Tag Archives: california

Wave goodbye to California’s last nuclear plant

by Elida531785 Posted on June 22, 2016

nuclear’s unclear

Wave goodbye to California’s last nuclear plant

By on Jun 22, 2016Share

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

California’s biggest electric utility announced a plan on Tuesday to shut down the state’s last remaining nuclear power plant within the next decade. The plant, Diablo Canyon, has been controversial for decades and resurfaced in the news over the last few months as Pacific Gas & Electric approached a deadline to renew, or not, the plant’s operating license.

“California’s new energy policies will significantly reduce the need for Diablo Canyon’s electricity output,” PG&E said in a statement, pointing to the state’s massive gains in energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar and wind.

The most significant part of the plan is that it promises to replace Diablo Canyon with a “cost-effective, greenhouse gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” As I reported in February, some environmentalists were concerned that closing the plant could actually increase the state’s carbon footprint, if it were replaced by natural gas plants, as has happened elsewhere in the country when nuclear plants were shut down:

As the global campaign against climate change has gathered steam in recent years, old controversies surrounding nuclear energy have been re-ignited. For all their supposed faults — radioactive waste, links to the Cold War arms race, the specter of a catastrophic meltdown — nuclear plants have the benefit of producing huge amounts of electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions…

A recent analysis by the International Energy Agency found that in order for the world to meet the global warming limit enshrined in the Paris climate agreement in December, nuclear’s share of global energy production will need to grow from around 11 percent in 2013 to 16 percent by 2030. (The share from coal, meanwhile, needs to shrink from 41 percent to 19 percent, and wind needs to grow from 3 percent to 11 percent.)

Michael Shellenberger, a leading voice in California’s pro-nuclear movement, estimated in February that closing Diablo Canyon “would not only shave off one-fifth of the state’s zero-carbon energy, but potentially increase the state’s emissions by an amount equivalent to putting 2 million cars on the road per year.” That estimate presupposed that the plant would be replaced by natural gas. The plan announced today — assuming it’s actually feasible — appears to remedy that concern. In a statement, Shellenberger’s group, Environmental Progress, said the plan is destined to “fail” because the notion that the plant can be replaced without increasing greenhouse gas emissions is “a big lie.”

In any case, the plant won’t be closing overnight. Over the next few years we should be able to watch an interesting case testing whether it’s possible to take nuclear power offline without worsening climate change.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here: 

Wave goodbye to California’s last nuclear plant

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wave goodbye to California’s last nuclear plant

California Might Close Its Last Nuclear Plant

by RolandLohman Posted on June 21, 2016

Mother Jones

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

California’s biggest electric utility announced a plan on Tuesday to shut down the state’s last remaining nuclear power plant within the next decade. The plant, Diablo Canyon, has been controversial for decades and resurfaced in the news over the last few months as Pacific Gas & Electric approached a deadline to renew, or not, the plant’s operating license.

“California’s new energy policies will significantly reduce the need for Diablo Canyon’s electricity output,” PG&E said in a statement, pointing to the state’s massive gains in energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar and wind.

The most significant part of the plan is that it promises to replace Diablo Canyon with a “cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage.” As I reported in February, some environmentalists were concerned that closing the plant could actually increase the state’s carbon footprint, if it were replaced by natural gas plants, as has happened elsewhere in the country when nuclear plants were shut down:

As the global campaign against climate change has gathered steam in recent years, old controversies surrounding nuclear energy have been re-ignited. For all their supposed faults—radioactive waste, links to the Cold War arms race, the specter of a catastrophic meltdown—nuclear plants have the benefit of producing huge amounts of electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions…

A recent analysis by the International Energy Agency found that in order for the world to meet the global warming limit enshrined in the Paris climate agreement in December, nuclear’s share of global energy production will need to grow from around 11 percent in 2013 to 16 percent by 2030. (The share from coal, meanwhile, needs to shrink from 41 percent to 19 percent, and wind needs to grow from 3 percent to 11 percent.)

