Tag Archives: 2016 elections

Louis C.K. Just Gave The Most Perfect Rant About Liberals Who Are Refusing to Vote For Hillary

by LorenaLuffman Posted on November 2, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When it comes to voting, comedian Louis C.K. minces no words. “I don’t have any quarrel with somebody who votes for Trump if that’s what they feel they want,” C.K. told Conan O’Brien last night, “but if you’re a liberal who’s not going to vote, you’re a piece of shit.”

C.K. went on to criticize liberals who weren’t going to vote because they didn’t know how they felt about Hillary Clinton or because they didn’t like her voice. “Grow the fuck up! Are you kidding me?” He railed. “If you vote for Hillary, you’re a grown up, if you vote for Trump, you’re a sucker, if you don’t vote for anybody, you’re an asshole.” Watch the full clip above.

Link to original – 

Louis C.K. Just Gave The Most Perfect Rant About Liberals Who Are Refusing to Vote For Hillary

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Louis C.K. Just Gave The Most Perfect Rant About Liberals Who Are Refusing to Vote For Hillary

Inside the Carbon Tax Fight That’s Dividing Environmentalists

by JoesphGilreath Posted on November 1, 2016

Mother Jones

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Voters in a progressive Pacific Northwestern state could approve the nation’s first carbon tax next week, providing a much-sought victory to proponents of legislative climate action—and possibly a model for the rest of the country.

And yet the ballot measure is at equal risk of failing spectacularly. Not because of the usual oil and coal industry foes, or even because it includes the dreaded t-word. No, the biggest obstacle in its way: other environmentalists.

An unlikely array of local and national organizations have come out against—or declined to support—Washington state’s carbon tax initiative, which will appear on the ballot as I-732. Their concerns: That a revenue-neutral carbon tax wouldn’t raise money for investing in clean energy and communities, and that people of color didn’t get a fair say in crafting the policy.

Although the split became public last year, it’s only been in the last few months that a barrage of organizations have proclaimed their opposition. Washington Conservation Voters called the measure “flawed,” while Sierra Club Washington noted its members have “deep concerns.”

Infighting is not uncommon in the environmental movement, which actually represents a fairly large and loose coalition of diverse local, state, and national interests. But the carbon tax battle in Washington state appears to stem from a recent and fundamental shift: Following the lead of more community-minded activists, the nation’s most powerful environmental groups are attempting to change their emphasis from a largely white perspective to one that is more diverse and equitable. And that means a new approach to issues like climate legislation.

Many of those groups have come to the realization in recent years that they can’t fight climate change without including a broader range of people in their solutions. Attempts to remake policy so it is equitable and impactful has resulted in two main visions for how to approach climate action.

The tension between a narrowly focused environmental campaign and a newer approach that involves more consensus around a broader progressive agenda has been simmering for a long time. With I-732, it’s broken out into the open.

False starts have plagued the climate movement for years. The failed 2009 Waxman-Markey bill, which would have capped carbon emissions and created a national market for trading credits (hence the name “cap and trade”), sent the movement into existential soul-searching.

Since then, Congress has only become more hostile to climate action, meaning any successes have largely come at the state level or inside the White House. As Republicans at the national level have been less and less involved in a serious fight against climate change, the solutions have evolved without them.

Progressive states including California, New York, and yes, Washington have recently made significant strides on climate policy. Part of the movement’s post-Waxman-Markey strategy was to broaden the base of support for climate policy beyond a very white core—not by appealing to increasingly intransigent conservatives, but by listening to the people representing low-income communities and communities of color, which are disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change.

“It isn’t just about reducing emissions,” said Green for All’s Vien Truong, who works on climate justice policy initiatives in California and other states. “It is that, but we have to move forward.” This includes bringing people to the movement who “feel the pinch of climate change” most.

Gregg Small of the Washington-based Climate Solutions noted that the cap-and-trade bill’s failure was a teaching moment. “We have to find a different climate movement going forward,” he said. “The climate community can’t do it on their own.”

