April 16, 2019

Videos of Sanders Fox News Town Hall

Part 1:

Part 2:

Enjoy as Bernie shreds his hosts and shuts down their mis-informed gotcha questions.

March 17, 2019

Bill McKibben writes in the New Yorker about Beto and the Green New Deal.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-to-tell-if-beto-orourke-is-for-real-a-green-new-deal-and-natural-gas

From the Article:

In fact, that transition is already starting to happen in places such as India and China, where the use of renewable energy is increasing at a breakneck pace because it is both cheap and clean. And it could happen here, too: as the C.E.O. of a solar company said earlier this year, “I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in this country with a solar-plus-storage power plant.”

But the pressures to keep doing more of what we’re used to are enormous. Texas has the second-largest economy in the country; oil and gas are still the state’s largest industries. For employees of those companies, who, in 2018, contributed more money to O’Rourke’s campaign than to that of any other member of Congress except Cruz (it’s Texas, after all), natural-gas production is a way to extend their livelihoods for a few more decades. (Unlike Cruz, O’Rourke took no money from PACs. ) Those parts of organized labor skilled at building pipelines and gas plants want to keep their jobs, too; indeed, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s energy committee said last week that it could not support the Green New Deal, stating in a letter to its congressional sponsors that “we will not stand by and allow threats to our members’ jobs and their families’ standard of living go unanswered.”

These pressures are why, for eight years, President Obama supported fracking—it’s the path of least resistance. In fairness to Obama, when his term in office began, we still thought of natural gas as the cleaner fossil fuel, because it gives off less carbon when it burns than coal does. But it turns out that fracking not only pollutes water and damages communities; over the past decade, scientists have demonstrated that the leaking methane that invariably accompanies fracking can make natural gas as bad for the climate as coal. Meanwhile, the price of renewables has fallen so far and so fast that we no longer need a “bridge fuel” to get us from coal to something truly clean, however convenient that prospect would be for those enmeshed in the current system. (Still, the science and the economics have not yet been enough to overcome the status quo, as I learned, in 2016, when Bernie Sanders, whom I supported, named me to the Democratic platform-writing panel; my arguments, and those of other anti-fracking campaigners, were not enough to get the document changed.)

By 2019, though, climate change has progressed to the point where a middle-of-the-road, all-of-the-above strategy is impossible: less for reasons of politics, where it may always be the easiest to sell, than for reasons of physics. O’Rourke, who has been strong on a range of other environmental issues, could conceivably be a central figure in the transition to renewable energy. Oil and gas may still be dominant in Texas, but O’Rourke’s home state also has the largest wind-power capacity in the country, and it is one of the five largest producers of solar energy. And, in 2017, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that solar photovoltaic installers and wind-turbine-service technicians are the fastest-growing occupations in the country. So, just as it took a politician of the right, Richard Nixon, to open up relations with China, a Texan might be just the person to persuade oil-and-gas workers that their futures can lie in building solar installations and wind farms—and to stand up to the fossil-fuel companies and the PACs that have so dominated our politics. Because we’ve run out of spare decades in which to play political games.

Bill McKibben, a former New Yorker staff writer, is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org and the Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College. His forthcoming book is “Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?”Read more »

March 16, 2019

Did you know Sanders helped Jesse Jackson win the Vermont Caucus in 1988?

You'll find this interesting if for no other reason than the pictures!

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/15/bernie-sanders-2020-race-jesse-jackson-1988-presidential-campaign-225809

March 3, 2019

I hope Cummings or someone reads these questions before the Weissellberg hearing.

Good starting place.

From the New Yorker Magazine: More at...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/swamp-chronicles/fifteen-questions-for-allen-weisselberg-the-cfo-of-the-trump-organization

—In the audio tape of Michael Cohen and Donald Trump discussing the payment of hush money to Karen McDougal, Cohen told Trump, “I’ve spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up.” This seems to refer to the setting up of an anonymous shell company for the purposes of secretly sending a payment without any link to Trump. What advice did you give Cohen about setting this up?

—Was setting up anonymous shell companies a regular practice of yours or of the Trump Organization? Have you set up other anonymous shell companies for Trump? If so, what are their names? What were their purposes? What money came into or flowed out of them? Did Donald Trump direct you to form these anonymous L.L.C.s? Was he aware of their formation and secretive purpose?

—Michael Cohen gave the House Committee on Oversight and Reform summary financial records from 2011 to 2013. They show the Trump Organization’s liquid cash and securities position growing dramatically over these years, even though the company was, simultaneously, spending several hundred million dollars in cash on golf properties. It appears that the Trump Organization acquired at least four hundred million dollars in cash at a time when it made no major sales and experienced no major change in its income-generating businesses. Where did that money come from?

February 23, 2019

They start the journalist young in Pa. A surprise to Arizona marshal.

Have you seen this reporting by a 12 year old? Actually started 3 years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/22/an-arizona-cop-threatened-arrest-year-old-journalist-she-wasnt-backing-down/?utm_term=.d622acbf257d&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1


By Antonia Noori Farzan
February 22

When a small-town Arizona cop stopped a 12-year-old reporter who was chasing down a story tip on Monday, he probably had no idea what he was getting himself into.

Hilde Kate Lysiak, the preteen journalist whose exploits have inspired a Scholastic book series and an upcoming TV show, made a name for herself in 2016 by being the first to report on a grisly murder in her hometown, then firing back at the haters who suggested that a 9-year-old girl shouldn’t be hanging around crime scenes. Since then, she has continued to break news about bank robberies, alleged rapes and other lurid crimes in the Orange Street News, the paper that she publishes out of her parents’ home in Selinsgrove, Pa.

“NOTE TO DEALERS: OSN Will Not Be Intimidated,” she wrote last month, after reportedly receiving threats because she had published text message exchanges between an alleged drug dealer and a woman whom he had reportedly solicited for sex.

So naturally, she didn’t back down when Joseph Patterson, the town marshal in Patagonia, Ariz., allegedly threatened to throw her in juvenile jail on Monday, then falsely claimed it would be illegal for her to film him and publish the video on the Internet. Instead, she posted their exchange on YouTube and in the Orange Street News — which in turn prompted town officials to discipline Patterson, as the Nogales International was the first to report on Wednesday.

February 23, 2019

Why I'm supporting the wildest, most radical left wing candidate:

This is why I’m going to support the wildest, most radical left wing candidate that runs for Democratic Nomination for President. MATH!

As this article points out, more eligible voters chose “None of Above” than either Trump or Clinton in 2018.
They stayed home or where ever else they were rather than vote. Maybe it was hard to take the time, maybe they had been squeezed out by GOP efforts to make it hard to register and vote. Probably they didn’t see how either of the two major party candidates were going to make any difference in their lives. Maybe they felt like they didn’t know the issues or no one in their families ever explained the importance of voting.

Whatever the reason it seems to me it would be easier to stimulate a few of these “none of the above” voters to show up than to peel away some of the wackos who voted for Trump and normally vote for the small government, low taxes, pro life, gun nuts courted by the GOP. But even if I’m wrong and the choice was 10% of the former Trump voters or 10% of the “None of the above” voters, off course I would go with bigger number.

Do the Math: 10% of 43.1% (Those who didn’t vote) equals 4.31% vs. 10% of 27% (Trump voters 2016) equals 2.7%.

That’s 4.31% of 231.5 Million or 9.97 Million vs. 2.7% of 231.5 or 6.25 Million. More than 3.72 Million difference. So even if it turns out Trump voters are more likely to turn to the Democrats and it become impossible to stimulate 10% of the non voters, a 3 million margin argues to concentrate on the non voters. Especially if the cost of getting information to each member of either group is the same.

So the question becomes: Which Candidate will stimulate the non voters to suddenly take interest? I propose the most radical candidate will draw in the non voters at a greater rate than repelling the usual Democratic voter. Further, Trump might be rejected by the GOP who are now wondering if hanging onto Trump’s coattails will bring them the same fate as their 2018 mid term losers. A radical candidate will be needed to differentiate from the usual corporate candidates and stimulate the new, young voters and those who feel they have been disenfranchised by the usual choices.

Currently, I’m going with Sanders, who has shown he can bring in new, young voters and those previously uninterested. He has worked to get exposure for his name and policies and he has worked the media so they actually have them on to give his views. No other candidate has done this so far. Sanders has completely turned around the situation from not getting equal coverage in 2016 to now getting more than his fair share.

Will one of the other progressive liberals stimulate the “None of the above” voters like Bernie does after they get more well known? We’ll see and I’m open to getting behind anyone of them if it appears they can do it.

I have no faith that Joe Biden will be able to pull it off and hoping for a centrist to draw off some from the GOP supporters to the Democratic ticket I think is like expecting Trump to suddenly start telling the truth. And if Trump is withdrawn by the GOP, Biden offers very little to those who normally just don’t vote.

What do you think? Don’t bother please with the “He’s not a Democrat”, “He’s grumpy”, “He never showed his tax returns”, “He has no support from the AA community”. Tell me why you think we should spend our money trying to get Trump voters to vote Democratic rather than trying to stimulate more non voters to show up. Tell why your candidate will do better than Sanders at stimulating those non voters.

All the best, RGB

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13587462/trump-election-2016-voter-turnout

February 23, 2019

Poll about tax return preparation.

I'm interested in things like how much you pay and which services you use if you do. Are you happy with your situation?

February 10, 2019

Comb your hair and stand up straight!

Remember when your mother gave you her advise about the importance of first impressions….you know, why you should comb your hair, wear clean clothes, stand up and smile when you are introduced etc?

In my work on local issues, I’ve learned that people, when learning about a new issue, form their opinions, pro or con rather quickly based on what they first hear. Once those opinions are formed, it is very hard to change them. With luck, given time, you can beat them over the head with talking points and new arguments as time goes on and maybe convert one or two.

As the various Democratic Candidates announce, we see the Republican operatives, and the other candidates’ organizations immediately hit the airwaves and internet to influence that initial impression with some negative thing or another. You know: Unlikable! Too Radical, Staff hates her, Too left wing, Once supported Goldwater, Refuses to call himself a Democrat, Takes money from big pharma, a little overweight!

I hope that at least those on the DU would take a minute or two to reflect on the total character of the various candidates before simply repeating the initial negatives and then waiting for the next one to come along. So far the list of Democratic Candidates has been astonishing in quality. Each has so many more positives than negatives, yet each announcement has been met with some picky little point that is meant to raise doubts about electability or good character.

In the past, the Democrats have jumped on the side of younger candidates with less experience as the lack of track record has diminished their negative baggage. (Carter, Clinton, Obama) It has turned out well in some cases and may be a way of countering the ability of the opposition to make those initial impressions stick.

Just saying.

January 24, 2019

If Democrats cave on the wall, expect a headline like this in the near future:

Trump shuts government asking for repeal of Obamacare: Says, like Wall, it was his main campaign promise.

God, I hope Nancy can keep her troops in line.