Michael Shellenberger, a leading voice in California’s pro-nuclear movement, estimated in February that closing Diablo Canyon “would not only shave off one-fifth of the state’s zero-carbon energy, but potentially increase the state’s emissions by an amount equivalent to putting 2 million cars on the road per year.” But that estimate presupposed that the plant would be replaced by natural gas. The plan announced today—assuming it’s actually feasible—appears to remedy that concern.

In any case, the plant won’t be closing overnight. Over the next few years we should be able to watch an interesting case testing whether it’s possible to take nuclear power offline without worsening climate change.

More – 

California Might Close Its Last Nuclear Plant

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Might Close Its Last Nuclear Plant

Today’s headlines, brought to you from the future

by MelissaFitch Posted on June 21, 2016

As seen in Palm Springs, California. REUTERS/Sam Mircovich

Just Chill

Today’s headlines, brought to you from the future

By on Jun 21, 2016 12:18 pmShare

Welcome to the future, where news like this becomes mundane:

“Record-Breaking Heat Tops 120 Degrees in Parts of Southern California”
“1,000 flee L.A.-area wildfires fueled by heat wave”
“Deadly Heat Wave Adds Misery to Fire-Ravaged West”
“Oppressive heat to challenge all-time records across the southwestern U.S. early this week”

These are all headlines from a local news channel, USA Today, NBC, and Accuweather about the brutal heatwave that hit the Southwest this week. One-fifth of the country felt the miserable temperatures marking the official start of summer, and parts of California and Arizona even surpassed the 120-degree mark, in what the National Weather Service described as a “rare, dangerous and deadly” heatwave.

But this kind of event is becoming less rare in a climate-changed world that is constantly breaking all kinds of extreme records.

Scorching heat has had deadly consequences in India, where a heatwave this year contributed to a death toll of 1,500. Nor is this easily fixed by running the ACs higher, which packs a double punch of aiding warming and pumping pollution into communities of color.

As the headlines show, the future is not very far away at all.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See original article:  

Today’s headlines, brought to you from the future

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Today’s headlines, brought to you from the future

11 Foods We Would Lose Without Pollinators

by ChelseyMohr Posted on June 20, 2016

We all know honey comes from bees. Have you ever connected other foodsyou eat with the fact that they only exist because they’re pollinated by bees and other creatures?

It’s an important connection to make, considering just how threatened bees, butterflies, birds, beetles and otherimportant pollinators are. The threats come from pollution, climate change, habitat destruction and use of toxic pesticides and herbicides. But maybe the biggest threat is ignorance of how essential these creatures are to the web of life as well as our own food chain.

The Whites House has acknowledged the importance of pollinators not only to America’s food securitybut to the U.S. economy. “Honeybees enable the production of at least 90 commercially grown crops in North America,” says the White House. Globally, 87 of 115 leading food crops depend on animal pollinators and contribute 35 percent of global food production. What that means is, pollinators contribute more than $24 billion to the U.S. economy. Not only do pollinators help keep us fed; they also help sustain our prosperity.

Here’s just one example of the impact pollinators have on what we eat and how well we do. Almonds are almost exclusively pollinated by honey bees. California’s almond industry, just the almonds, require pollination help from about 1.4 million beehives (not 1.4 million individual bees, the thousands of bees that live in each hive). But as bee colonies are collapsing, they’re taking their toll on the almonds and other plants they pollinate. Beekeepers in the U.S. have collectively lost an estimated 10 million beehives at an approximate current value of $200 each, driving up food prices but, more importantly, potentially putting more than a third of our food system in danger.

National Pollinator Week was unanimously designated by the U.S. to raise awareness about the urgent need to raise awareness about declining populations of pollinators. The original event was held in June 2007. It has now grown into an international celebration managed by the Pollinator Partnership and supported by both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior. This year, it will be celebrated June 20-June 27, 2016.