Despite the recognition by many environmentalists that a new, more inclusive approach was needed, it was a divided effort that helped set the stage for the current battle in Washington state.

Two years ago, a new-school coalition of social justice and environmental groups that became the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy began working on a climate action proposal, gathering extensive input from community organizations.

But a smaller, grassroots-based climate group, known as Carbon Washington, got its carbon tax proposal on the ballot first. I-732 would phase in next year, tax carbon emissions at $25 per metric ton in 2018, and gradually ramp up over 40 years to $100.

What’s troubling some opponents is where that money would go: cutting the state’s sales tax by 1 percent, cutting taxes for manufacturers, and providing tax rebates to more than 400,000 low-income households. That’s allowed I-732 proponents to try to appeal to conservatives by calling it revenue neutral, but it doesn’t sit well with the Alliance-affiliated enviros.

Their four-page alternative proposal is murky on the details, though: It calls for a carbon “fee” that would redirect the revenue collected toward clean energy efforts, water quality improvement, and helping disadvantaged communities. It doesn’t cut taxes, and unlike 732, it establishes an absolute, though unknown cap on carbon emitted. The actual tax on polluters starts at $15 per metric ton, but is unclear on how it would ramp up over time. It promises some “compliance flexibility” for polluters yet doesn’t say what that entails.

Small, a chair of the Alliance, said his group was ready to put its proposal on the 2016 ballot but pulled its plans when 732 gained the signatures needed. Two competing ballot measures would likely have meant success for neither.

Carbon Washington met with the Alliance to figure out a compromise but moved ahead without the full blessing of the organizations that had fought hard to bridge justice and environmental concerns. In return, there are now a slew of environmental and social justice groups slamming I-732 for not doing enough to fight climate change, not managing to be revenue-neutral, and failing on equity.

The founder of Carbon Washington, Yoram Bauman, defends his group’s approach. “I think that underneath, there’s a philosophic difference in how to provide benefits to low-income communities and communities of color,” he said. “Their approach was to fund community-directed investment. They wanted a pot of money that could be controlled by local communities to reduce emissions, create jobs, and lower pollution in communities of color. Our approach was we wanted to put money back into the pockets of low-income households.”

Bauman says that if his group’s measure passes, small tweaks and improvements could be made by the state Legislature. But opponents say a flawed model is not a good place to start.

“Perfect shouldn’t be the goal,” Bauman argues. “I think folks who care about climate change need to support action on climate change. We don’t have many opportunities to take a swing at the ball, and there are serious questions about how many more years we want to wait.”

I-732 does have its share of supporters. Actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, 28 environmental and energy-focused groups (including the Audubon Society’s state chapter), and dozens of Republican and Democratic lawmakers and economists have endorsed it. All this has lead to one very fractured environmental community.

The Seattle-based sustainability think tank Sightline Institute is neutral on 732 but still manages a good summary of the pro-side’s position in a lengthy analysis weighing the pros and cons: “Initiative 732 does exactly what the scientists and economists prescribe: It sets a science-based, steadily rising price on pollution,” Sightline writes. “The citizens’ initiative covers most of the state’s climate pollution, makes the tax code more progressive, and is administratively elegant.” Based on a Washington Office of Financial Management projection, the 732 carbon tax would raise $2 billion in fiscal year 2019 (4 percent of the state’s annual budget), which would go back to taxpayers in various forms.

Critics, however, remain convinced that 732 doesn’t do enough to fight climate change, nor does it address justice concerns. They also felt shut out of the process.

“We’ve got to get it done right the first time,” said Small, who was careful to make it clear that Climate Solutions is not opposed to I-732. “Effective carbon pricing needs to really do three things: It needs to put a meaningful price on carbon to drive down pollution; it needs to invest the money generated in clean energy solutions; and it should invest in those affected by climate change.”

A coalition of environmental justice organizations penned an open letter to the Sightline Institute, saying they took issue with the group’s analysis, arguing that it serves to “denigrate our perspective and profess to speak for the interests of our communities without our consultation or knowledge.”

“People who can actually begin to be part of the solution were hoping to be part of this clean energy future,” Green for All’s Truong said. “And this carbon tax essentially shut that effort down.”

Perhaps the most unexpected argument is that the tax won’t do the intended job of cutting emissions. Food and Water Watch issued a report claiming that the model for 732, a British Columbia carbon tax, “fails to demonstrate that it has reduced carbon emissions, fossil fuel consumption, or vehicle travel, as it purported to do.”

Technically, it would be possible to alter 732 in the Legislature down the line if voters approve it in November, but it’s politically unfeasible. Some environmentalists would prefer to work with what they have if it passes, but in a few cases, the critics would rather see no tax at all. Seattle public radio station KUOW asked Alliance member and OneAmerica activist Ellicott Dandy if she would regret her position against I-732 if no other carbon tax ever passed.

Her answer: “No.”

The latest polling shows a close vote. In an early October poll, 21 percent of voters were undecided. In a late-October poll from KOMO News/Strategies 360, that number is even higher, with 28 percent unsure how they will cast their ballot. How the undecided voters break makes all the difference for an initiative leading with just 40 percent of the electorate, and 32 percent opposed.

If 732 fails, the lessons for environmentalists will be clear: An approach designed to appeal to more conservative sensibilities—tax cuts, revenue neutral—isn’t going to help them bring in new voices on the left, who want to be heard and play a guiding role in the process.

“Carbon pricing is incredibly difficult and maybe impossible if people don’t come together,” Small said. “Other states will face similar types of dynamics here on the policy and strategy. I hope people learn from the painful lesson we have in Washington to, you know, work it out.”

Also read: James Hansen vs. Naomi Klein: State carbon tax splits national climate hawks.

Visit site: 

Inside the Carbon Tax Fight That’s Dividing Environmentalists

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Inside the Carbon Tax Fight That’s Dividing Environmentalists

Obama Tells Samantha Bee a Halloween Story That Should Truly Terrify You

by PorfiriWexler Posted on November 1, 2016

Mother Jones

President Barack Obama continued his media farewell tour on Monday with an appearance on Full Frontal With Samantha Bee, where he made a pitch to young people to get out the vote next Tuesday.

“This is probably the most important election of our lifetimes,” Obama said. “The choices could not be clearer. If we want to build on progress on issues like climate change and gender equality and making sure everybody has health care and making sure young people have a good education and can afford college, they’ve got to make sure their voices are heard.”

He also shared his prediction for what the female equivalent of birtherism might be if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

“I think the equivalent will be ‘she’s tired,’ ‘she’s moody,’ ‘she’s being emotional,’ ‘there’s something about her,'” Obama said. “When men are ambitious, it’s just taken for granted. ‘Well, of course they should be ambitious.’ When women are ambitious, ‘why?’ That theme will continue throughout her presidency, and it’s contributed to this notion that she’s hiding something.”

Bee concluded the interview by asking the president to share a spooky Halloween story. His response should actually terrify you.

Continue reading – 

Obama Tells Samantha Bee a Halloween Story That Should Truly Terrify You

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Tells Samantha Bee a Halloween Story That Should Truly Terrify You

These Maps and Charts Show Where Clinton and Trump’s Essential Voters Are

by TheoAlilyxoxn Posted on November 1, 2016

Mother Jones

Three weeks ago, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver made an hypothetical map of what would happen if only women voted for president on November 8. The results were strikingly lopsided: Hillary Clinton would trounce Donald Trump, 458 electoral votes to 80.

FiveThirtyEight

After that map (right) went viral, Trump fans rushed to reinforce his resistibility to most women by tweeting the hashtag #Repealthe19th (as in the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote). Another Silver map, showing that a male-only electorate would elect Trump in a landslide, confused Eric Trump, who blasted it to his dad’s supporters, proclaiming, “Right now all the momentum is on our side.” These maps also sparked a slew of “What if only ____ voted” joke maps.

Ste Kinney-Fields

Yet Silver’s gendered election maps also inspired a set of maps (right) that further broke down various electoral scenarios by demographic group, which was shared widely.

While there were some initial questions about their origins and sourcing, the maps’ creator, Ste Kinney-Fields, came forward and revealed that her data came from FiveThirtyEight’s Swing-O-Matic. That’s a nifty tool that lets users generate presidential election outcomes by tweaking the political preferences and voter turnout among different demographic groups.

These maps highlight just how essential demographics are for each candidate’s path to the White House. Clinton can not win without the votes of women and people of color, and conversely, Trump can not win without men and white people. But these maps’ emphasis on winner-take-all electoral math obscures the depth and variance of the candidates’ support among key demographic groups. Silver’s map of women’s votes assumes that because Clinton is beating Trump by 10 percentage points nationally, a women-only election would boost her performance by 10 points in every state. And the viral maps based on the Swing-O-Matic uses 2012 election data to predict voter preferences and turnout rates.

For more current, state-level numbers on how various demographic groups might vote, I pulled data from YouGov, whose election model is based on more than 46,000 recent interviews with potential voters. Using its data, I generated a series of “What if only ____ voted” maps show which states the candidates would win, and by how much. (They’re based on YouGov’s October 22 data.)

What if only women voted?

Let’s start with women. In Silver’s map, women would hand Clinton 458 electoral votes. (A candidate needs 270 to win.) In the map below, based on the YouGov data, Clinton still has a lock on 330 electoral votes. (Texas and South Carolina were too close to tell, but they would probably go to Trump.) In all 50 states, she gets more support from women than men, but her level of support among women varies widely. Their support for Clinton ranges from a high of 86 percent in Washington, DC, to a low of 30 percent in Utah. In New York and California, she’d win by more than 30 points. But in Wyoming and West Virginia, she’d lose by more than 20 points.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”YfygQ”:}),window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.embedDeltas=”100″:644,”200″:486,”300″:444,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-YfygQ”),window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”YfygQ”==b&&(window.datawrapper”YfygQ”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only men voted?

Relying just on men, Trump would easily win with 338 electoral votes. Overall, Trump has a consistent advantage among men, ranging from 2 points (Delaware) to 10 points (Montana). Men’s support for Trump ranges from a high of 61 percent in West Virginia and Wyoming to a low of 12 percent in Washington, DC. The map below is a bit bluer than Silver’s: Clinton could win over dudes by a small margin in Virginia.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”r7I4t”:}),window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.embedDeltas=”100″:585,”200″:471,”300″:427,”400″:427,”500″:400,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-r7I4t”),window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”r7I4t”==b&&(window.datawrapper”r7I4t”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only white people voted?

Trump’s strong support from white voters is no secret. If only they voted, he’d win handily. Here, the YouGov data is similar to the FiveThirtyEight data. It shows the depth of support that Trump enjoys among white people, especially in the South, where Clinton trails by 40 points or more in every state from Texas to South Carolina. And in most otherwise blue states, Trump and Clinton are within several points of each other.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”H33Mv”:}),window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.embedDeltas=”100″:675,”200″:486,”300″:459,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-H33Mv”),window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”H33Mv”==b&&(window.datawrapper”H33Mv”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

YouGov doesn’t provide state-level data for white men, white women, or white people by education level. However, by plugging its national-level data into the Swing-O-Matic, we can compare how various categories of white people would affect the election according to the FiveThirtyEight model and the YouGov model. (One big difference between two data sets is that FiveThirtyEight’s assumes two percent of the vote going to third party candidates; YouGov’s shows nine percent of the white vote going to third party candidates.)

