HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Celerity » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: London
Home country: UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 06:25 PM
Number of posts: 24,000

Journal Archives

A broken clock is............The Intercept comes to Joe Biden's defense in l'affair Rudy in Ukraine.


A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True.


VIRAL RUMORS that Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to protect his son’s business interests in Ukraine in 2016, which spread last week from the pro-Trump media ecosystem to The New York Times, are “absolute nonsense,” according to Ukraine’s leading anti-corruption activist. That evaluation is backed by foreign correspondents in Kiev and a former official with knowledge of Biden’s outreach to Ukraine after President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in a popular uprising in 2014.

In an interview with The Intercept, Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, expressed frustration that two recent front page stories in The New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.

The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s new leaders into firing the country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise.

The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.


they tear into the NYT's and its reporter Ken Vogel for spreading bullshit too

Ben Shapiro apologises to Andrew Neil after being 'destroyed' in BBC interview

US pundit says he was not prepared for segment, which went viral after he cut it short


The US conservative pundit Ben Shapiro has said he was “destroyed” by Andrew Neil in a TV debate in which he accused the veteran broadcaster of being a “lefty” before abruptly ending the interview.

Neil, chair of the group that owns the rightwing magazine the Spectator, subjected Shapiro to a robust interrogation about previous remarks such as “Israelis like to build, Arabs like to bomb crap”, and highlighted his support for new hardline abortion laws in the state of Georgia.

At this point in the BBC Politics Live broadcast, Shapiro, formerly of Breitbart, accused Neil of bias and suggested abortions after more than six weeks of pregnancy were brutal.

“You purport to be an objective journalist,” Shapiro said. “The BBC purports to be an objective, down-the-middle network. It obviously is not, it never has been, and you as a journalist are proceeding to call one side of the political aisle ignorant, barbaric and sending us back to the dark ages.”


roflmaoooooo, Shapiro accused NEIL of being a LEFTIE!!! roflmaooooooooooooooo

so owned, so pwned

Kamala Harris is flailing after Joe Biden entered the race, so she's pivoting left and punching

at Trump to widen her appeal


Sen. Kamala Harris, the California Democrat and 2020 presidential candidate, is trying to appeal to both progressive activists and more moderate Democrats as her poll numbers fall.

Recent polls show her support among nonwhite voters is at 4%, according to a CNN poll.
The current Democratic frontrunner, former Vice President Joe Biden, has 50% support of nonwhite voters according to the same CNN poll.

But Harris is taking issue with the popular argument that a white male candidate, like Biden, is more "electable"— than a woman of color.

In a strategic shift, she's leaning into her criticism of Trump and his administration.

Sen. Kamala Harris, the California Democrat and 2020 presidential candidate, is attempting to strike a difficult balance between appeasing progressive activists and appealing to more moderate Democrats as her poll numbers fall.

California's former attorney general, Harris has found vocal critics within the progressive community— particularly among criminal justice activists and public interest attorneys who take issue with much of her 25-year-long prosecutorial record.


I have a question for all the people pushing for a Biden/Harris ticket.

Obviously Biden's main appeal for many is that he can claw back many swing voters in the Midwest states (I completely agree with this analysis), including many who voted for the orange bloat. But how will he sell Harris's executive action on gun control (some I personally agree with, btw) promise:

Kamala Harris: 'I will take executive action' on gun control if I am elected president




to those very same voters? The NRA, Trump, and all other assorted RW gunner scum will go wild highlighting this at so many levels it would, I fear, make these voters' heads spin and think twice. Also, she has signed onto Bernie's MFA bill, and even said (then walked back) that private insurance would be ended as a result of MFA. Will not that also provide an opening for the RW to scare off these voters as well?


WaPo: Trump's latest scam: Defining poverty out of existence


The Trump administration wants to lower the poverty rate in the United States. But there’s a catch: If the plan under discussion is enacted, it would cut the number of people living in poverty not by giving them a wage increase, but by defining them out of it. “Instead of actually doing anything to cut poverty in America, Trump is trying to fudge the numbers to artificially ‘reduce’ the U.S. poverty rate,” said Rebecca Vallas, vice president of the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress. “It’s mathematical gaslighting.”