In honor of the 2016 Pollinator Week, here are 11 foods we would lose if pollinators weren’t around to do their job. Note that the list includes a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.

Apples (and all kinds of other tree fruits, including peaches, apricots, plums, lemons, limes and cherries)

Strawberries (as well as elderberries, blackberries, raspberries and cranberries)

Onions

Avocados

Green Beans (and many otherbeans, including adzuki, kidney and lima beans)

Coffee

Sunflower Oil (and other oils, including palm, safflower and sesame)

Tomatoes (plus cucumbers)

Grapes

Cauliflower (plus cabbage, broccoli, turnips and Brussels sprouts)

Beets

Want to do something to protect pollinators and the foods you love? Sign this petition to protect pollinators from toxic pesticides.

Related:

Cause of Colony Collapse Disorder: YouThis Young Entrepreneur Wants YOU to Help Save the Bees
10 Health Benefits of Honey

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Taken from:

11 Foods We Would Lose Without Pollinators

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Sprout, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on 11 Foods We Would Lose Without Pollinators

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

by LashawnGeorgina Posted on June 9, 2016

green4us

“He’s talking about rolling back the clock, which I think is very dangerous.” Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock A couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump took a stage in Bismarck, North Dakota, and laid out his vision for addressing climate change and energy issues should he win the White House. It was about what you might expect from a candidate who has previously claimed that global warming is a hoax invented by Chinese bureaucrats to disadvantage US manufacturers. He railed against the historic global agreement on climate change struck in Paris last year, called President Barack Obama’s cornerstone climate policy “stupid,” and said that his administration “will focus on real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been looking at.” Though after he fulfills his promise to dismantle the “Department of Environmental,” it is hard to imagine how he would make that happen. The Washington Post called Trump’s proposals “dangerous and nonsensical,” and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey and head of the Environmental Protection Agency during George W. Bush’s first term, agreed. Whitman has always been a bit of a nonconformist among conservatives on climate change: She pushed hard for Bush to let the United States join the Kyoto Protocol, the last significant stab at global climate action prior to Paris, and she infamously told the Post that she left the EPA after coming under intense pressure from then-Vice President Dick Cheney to implement lax regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants. These days, she co-chairs the CASEnergy Coalition, an educational coalition that promotes the use of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. In earlier, more innocent days of the Republican primary race, she endorsed Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Now she “will not vote for Trump,” but is on the fence about Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nominee, she said, “has real flaws, but hers are more within the normal parameters we’re used to. Trump’s are way outside, as far as I’m concerned.” I had a chat with Gov. Whitman about the threat Trump’s candidacy poses to Obama’s climate legacy and why his energy “plan” makes no sense: Climate Desk: What did you make of Trump’s energy speech in North Dakota? Christine Whitman: Not surprised, but disappointed. I don’t think he has a full grasp, not surprisingly, of the issues. He’s taking moves that I believe are totally contrary to the health and well-being of the country and the citizens, when you talk about walking away from [the Paris Agreement], when you talk about having a need to restart coal plants. He should know that the reason a lot of the coal plants are shutting down now has nothing to do with environmental regulations and everything to do with economics and the low price of natural gas, which he also wants to encourage. So those two things run counter to one another in a way. He’s talking about rolling back the clock, which I think is very dangerous. CD: Trump’s comments on climate and energy might seem radical, but aren’t they really just a more extreme, less articulate version of sentiments we hear from Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans frequently: Climate change isn’t a threat, we need to save coal and the fossil fuel industry, etc.? CW: Well, first of all, environmental protection is a Republican issue. The first president to set aside public land was Lincoln. It was Nixon who established, with a Democratic Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency. This is in our DNA. Conservation is inherently conservative, and it should be something that we embrace. So I would like to see Republicans understand this and also recognize facts. You can have economic growth and a clean and green environment. We’ve done it. It’s not a zero-sum game. They’ve just got to get off this attitude that you can’t have them both at the same time. [During the Nixon era] the public said, “We don’t like being told not to go outside from 10 to 4 because of bad air quality,” and “We don’t like seeing our land turned into a garbage dump.” That’s what drove Congress and the president to actually take action. To walk away from [environmental issues] is a very dangerous political move, if nothing else, because the public still doesn’t want dirty air and dirty water and trashed land. You really don’t have any credible scientists who say that climate change isn’t occurring, and you don’t have any credible scientists who say humans don’t play a role. If you want to ignore it, you do so at your peril. CD: And yet, here we are with a Republican nominee for president who is a climate change denier. What do you think the effect of Trump’s candidacy on Obama’s climate legacy will be? Is he lending a sense of urgency to formally finalize the Paris Agreement? CW: Well, I hope he’s not representative of the party as a whole. I mean, he’s off the charts as far as what you can expect him to do or say. He is scaring other countries, and that’s pushing a desire to get [the Paris Agreement] done while we can—and make it that much harder for him to roll back. He says he’s going to roll back a lot of things, but he can’t do it. He’s not an emperor, but he doesn’t seem to get it. He is going to try to push the powers of the presidency, the boundaries. He doesn’t seem to understand the Constitution or really care much about it. But still, some of those who oppose taking dramatic action [on climate change] in India or in China are saying, “Wait a minute, the United States is going to back out. Do we still want to be a part of this?” So it’s making it much more difficult and confusing for people. CD: What are you hoping to see from the candidates on climate change as the election moves forward? CW: Truth? I hope they don’t get into it. [An election] is the worst time to discuss serious policy, because people politicize everything. I really don’t want to see a deep dive into climate change or into these issues, other than a recognition that they exist, that they’re important, and that we have to take action. Right now, on every issue, the extremes are pushing the agendas. What I’m really scared about is that people get dug in too far. And they’ll have to move further to the left, further to the right, the lines will get harder, and then once someone is elected there will be an inability to move back to the center or to really get things done. We all know that people will say things during campaigns that they don’t really mean. Or they’ll be willing, when they come into office, to look at what the reality is. So when they get in, if they’ve really painted themselves into a corner, then we’re not going to be able to have the kind of discussion that we need to get these issues solved.