The YouGov data for white people overall generates a pretty bleak electoral scenario for Clinton. However, its data for white women and college-educated whites looks much better for her. If either of these groups voted alone, Clinton would eke out a victory with 280 electoral votes.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”xcRyq”:}),window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.embedDeltas=”100″:562,”200″:392,”300″:350,”400″:350,”500″:335,”600″:308,”700″:308,”800″:308,”900″:308,”1000″:308,window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-xcRyq”),window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”xcRyq”==b&&(window.datawrapper”xcRyq”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only black people voted?

Electoral maps don’t get any bluer than this. African-Americans support Clinton by huge margins. Only in Idaho does her support dip below 80 percent of black respondents—to a still-respectable 74 percent. Even though there’s no data for super-white Montana, it’s highly likely that its small black population backs Clinton—creating a scenario in which she’d pick up all 538 electoral votes. (So far, Trump’s Twitter followers haven’t suggested #Repealthe15th.)

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”WQWTH”:}),window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.embedDeltas=”100″:671,”200″:514,”300″:471,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:427,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-WQWTH”),window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”WQWTH”==b&&(window.datawrapper”WQWTH”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only Hispanics and Latinos voted?

Clinton also would enjoy a monumental landslide if only Hispanics and Latinos voted. However, her support among this key constituency dips in the deep South: In Mississippi, 47 percent of Hispanics prefer Clinton, while 42 percent support Trump.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”CQ9dF”:}),window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.embedDeltas=”100″:644,”200″:514,”300″:444,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-CQ9dF”),window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”CQ9dF”==b&&(window.datawrapper”CQ9dF”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only 18- to 29-year-olds voted?

The viral “What if” maps didn’t look at age, but YouGov’s data does include age cohorts. Young voters are another important Clinton base: If only Millennials voted, they’d overwhelmingly vote to make her America’s second-oldest president ever. However, her support among the young and youngish varies widely by state. In otherwise red states like Idaho, Wyoming, and South Dakota, significant chunks of these voters say they’re supporting third-party candidates Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. The real question about this voting bloc is: How many of them will show up to vote? About half of eligible 18- to 29-year-olds voted in 2012.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”q9yT3″:}),window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.embedDeltas=”100″:639,”200″:499,”300″:427,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”q9yT3”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-q9yT3″),window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”q9yT3″==b&&(window.datawrapper”q9yT3″.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

What if only people 65 or older voted?

On the flip side, America’s oldest voters would elect fellow Baby Boomer Donald Trump. Clinton would still hang on in coastal blue states, but would still lose to a candidate who says he feels 35. And this group doesn’t slack on Election Day: About 72 percent of voters 65 or older cast ballots in 2012, one of the highest turnout rates for any demographic group.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”1igtL”:}),window.datawrapper”1igtL”.embedDeltas=”100″:671,”200″:514,”300″:444,”400″:427,”500″:427,”600″:400,”700″:400,”800″:400,”900″:400,”1000″:400,window.datawrapper”1igtL”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-1igtL”),window.datawrapper”1igtL”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”1igtL”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”1igtL”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”1igtL”==b&&(window.datawrapper”1igtL”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

While these maps are a fun way to generate poli-sci-fi scenarios, they’re still a useful tool for exploring the demographic coalitions Clinton and Trump need to win.

Or here’s another way to look at the data: Could Clinton and Trump win if any one of their major demographic bases didn’t show up to vote? If white voters or any subgroup of white voters didn’t vote, Trump would lose. If Hispanic voters didn’t vote, Clinton would still be safe. But if black voters went AWOL, she’d be cutting it uncomfortably close. If Clinton does win next Tuesday, she’ll probably thank all Americans for their support. But she should really thank women, people of color, and younger voters.

“undefined”==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper=”a8rsH”:}),window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.embedDeltas=”100″:624,”200″:454,”300″:412,”400″:412,”500″:397,”600″:370,”700″:370,”800″:370,”900″:370,”1000″:370,window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.iframe=document.getElementById(“datawrapper-chart-a8rsH”),window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+”px”,window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a)if(“undefined”!=typeof a.data”datawrapper-height”)for(var b in a.data”datawrapper-height”)”a8rsH”==b&&(window.datawrapper”a8rsH”.iframe.style.height=a.data”datawrapper-height”b+”px”));

Read article here:

These Maps and Charts Show Where Clinton and Trump’s Essential Voters Are

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Maps and Charts Show Where Clinton and Trump’s Essential Voters Are

FBI Taking Another Look at Clinton Emails

by ShennaZoxygres Posted on October 28, 2016

Mother Jones

The FBI has come across emails that may be related to the closed Hillary Clinton email server investigation, according to a letter FBI Director James Comey sent several congressional leaders on Friday. The emails appear to have come from devices belonging to disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” Comey wrote. “I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He added, “the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work.”

Immediately on Twitter, Clinton foes started crowing. So did Donald Trump at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, minutes after the news broke. “They are reopening the case into her criminal and illegal conduct that threatens the security of the United States of America,” Trump said, as the crowd chanted, “Lock her up!” Trump continued, “Hillary Clinton’s corruption is on a scale we have never seen before. We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office. I have great respect for the fact that the FBI and the Department of Justice are now willing to have the courage to right the horrible mistake that they made.”

Trump added that the FBI’s decision not to recommend charges “was a grave miscarriage of justice that the American people fully understood” and that now “perhaps finally justice will be done.”

A little more than an hour after news of the FBI letter broke, the New York Times reported that the new information came to light after the FBI seized devices belonging to Abedin and Weiner.

Shortly after the New York Times report, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta issued a statement calling Comey’s decision to make the announcement 11 days before the election “extraordinary”:

Upon completing this investigation more than three months ago, FBI Director Comey declared no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with a case like this and added that it was not even a close call. In the months since, Donald Trump and his Republican allies have been baselessly second-guessing the FBI and, in both public and private, browbeating the career officials there to revisit their conclusion in a desperate attempt to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

FBI Director Comey should immediately provide the American public more information than is contained in the letter he sent to eight Republican committee chairmen. Already, we have seen characterizations that the FBI is ‘reopening’ an investigation but Comey’s words do not match that characterization. Director Comey’s letter refers to emails that have come to light in an unrelated case, but we have no idea what those emails are and the Director himself notes they may not even be significant.

It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election.

The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”

Read Comey’s full letter below:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3197501-FBI-Letter-to-Congress.js”, width: 630, height: 500, sidebar: false, text: false, pdf: false, container: “#DV-viewer-3197501-FBI-Letter-to-Congress” );

This story has been updated with information from the New York Times report and Podesta’s statement.

See the original article here:

FBI Taking Another Look at Clinton Emails

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on FBI Taking Another Look at Clinton Emails

The Untold Story of How John Podesta Answered My Question About UFOs

by ShermanArkwooke Posted on October 26, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On April 2, 2015, I sent an email to Hillary Clinton’s campaign spokesman, Nick Merill, asking for comment about UFOs, specifically about the idea that a Clinton presidency would be a boon to those in the UFO community. He replied that Clinton’s “non-campaign” (this was 10 days before the campaign officially launched) had “a strict policy of not commenting on extraterrestrial activity. BUT the Truth Is Out There.”

I found the response funny—anybody with even a vague knowledge of The X-Files would immediately recognize the line—and I quoted it in my story, “ETs for Hillary: Why UFO Activists Are Excited About Another Clinton Presidency,” which laid out why a Hillary Clinton presidency might be good news for those committed to finding out what’s going on with extraterrestrials’ interaction with the planet Earth.

This all came back up earlier this week in one of WikiLeaks’ daily releases of John Podesta’s stolen emails. WikiLeaks published the exchange, in which Merrill passed my query to Clinton campaign chairman Podesta. “You can’t make this stuff up,” Merrill wrote. He then asked if Podesta would prefer that Merrill politely decline to comment, “or say that our non-campaign has a strict policy of not commenting on extraterrestrial activity?” Podesta, to his everlasting credit, threw me a bone. “Go with the latter but add the truth is out there,” he wrote. I included his response at the end of my story.

As a self-described “curious skeptic,” Podesta has openly called for greater government transparency on UFO-related matters. In his forward to UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record, a 2011 book by journalist Leslie Kean, he wrote, “It’s time to find out what the truth really is that’s out there. The American people—and people around the world—want to know, and they can handle the truth.”

This may be only the beginning of my appearances in Podesta’s email. I pestered him and the Clinton campaign for answers related to a profile I wrote about Stephen Bassett, America’s only registered lobbyist on UFO and extraterrestrial issues, with a mission to force the US government to come clean about human interactions with extraterrestrials. Key to Bassett’s plan is getting Clinton to address why she and her husband engaged with the late Laurance Rockefeller over the course of several years in the mid-1990s, as the philanthropist worked hard to force the US government to disclose “The Truth“ about extraterrestrials. At the time, John Podesta was a senior White House staffer and likely had a front-row seat to any Rockefeller-Clinton interaction that might have occurred.

Neither Podesta nor the Clinton campaign responded to questions for that story. But both Podesta and Clinton have spoken seriously about UFOs and extraterrestrials at several points during her campaign. In March, Clinton told Jimmy Kimmel that if elected president, she’d double down on her husband’s efforts to ferret out the truth about UFOs. That interview was four months after a previous Clinton appearance on Kimmel’s show, where she wished the UFO issue had come up, but it didn’t, according to a separate Podesta email. “He didn’t end up asking her about UFOs!” a campaign communications person emailed Podesta after the interview. “She was very disappointed. She practiced UAPs for 5 minutes beforehand.” (UAP stands for “unidentified aerial phenomena,” which is the term used by the more scientific wing of UFO buffs and researchers.) Clearly Clinton was ready and willing to talk about UFOs in a serious way. She also told a New Hampshire reporter in December 2015 that she thinks “we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” She acknowledged that Podesta had made her pledge to get the information out as president.

The UFO-related material in Podesta’s email box has spawned dozens of stories, ranging from Podesta’s discussion with the late NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell about the reality of extraterrestrial life to former Blink-182 guitarist Tom DeLonge’s regular communication with Podesta about the topic. Podesta’s email box shows UFO talk going back to at least 2008, when Faiz Shakir, then the vice president of the Center for American Progress, emailed Podesta with the subject line “UFO questions coming up.” He linked to a couple of stories about his connection to the issue. Podesta’s response set the tone for his reactions to future UFO emails over the years: calm, confident, and forward-looking.

“The American people,” he wrote, “can handle the truth.”

Link: 

The Untold Story of How John Podesta Answered My Question About UFOs

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Untold Story of How John Podesta Answered My Question About UFOs

Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in America

by LesterSimcox Posted on October 26, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

One of the tightest House races in the country this year is in New York’s Hudson Valley, where Democrat Zephyr Teachout and Republican John Faso are vying to replace retiring GOP Rep. Chris Gibson. Faso, a former assemblyman and pipeline lobbyist, and Teachout, a fiercely anti-fracking Fordham law professor, are natural rivals. But it’s the flood of outside money that has defined the race. The latest effort: a new spot from the National Republican Congressional Committee, attacking Teachout as an ally of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders:

As a narrator explains that Teachout is supported by “socialist senator” Bernie Sanders, the actress playing Teachout reads a book called Socialism for Beginners (shouldn’t an actual socialist already know what socialism is?). The ad has it all: a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker, a Bernie Sanders mouse pad, a photo of Sanders and Teachout together—even a pair of Birkenstocks.