Well, that’s one way to make it look like “we have the strongest economy in the history of our nation,” as Trump likes to proclaim.

On Monday, the Office of Management and Budget put out a request for comments on the possibility of adjusting how the government determines the official poverty measure, better known as the poverty threshold. That’s the calculation used to determine eligibility for a range of government social safety net programs, including Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance.

One proposed change would alter how the poverty threshold rises to reflect inflation; under the plan the threshold would move from using the consumer price index to using the “chained” consumer price index. While almost all indexes, including the CPI, measure inflation, in part, by assuming consumers will substitute one item for another when things get too costly, chained CPI does it more aggressively. Over time this change would lead to a decrease in the number of people living in poverty, not because they are earning more money, but because they will not meet the increasingly narrow definition of it. As a result, “fewer and fewer people would receive benefits over time,” said Monique Morrissey, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute.

What makes this idea particularly absurd is that studies repeatedly find that lower-income households experience greater inflation than higher-earning ones. (Researcher Xavier Jaravel dubbed this “inflation inequality” in a 2017 paper.) One reason: Companies are catering to the top tier of earners, upping competition and reducing prices for many of the products the affluent are likely to use. For example, decreases in the price of organic groceries acted to reduce the overall increase in the price of food as calculated by the government. But fewer low-income households purchase organic food, since it costs more.


Understanding Populism in the United States, Germany and the UK

Episode #40 of Social Europe Podcast brings to you a panel discussion on populism in the United States, Germany and the UK. The debate is brought to you in cooperation with Das Progressive Zentrum and features Sudha David-Wilp (German Marshall Fund of the United States), Robert Habeck (Leader of the German Green Party), Reiner Hoffman (President of the German DGB), Anneliese Dodds (Labour MP for Oxford East) and Michael Werz (Center for American Progress).

If you like our podcast you might also find our regular articles, blogs and other written publications of interest. Just visit our website https://www.socialeurope.eu/ to read our latest output. If you want to stay up-to-date with all things Social Europe just sign up to our regular newsletter. You can do so on our website.

This episode of Social Europe Podcast is brought to you by the EMBA programme of the Said Business School, University of Oxford.

Who signed the letter asserting Trump would've been charged with obstruction if he weren't president

Who signed the letter asserting Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he weren’t president, and what they hope happens next


By early Tuesday evening, more than 720 former federal prosecutors who worked in Democratic and Republican administrations had signed a letter asserting that President Trump would have been charged with obstructing justice based on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings — if Trump were not the president.

The signers included some left-leaning lawyers who have gained prominence from their frequent TV appearances, but also a significant number of career prosecutors and high-profile conservatives who bristle at the suggestion they were motivated by anti-Trump bias.

A handful interviewed by The Post on Tuesday said they hoped for little else than to make public their view that Attorney General William P. Barr had mischaracterized Mueller’s report in asserting it laid out insufficient evidence to make an obstruction case. They said they did not sign hoping to spark impeachment proceedings.

The group’s views stand in stark contrast to those of Barr’s — who has offered detailed defenses of his decision that there was not a case to be made — and to many Republican lawmakers. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) declared in a speech Tuesday that Democrats should move on from the investigations into Trump, asserting bluntly, “case closed.” Mueller himself left the question open, saying a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted prevented him from saying even in a confidential report whether he believed the president committed a crime.


Iran announces partial withdrawal from nuclear deal

A year after Trump pulled US out of 2015 agreement, Tehran takes ‘reciprocal measures’


Iran has announced its partial withdrawal from the nuclear deal signed with world powers in 2015, a year after Donald Trump pulled out of the agreement.

President Hassan Rouhani said Tehran will stop exporting enriched uranium stocks as stipulated by the 2015 agreement and warned it would resume higher uranium enrichment in 60 days if the remaining signatories did not make good on promises to shield its oil and banking sectors from sanctions.