See original article:

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Related Posts

Obama’s Budget Calls for Billions in Climate Funding
13 Tweets That Definitively Prove That Donald Trump Is Not a Scientist
Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill
BREAKING: President Obama Will Veto Congress’ Keystone XL Pipeline Bill
Scientists Bash EPA’s Take On Burning Wood For Power
Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution

Share this:






View original article – 

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Posted in Black & Decker, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, Oster, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Donald Trump Supporters Violently Attacked in San Jose

by MaribelSJG Posted on June 3, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Chaos erupted outside a Donald Trump rally in San Jose, California, on Thursday, as a crowd of protesters violently attacked supporters of the presumptive GOP nominee as they left the event. Some of the protesters were seen waving Mexican flags and burning the real estate magnate’s trademark “Make America Great Again” hat.

At one point, a protester hurled a heavy bag at a supporters’ head, leaving him with blood trailing down his face and onto his shirt. The incident was recorded on video:

The Los Angeles Times reports at least a dozen people, including one police officer, were attacked at the scene. Several people were taken into custody, but the police declined to say how many were arrested. It’s unclear who exactly was responsible for the violence. The ugly scene comes just days before the California primaries on Tuesday.

Throughout the Republican primary season, Trump rallies have included hostile confrontations between his supporters and protesters. The real estate magnate has been repeatedly criticized for failing to condemn—and perhaps even encouraging—his supporters to act violently. He even promised at one point to pay for his supporters’ legal fees should they tussle with protesters and have trouble with law enforcement officials. But on Thursday, it appears demonstrators flipped the script on the continued brawls—a move that likely plays squarely into Trump’s hands.

Link:  

Donald Trump Supporters Violently Attacked in San Jose

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Supporters Violently Attacked in San Jose

Trump to the Media: Stop Scrutinizing Me!

by AngelPQKQbialro Posted on May 31, 2016

Mother Jones

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

A press conference called by Donald Trump to discuss his donations to veterans’ groups devolved into a lengthy bout of bickering between the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and members of the press over media treatment of his campaign.

While Trump has fought with the press throughout the campaign, repeatedly impugning individual reporters and banning many outlets, including Mother Jones, from his rallies, the press conference at Trump Tower on Tuesday was one of the sharpest clashes yet, as Trump insulted reporters to their faces and several journalists attempted to fight back. He again called the press corps “dishonest” and potentially libelous before singling out ABC’s Tom Llamas as a “sleaze” and mocking the looks of CNN reporter Jim Acosta. Reporters at the event returned fire, arguing with Trump that he seemed to be trying to dodge scrutiny of his donations and mistook questions for criticism. “Is this what it is going to be like covering you if you are president?” one exasperated reporter asked.

In January, Trump pledged to donate $1 million to unnamed veterans’ organizations. But that donation appeared not to have been made until after the Washington Post started asking questions about the money last week, prompting Trump to give $1 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. (Trump responded to that story by calling the reporter “a nasty guy.”) At Tuesday’s press conference, Trump came prepared with a long list of organizations he said received a total of $5.6 million thanks to a fundraising event he held in January.

Trump also continued his attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge in California who has ordered documents unsealed in a lawsuit against Trump University, a school that charged students as much as $35,000 for real estate courses that promised Trump-like success and wealth. The lawsuit alleges that the school defrauded its students. Trump called Curiel an “unfair judge” on Tuesday after having attacked him on Friday as a “Trump hater” and bringing up his Latino heritage as a reason for his alleged anti-Trump bias. The documents are due to be released today.

Source: 

Trump to the Media: Stop Scrutinizing Me!

Posted in alo, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump to the Media: Stop Scrutinizing Me!

Mass Transit Ridership Is Down. How Can We Fix This?

by AndrewLoewentha Posted on May 28, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Tyler Cowen point us to Wendell Cox, who says that aside from New York City, mass transit ridership in the US is looking grim:

If New York City Subway ridership had remained at its 2005 level, overall transit ridership would have decreased from 9.8 billion in 2005 to 9.6 billion in 2015. The modern record of 10.7 billion rides would never have been approached.

Despite spending billions of dollars on new rail lines in LA, mass transit in Southern California certainly fits this bill:

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the region’s largest carrier, lost more than 10% of its boardings from 2006 to 2015, a decline that appears to be accelerating….In Orange County, bus ridership plummeted 30% in the last seven years….Southern California certainly isn’t alone. Public transportation use in many U.S. cities, including Chicago and Washington, D.C., has slumped in the last few years.

But all is not lost. If you take a longer look at Los Angeles transit, it turns out there are things you can do to increase ridership. It’s complicated, though, so you’ll need to read carefully:

Thirty years ago, Metro handled almost 500 million annual bus boardings in Los Angeles County. In the decade that followed…Metro raised fares and cut bus service hours. Ridership during this period declined from 497 million to 362 million. –ed.

In 1994, an organization that represented bus riders sued Metro in federal court….Metro agreed to stop raising fares for 10 years and relieve overcrowding by adding more than 1 million hours of bus service. Ridership soared. Metro buses and trains recorded about 492 million boardings in 2006, the most since 1985.

But from 2009 to 2011, several years after federal oversight ended and during the Great Recession, the agency raised fares and cut bus service by 900,000 hours. By the end of 2015, ridership had fallen 10% from 2006, with the steepest declines coming in the last two years.

Hmmm. There’s an answer in there somewhere. We just need to tease it out. Here’s an annotated version of the full chart that I excerpted above. Maybe that will help.

See original article here – 

Mass Transit Ridership Is Down. How Can We Fix This?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mass Transit Ridership Is Down. How Can We Fix This?

It’s official: This summer will be a miserable inferno

by CamilleJeffrey Posted on May 26, 2016

It’s official: This summer will be a miserable inferno

By on May 26, 2016Share

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) has released its outlook for summer temperatures, and, in the words of the American poet Nelly: It’s getting hot in herre.

Temperatures all across the country are facing increased odds for well above average summer temps: From Seattle to Sag Harbor, boob sweat and swamp ass will abound. The only exceptions in these United States are South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas — so pack your bags, babies! We’re heading to Omaha.

NOAA

Beside the basic discomfort of hot-as-balls weather, exceptionally high temperatures are bad news for things like drought, wildfire, and curly hair. This could mean an especially difficult year for parts of California and the Southwest that are already suffering from years of high temps and low precipitation.

Howard Diamond, scientist at NOAA, put it this way:

“Yes, parts of California already under severe drought could again be in for more of the same.” But, he adds, “Please also remember that the climate outlooks below for June-July-August are just that — outlooks. They are not specific forecasts, but based on past climatology, and models give us a possible snapshot of what conditions will most likely be like.”

In other words, it looks bad, but there’s always a chance that the predictions are off and the drought is over and there will be no more wildfires and we’ll all be blissfully basking in 70 degree days for the next three months.

Here’s hoping.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue at source: 

It’s official: This summer will be a miserable inferno

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s official: This summer will be a miserable inferno

Whenever Trump Gets Cozy With Bigots, His Campaign Cites Technical “Errors"

by JacquesF98 Posted on May 11, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Every political campaign has its share of computer glitches and technical malfunctions, but for the Trump campaign, these sorts of bugs have a strange tendency to happen whenever white supremacists come up for discussion. Just how often has this been the case? More than you might think.

The “database error”
After Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the Trump campaign had selected white nationalist leader William Johnson for its slate of California delegates, the Trump campaign at first claimed that the story was “totally false.” But soon, Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks gave a different explanation: “A database error led to the inclusion of a potential delegate that had been rejected and removed from the candidate’s list in February 2016,” she said in a statement emailed to Mother Jones and other news organizations. Johnson then told Mother Jones that he would resign as a delegate.

The “bad ear piece”
In a Sunday morning interview in late February, Trump declined to disavow an endorsement for former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke after being asked about it repeatedly by CNN’s Jake Tapper. He later claimed that he couldn’t hear what Tapper was asking. “I was sitting in a house in Florida, with a bad ear piece,” Trump told NBC’s Today show. “I could hardly hear what he was saying. I hear various groups. I don’t mind disavowing anyone. I disavowed Duke the day before at a major conference.”

A source familiar with Trump’s three television interviews that Sunday morning told Mother Jones that NBC and Fox were in charge of the camera and satellite truck—a common pool sharing arrangement—and that the same equipment was used for all three interviews. “So the notion that some particular earpiece was to blame is not accurate,” the source said.

The Photoshop glitch
Last July, Trump tweeted a photo of himself looking stoic against a backdrop of an American flag and marching soldiers.

The tweet seemed unremarkable, until close observers noted that the soldiers used in the image were in fact dressed as WWII-era Waffen-SS infantry. The Trump campaign deleted the tweet and told The Hill that an intern was at fault.

Various other social media glitches apparently have involved the processor between Trump’s ears: He has retweeted white supremacist Twitter accounts such as @WhiteGenocideTM and @EustaceFash, which campaign spokesperson Hicks has explained by noting that Trump pays no attention to who’s doing the tweeting, but only to the content.

See original:

Whenever Trump Gets Cozy With Bigots, His Campaign Cites Technical “Errors"

Posted in Anchor, bigo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whenever Trump Gets Cozy With Bigots, His Campaign Cites Technical “Errors"