There is one major flaw with this message, though: Bernie Sanders is super popular. As of this writing, he is the most popular politician in America. His favorable ratings are two points higher than those of President Barack Obama (who is currently enjoying his highest numbers in 45 months). They are 10 points higher than Hillary Clinton’s. They are 19 points higher than those of both Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Those are just the national numbers. There is good reason to think that in New York’s 19th Congressional District, a slightly-Democratic-leaning area where the Vermont senator traveled to campaign with Teachout last month, Sanders is even more popular. Sanders won the district overwhelmingly in the April primary, with 58 percent of the vote—one of his best districts in the state.

Read article here: 

Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in America

Posted in bigo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in America

Donald Trump Promises to Sue Women Who Accused Him of Assault

by AkilahTeasdale Posted on October 22, 2016

Mother Jones

On Saturday, Donald Trump vowed to sue the 11 women who have come forward over the last few weeks with accusations of sexual assault against the Republican presidential nominee.

“Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign,” Trump claimed. “Total fabrication, the events never happened—never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.”

Trump’s threat came during a speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, which was plugged as a major policy speech to lay out his first 100 days in office should he win the election next month. His promise to sue his accusers wasn’t the only notable moment.

While taking a hard line on his accusers, he seems to be softening on a key campaign promise: That the US will build a wall along its southern border and that Mexico will pay for it. Now, according to his speech, his position is that the United States will pay for the wall but Mexico will reimburse the US.

Trump also promised to break up Comcast and NBC as part of a response to media bias against him during the campaign.

Excerpt from – 

Donald Trump Promises to Sue Women Who Accused Him of Assault

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Promises to Sue Women Who Accused Him of Assault

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele Announces He Will Not Be Voting for Donald Trump

by AngelikFosbery Posted on October 21, 2016

Mother Jones

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has added his name to a growing list of Republican figures disavowing Donald Trump, announcing on Thursday that he will not be voting for his party’s presidential candidate next month.

“I will not be voting for Clinton,” Steele said at the Mother Jones 40th anniversary dinner. “I will not be voting for Trump either.”

He singled out Trump’s first remarks disparaging Mexicans as rapists and criminals as the moment that party leaders such as current RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and House Speaker Paul Ryan should have stepped in to oppose Trump’s views.

“The chairman has the responsibility to provide law and order, in the sense that you want to inflect party discipline and instill party discipline where you need it,” he said, speaking from his experience as the party chair from 2009 until 2011.

He went on to describe Trump as the voice of the frustration of the “racist” and “angry” underbelly of America and noted, “I was damn near puking during the debates.”

Link:

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele Announces He Will Not Be Voting for Donald Trump

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele Announces He Will Not Be Voting for Donald Trump

"Bad Hombres" and "Nasty Woman": Internet Unites to Slam Donald Trump’s Debate Remarks

by ReinaImlay Posted on October 20, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump stunned the political world during Wednesday’s third and final presidential debate when he refused to promise he would respect the upcoming general election results. But on social media, two phrases spoken by the GOP candidate managed to dominate the conversation: “bad hombres” and “nasty woman.”

The remarks sparked instant outrage online, quickly becoming a rallying point for voters opposed to Trump’s hard line on immigrants and women—two demographics widely predicted to vote against the Republican nominee. Here’s how the internet re-appropriated the phrases:

Trump dropped his “nasty woman” insult at Hillary Clinton, seemingly out of nowhere, when she was in the middle of criticizing his failure to pay income taxes. Moments later NastyWomenGetShitDone.com redirected to Clinton’s campaign site.

This is amazing! #imwithher

A photo posted by Travis Wall (@traviswall) on Oct 20, 2016 at 6:20am PDT

Read more: 

"Bad Hombres" and "Nasty Woman": Internet Unites to Slam Donald Trump’s Debate Remarks

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Bad Hombres" and "Nasty Woman": Internet Unites to Slam Donald Trump’s Debate Remarks