Wednesday’s measures, announced by Rouhani in an address to the nation, were formally conveyed to ambassadors to countries remaining inside the deal – France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia. The Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, separately set out the technical and legal details in a letter to the EU foreign affairs chief, Federica Mogherini.

Under the deal, Iran is required to sell its surplus enriched uranium abroad, rather than keep it, thereby allowing it to generate nuclear power without building nuclear weapons.

Rouhani said Iran wanted to negotiate new terms with the remaining partners in the deal, but warned that the situation was dire. “We felt that the nuclear deal needs a surgery and the painkiller pills of the last year have been ineffective … This surgery is for saving the deal, not destroying it.”


End to Aids in sight as huge study finds drugs stop HIV transmission

Paper says risk between male partners is zero if virus fully suppressed by antiretrovirals


An end to the Aids epidemic could be in sight after a landmark study found men whose HIV infection was fully suppressed by antiretroviral drugs had no chance of infecting their partner.

The success of the medicine means that if everyone with HIV were fully treated, there would be no further infections.

Among nearly 1,000 male couples across Europe where one partner with HIV was receiving treatment to suppress the virus, there were no cases of transmission of the infection to the HIV-negative partner during sex without a condom. Although 15 men were infected with HIV during the eight-year study, DNA testing proved that was through sex with someone other than their partner who was not on treatment.

“It’s brilliant – fantastic. This very much puts this issue to bed,” said Prof Alison Rodgers from University College London, the co-leader of the paper published in the Lancet medical journal. Earlier studies have also shown the treatment protects heterosexual couples where one partner has HIV.

She added: “Our findings provide conclusive evidence for gay men that the risk of HIV transmission with suppressive ART [antiretroviral therapy] is zero. Our findings support the message of the international U=U campaign that an undetectable viral load makes HIV untransmittable.


We are having a major issue with prominent Dems declining to run for the Senate in 2020

Stacey Abrams in GA (leaving Ossoff as our best hope, but greatly reducing our chances to take out Perdue)

Beto and now Joaquín Castro declining to run versus Cornyn in Texas (not easy at all)

Steve Bullock (who will now run for President) declining to run versus Trump-hugger Daines (Bullock would have been the favourite or at least 50/50) in MT

Hickenlooper declining to run versus the very, very vulnerable Gardner in CO

Cindy Axne, in Iowa, who flipped a swing district last year, confirmed she was running for the House again — and not challenging Joni Ernst.

Susan Rice in Maine has declined to run versus Collins (who now is being endorsed by Joe Manchin, bleeeechh) leaving only House Speaker Sara Gideon and a former Speaker, Hannah Pingree as the only really remotely good choices (unless someone comes out of the woodwork)

In North Carolina , both the 2 biggest potential candidates have now declined to run versus Tillis, Attorney General Josh Stein and Anthony Foxx, a former U.S. Transportation Secretary and Charlotte mayor.

I think Bennet from Colorado (who is running for President now) doesn't have to resign his Senate seat (he is up for election in 2022) if he fails for POTUS and is not picked for VPOTUS

Doug Jones will probably lose his AL seat, so that leaves the Rethugs with 54 seats, meaning we need to flip 5 to guarantee control. New Hampshire is our other vulnerable seat. (far less likely to flip Rethug than Alabama though)

Those possible 5 seats will come from some combo of the following 9


IA, MT, GA, TX and KY are all going to extremely tough to flip now (KY always was)

meaning if we sweep AZ, CO, NC, and ME, we will have only 50 seats (or less if one of our Senators in a Rethug governor-led state wins the POTUS or VPOTUS.) None of those 4 are going to be easy, not even CO, where Hickenlooper would have been a heavy favourite.

GA, IA, MT, and TX chances are much less now due to the turn-downs, especially the first 3.

Schumer must be having major headaches about now.

A Rethug Senate will block (for the entire 4 years I fear) any SCOTUS nominee that a Democratic POTUS would put up (assuming that we will have to probably replace Breyer, RBG, and maybe even Sotomayor if her diabetes keeps getting even worse).

I so wish these big names would reconsider running.

Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow now (or soon)

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »