the House floor.
Pelosi acted just hours after Trump notified her that he was planning to deliver the speech next Tuesday in line with her original invitation.
Pelosi's moves have left the White House scrambling to devise an alternative plan for the speech, which is one of the president's top opportunities to lay out his agenda to the public.
Pelosi said "I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened."
Even the Duce can be right
US backs opposition as Venezuela president
US President Donald Trump has said he recognises Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president.
A very unlikely champion of the legislative branch and the rule of law, is our president, against an authoritarian thug he would love if he were not far too red for any Republican.
US President Donald Trump has said he recognises Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president.
A very unlikely champion of the legislative branch and the rule of law, is our president, against an authoritarian thug he would love if he were not far too red for any Republican.
So his model is King Charles. Coffin and all?
King Charles I enters parliament quite without invitation and in defiance of privilege
No president can enter the chambers of Congress uninvited, and Bozo's invitation has been withdrawn.
Ms. Pelosi can order the Sergeant at Arms to not admit him.
It is absolutely not up to him.
Trump vows to deliver State of the Union from House chamber
"I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress of the Union States of America regarding the State of our Union," Trump wrote.
He said the speech would occur on January 29 from the House chamber.
"It would be so very sad for our country, if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!" he wrote.
As speaker, it is Pelosi's prerogative to invite the President to deliver the annual address.
It is also her prerogative to insist on a written State of the Union report.
It was certainly not up to Wilson to decide he could instead deliver a speech to a joint session of the Congress, or to decide whether they would accept that as the constitutionally required report.
Much less was it up to him to decide whether they would even receive him and allow him to speak.
All this is true despite the ignorant continuing insistence of blabbermouths of all networks that the president could decide, all on his own, that a speech delivered at a backyard barbeque at Mar a Lago would suffice to fulfill the constitution's requirement.
[Update. Latest TV news stories indicate somehow some of the talking heads are beginning to realize that so absurd and ignorant a view is, well, absurd and ignorant.]
Are they really that ignorant or is this them knowingly taking his side, even at MSNBC, to force the Democrats to give him something?
Elsewhere in the news it is reported the White House asked for and was denied a walk-through by the Sergeant at Arms to prepare for the usual SOTU at the originally agreed date.
The media are doing their best to trivialize this conflict, missing altogether its historical and political significance.
This is a huge authoritarian push by the Duce, and Nancy cannot yield without grave consequence.
No president can enter the chambers of Congress uninvited, and Bozo's invitation has been withdrawn.
Ms. Pelosi can order the Sergeant at Arms to not admit him.
It is absolutely not up to him.
Trump vows to deliver State of the Union from House chamber
"I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress of the Union States of America regarding the State of our Union," Trump wrote.
He said the speech would occur on January 29 from the House chamber.
"It would be so very sad for our country, if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!" he wrote.
As speaker, it is Pelosi's prerogative to invite the President to deliver the annual address.
It is also her prerogative to insist on a written State of the Union report.
It was certainly not up to Wilson to decide he could instead deliver a speech to a joint session of the Congress, or to decide whether they would accept that as the constitutionally required report.
Much less was it up to him to decide whether they would even receive him and allow him to speak.
All this is true despite the ignorant continuing insistence of blabbermouths of all networks that the president could decide, all on his own, that a speech delivered at a backyard barbeque at Mar a Lago would suffice to fulfill the constitution's requirement.
[Update. Latest TV news stories indicate somehow some of the talking heads are beginning to realize that so absurd and ignorant a view is, well, absurd and ignorant.]
Are they really that ignorant or is this them knowingly taking his side, even at MSNBC, to force the Democrats to give him something?
Elsewhere in the news it is reported the White House asked for and was denied a walk-through by the Sergeant at Arms to prepare for the usual SOTU at the originally agreed date.
The media are doing their best to trivialize this conflict, missing altogether its historical and political significance.
This is a huge authoritarian push by the Duce, and Nancy cannot yield without grave consequence.
What the Constitution requires is not a speech to the public
It does not require a speech at all, but if a speech is given it must be a speech to the Congress to plausibly satisfy.
The Constitution requires a report to the Congress, along with an outline of measures the President would like the Congress to take.
The media are full of claims that Bozo can satisfy this requirement by addressing in his usual thuggish way a rally of his moronic supporters, to which the members of the Congress might or might not individually or collectively pay attention, ad lib.
Bozo himself will be only too glad to do that, but these claims are untrue.
He could satisfy the requirement by submitting a written document to the Congress, however, as Nancy Pelosi wrote him.
In fact, until 1913, that was the norm.
Leave it to those crazy liberals.
Article 3, Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient[.]
Wikipedia
The State of the Union Address is an annual message presented by the President of the United States to a joint session of the United States Congress at the beginning of each calendar year in office.
The message typically includes a budget message and an economic report of the nation, and also allows the President to propose a legislative agenda (for which the cooperation of Congress is needed) and national priorities.
The address fulfills rules in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requiring the President to periodically "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
During most of the country's first century, the President primarily only submitted a written report to Congress.
After 1913, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th U.S. President, began the regular practice of delivering the address to Congress in person as a way to rally support for the President's agenda.
With the advent of radio and television, the address is now broadcast live across the country on many networks.
The Constitution requires a report to the Congress, along with an outline of measures the President would like the Congress to take.
The media are full of claims that Bozo can satisfy this requirement by addressing in his usual thuggish way a rally of his moronic supporters, to which the members of the Congress might or might not individually or collectively pay attention, ad lib.
Bozo himself will be only too glad to do that, but these claims are untrue.
He could satisfy the requirement by submitting a written document to the Congress, however, as Nancy Pelosi wrote him.
In fact, until 1913, that was the norm.
Leave it to those crazy liberals.
Article 3, Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient[.]
Wikipedia
The State of the Union Address is an annual message presented by the President of the United States to a joint session of the United States Congress at the beginning of each calendar year in office.
The message typically includes a budget message and an economic report of the nation, and also allows the President to propose a legislative agenda (for which the cooperation of Congress is needed) and national priorities.
The address fulfills rules in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requiring the President to periodically "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
During most of the country's first century, the President primarily only submitted a written report to Congress.
After 1913, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th U.S. President, began the regular practice of delivering the address to Congress in person as a way to rally support for the President's agenda.
With the advent of radio and television, the address is now broadcast live across the country on many networks.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
They can end it at any time they want
Trump imposed the shutdown and Trump can end it any time.
The senate GOP is supporting him by refusing to pass legislation that would open the government already passed in the house and passed in December unanimously in the senate.
If they did with that same level of support the bill would override Trump's veto.
But McConnell dares not betray the president, so instead he supports the shutdown and refuses to allow any bill to end the shutdown that doesn't satisfy the Duce.
Bozo and the Republicans are willingly trashing the government and people who depend on it, and threatening to keep on doing it until the Democrats give Bozo the wall money the Republican controlled congress refused him for two years.
And the thirty odd percent of voters who actually like Trump want him to keep it up.
For their approval, as transmitted by Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, he will.
If McConnell is waiting for the Duce to relent he is a fool.
Bozo clearly agrees with the right wing propaganda that we should all hope those on furlough never go back to work and those working without pay never get paid, because the government is one giant useless bloated pusbag that should be allowed to explode.
Bozo clearly agrees with the right wing propaganda that we should all hope those on furlough never go back to work and those working without pay never get paid, because the government is one giant useless bloated pusbag that should be allowed to explode.
Trump will not stop and when things get bad enough McConnell will have to do what he dreads to do.
Update.
Or, McConnell could wait for the violence to begin, as desperate and enraged people openly attack either the President or his supporters.
Or just riot wildly, spreading destruction in all directions,
Rather in the style of a race riot.
Update.
Or, McConnell could wait for the violence to begin, as desperate and enraged people openly attack either the President or his supporters.
Or just riot wildly, spreading destruction in all directions,
Rather in the style of a race riot.
Monday, January 21, 2019
A reader once asked who was thought to be white in the 18th and 19th Centuries
See this.
In these latter days, anyway in the US, both "caucasian" and "white" are commonly and in defiance of both history and phenotypic facts taken to refer exclusively to eurowhites.
It does not seem to me to recommend this usage based on nothing but bigoted and narrow-minded politics that, though drastically narrower than any of the historical uses of the terms based on physical traits and too broad to match up quite to Hitler's use of "Aryan", it suits American race politics and many of the racists of America, both white (the Klan might like it) and anti-white.
Except when it is pointed out that this usage plausibly and quite absurdly does imply that Jesus was not white, and maybe neither are America's Jews, and certainly neither are America's Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Armenians, and many others.
Should we really accept a usage that with egregious idiocy entails that Danny Thomas wasn't white?
That would have surprised the hell out of him and out of all Americans of the time.
Note that broad phenotypic resemblances are taken to be the relevant racial markers, both when the word is used in its broadest and its less broad and more common senses.
In the broadest sense, a lot of brown people are white, skin color not being among the markers considered definitive.
A somewhat narrower usage relies more on skin color and so leaves out the darker brown caucasians of the Indian subcontinent, but still covers many more people than just the eurowhites, including, for example, peoples on both sides and at both ends of the Mediterranean as well as peoples speaking Turkic and Semitic languages.
Hitler's use of the term "Aryan", by the way, to refer exclusively to Germanic eurowhites was a very narrow departure from that word's older use to denote all the Indo-European peoples, a subset of the caucasians that includes lots of brown people of the Indian subcontinent but excludes (for example) whites who speak Turkic languages.
In these latter days, anyway in the US, both "caucasian" and "white" are commonly and in defiance of both history and phenotypic facts taken to refer exclusively to eurowhites.
It does not seem to me to recommend this usage based on nothing but bigoted and narrow-minded politics that, though drastically narrower than any of the historical uses of the terms based on physical traits and too broad to match up quite to Hitler's use of "Aryan", it suits American race politics and many of the racists of America, both white (the Klan might like it) and anti-white.
Except when it is pointed out that this usage plausibly and quite absurdly does imply that Jesus was not white, and maybe neither are America's Jews, and certainly neither are America's Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Armenians, and many others.
Should we really accept a usage that with egregious idiocy entails that Danny Thomas wasn't white?
That would have surprised the hell out of him and out of all Americans of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)