Tag Archives: hillary

That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

by WadeHardwick864 Posted on February 4, 2016

Mother Jones

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

A few days before the 1986 Vermont gubernatorial election, Bernie Sanders held a rally in downtown Burlington. Sanders, then the independent mayor of the state’s largest city, was trailing badly in a three-way race with Democratic Gov. Madeleine Kunin, the state’s first female chief executive, and Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Smith, and he was running out of time.

So, as Kunin recounts in her 1994 memoir, Living a Political Life, Sanders leveled a tough attack against her. At that rally, Kunin wrote, Sanders declared that “he would be a better feminist than I.” According to her account, Sanders shouted that Kunin had “done nothing for women.” And, she recalled in her book, “When my husband, there as my surrogate (I was scheduled to speak elsewhere), rose to speak in my defense, he was booed by the crowd. Arthur’s red-faced anger became the children’s horror story of the campaign, which they embellished in the retelling—our private macabre joke.” Kunin was already coming under attack from the right for her vocal support of the Equal Rights Amendment; now she was being hammered for not being feminist enough.

Continue Reading »

Original source: 

That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

Hey, Have You Heard About the Top Secret US Drone Program?

by LeliaGaunt Posted on January 30, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Via the AP, here’s the latest on Hillary Clinton’s email woes:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification….The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

Special access programs are the most secret of all secrets, so this sounds bad. But wait. What’s this business about drone strikes? That’s not much of a secret, is it? Maybe you need a refresher on all this, so let’s rewind the Wayback Machine to last August, when we first heard about top secret emails on Clinton’s server that turned out to be about drone strikes:

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article about the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While that program is technically top secret, it is well-known and often reported on….The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, the officials said.

Hmmm. A news article? Here’s a Politico piece from a couple of weeks ago, when we heard that the inspector general’s office was concerned about some of Clinton’s emails. Politico’s source is a “US official”:

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes….The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added….The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground.

OK then: the emails in question discuss a news article containing information that’s widely-known but nonetheless top secret because…um, why not? Here’s more from the Ken Dilanian, formerly of the AP and now with NBC News:

The classified material included in the latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails flagged by an internal watchdog involved discussions of CIA drone strikes, which are among the worst kept secrets in Washington, senior U.S. officials briefed on the matter tell NBC News. The officials say the emails included relatively “innocuous” conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program.

So what do you suppose the “closely guarded secrets” in the latest batch of 22 emails are? Drones? That’s a pretty good guess. Most likely, this all started with someone sending around a news article about the drone program in Pakistan or Yemen, and then several other people chiming in. It wasn’t classified at the time, and most likely contains nothing even remotely sensitive—but the CIA now insists on classifying it retroactively. That’s why Clinton’s spokesperson calls this “classification run amok” and says, once again, that they’ll seek to have all these emails released to the public.

Of course, this could just be a clever ruse on Clinton’s part, because she knows the emails will never see the light of day. But there are other people who have seen the emails. How have they reacted? Well, nobody on the Republican side has leaked or even “characterized” any of them, and nobody on the Democratic side has withdrawn their endorsement of Clinton. This suggests pretty strongly that this whole thing is, indeed, just a stupid bit of interagency squabbling.

Excerpt from: 

Hey, Have You Heard About the Top Secret US Drone Program?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hey, Have You Heard About the Top Secret US Drone Program?

Clinton Campaign Ramps Up Attacks on Sanders’ Health Care Plan

by MargareHutchens Posted on January 13, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Hillary Clinton’s attack on Bernie Sanders over health care policy isn’t done yet. On Wednesday afternoon, her campaign convened a press call to slam her Democratic primary opponent for his single-payer, Medicare-for-all health care plan.

Clinton campaign officials alleged that Sanders is not releasing the details of how he’d pay for the plan because he wants to hide tax increases that would hit the middle class. Earlier on Wednesday, Sanders’ campaign had released a comprehensive list of proposals to pay for his various campaign schemes—except for health care. As recently as 2013, Sanders had regularly introduced bills for single-payer health plans that include details on the tax increases that he would include to pay for the system, including an across-the-board 2.2 percent income tax hike. Since launching his presidential campaign, he’s continually promised to introduce a new Medicare-for-all proposal, but has yet to come out with the details.

Speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign, senior policy advisor Jake Sullivan and national press secretary Brian Fallon ripped into Sanders for the delay, claiming that it did a disservice to Democratic voters, with the Iowa caucuses just three weeks away. “It’s not becoming, and it’s not worthy of the caucus-goers in Iowa,” Fallon said.

The pair of Clinton aides weren’t subtle in suggesting that the reason Sanders has yet to unveil a proposal is because he doesn’t want to talk about the tax increases needed to fund it. “One can only draw the conclusion that the Sanders campaign does not want to outline what is going to amount to a massive across-the-board tax hike on working families,” Sullivan said. (The Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Clinton has regularly attacked both Sanders and her other Democratic opponent, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, for being willing to raise taxes on people she terms middle class—a broad definition that reaches nearly to the top tier of incomes.

Although they objected to the lack of detail, the Clinton campaign staffers evidently had enough details to launch a harsh critique of Sanders’ concept of universal health care. “Clinton believes, given the problems of income inequality, the last thing that we should be doing is raising taxes on the middle class,” Sullivan said. “She has said many times that we need to give middle-class families a raise, not a tax increase.”

What about the contention from Sanders that any extra costs from taxes would be offset with boosts in disposable income once people no longer need to pay for insurance? “From our perspective, it is far from clear that everyone would in fact save money from Sen. Sanders’ plan,” Sullivan said. “In fact, we believe that many middle-class and working families would be worse off under this plan.”

The Clinton campaign has dug in deep against Sanders on health care this week. Clinton attacked her opponent’s plan as a “risky deal” during an Iowa event on Monday, and her daughter Chelsea Clinton, acting as a campaign surrogate, said on Tuesday that it’d “strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance.” Although single-payer health care might be a political longshot after the drawn-out fight over the more moderate Obamacare, attacking the merits of single-payer in a Democratic primary is a strange strategic choice for the Clinton campaign. A poll from a progressive group last year found that about 80 percent of Democrats support single-payer.

But Clinton seems intent on doubling down on the sort of arguments you typically hear from Republicans, claiming that her opponent is too focused on taking money away from voters for big government programs. “When Hillary Clinton says that, as president, her number one challenge would be to seek to get incomes rising again,” Fallon said, “a proof point of that is that she does not want to start off on day one by slapping a tax increase that would directly take money out of the pockets of those very same households whose take-home pay we’re seeking to increase. So it’s a very risky proposition, altogether, for Sen. Sanders to be suggesting that he wants to address those stagnant wages as well, but all he can commit to, what he is promising off the bat, is tax increases that would adversely impact the take-home pay for those very same households.”

Read article here:

Clinton Campaign Ramps Up Attacks on Sanders’ Health Care Plan

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton Campaign Ramps Up Attacks on Sanders’ Health Care Plan

Are Young Women Complacent About Abortion Rights?

by DaleneX56466 Posted on January 6, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Here is DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

Do you notice a difference between young women and women our age in their excitement about Hillary Clinton? Is there a generational divide?

Here’s what I see: a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.

I won’t even pretend that I understand this answer. Complacency about what? Abortion? Politics in general? And what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?

Beats me. But it doesn’t really matter. Everyone assumes that DWS was talking about complacency toward abortion rights, and young feminists aren’t happy about her sweeping criticism of an entire generation. Generally speaking, though, the response has been that there are plenty of young women who work hard on abortion rights these days, which is certainly true. But DWS isn’t denying that. What she’s saying is that there are fewer young women today working hard on abortion rights. Or perhaps that they don’t have as much passion as they used to have.

That got me curious. Is this true? Is there any evidence for it? Unfortunately, I couldn’t really figure out how you might measure it. I doubt there’s any historical data on the number of abortion activists broken up by age and gender. There’s plenty of poll data on attitudes toward abortion, but that doesn’t help—and attitudes haven’t changed a lot anyway. Is there any kind of survey data (broken up by age and gender) that shows how strongly people feel about abortion rights? Or how often it’s a significant factor in voting? Not that I could find.

This isn’t really very important, and I suppose someone could just ask Wasserman Schultz to explain what she meant. But I’m still curious: is there any data at all that might point in one direction or another when it comes to generational attitudes toward abortion activism? Anyone have any ideas?

See the original post: 

Are Young Women Complacent About Abortion Rights?

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Young Women Complacent About Abortion Rights?

State Department Releases 5,500 More of Hillary Clinton’s Darkest Secrets

by CarrieGottshall Posted on January 1, 2016

Mother Jones

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

It’s the last day of the month, and that’s when the State Department releases additional tranches of Hillary Clinton’s email from her stint as Secretary of State. Here’s one from State’s chief of protocol keeping Hillary apprised of a joke Obama told about her at the White House Correspondent’s dinner. Don’t worry, it’s unclassified:

If you want to browse through them yourself, click here. Who knows? Maybe you’ll be the first to find the smoking gun that destroys Hillary once and for all!

Link: 

State Department Releases 5,500 More of Hillary Clinton’s Darkest Secrets

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on State Department Releases 5,500 More of Hillary Clinton’s Darkest Secrets

Does Donald Trump Have Any Friends?

by John Basset Posted on December 30, 2015

Mother Jones

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

One of the things that kind of fascinates me about Donald Trump1 is the fact that he doesn’t even pretend that his attacks are real. His latest 2-minutes hate has been directed at Bill Clinton, and he’s pretty much admitted that he doesn’t really believe the stuff he’s saying. But if Hillary attacks him, he has to attack back. Here’s Rebecca Sinderbrand:

Trump on HRC: “Had to mention her husband’s situation. And now it’s the biggest story on television by a factor of 10. So you have to do it“

He had to do it—delivered with the usual Trumpish shrug of the shoulders. That’s all. And if Hillary stops, he’ll stop. It’s business, not personal.

This is an odd quirk in Trump’s personality. He seems to have an ironclad rule against ever attacking someone first. Even Vladimir Putin. Putin says nice things about Trump, so Trump has to say nice things back. Opposing candidates who don’t attack him are “great guys.” But if you attack first, then he has to fire off a nuclear retaliation. There’s an odd kind of chivalry at work here, and I suppose it also provides people with a motivation to leave him alone.

This may also be responsible for the odd silence about Trump from everyone who knows him. I’ve been wondering for a while whether Trump has any friends. Real friends, that is. Not family members, not people who work for him, and not celebrity buddies who have a casual acquaintance with him. I’m talking about people he’s worked with frequently and who like him. People he hangs out with regularly. People from his childhood or college years that he’s stayed close to. Are there any?

I can’t tell. Nobody from the New York development community seems willing to say anything about him, which would make sense if they all dislike him but don’t want to trigger a temper tantrum. Who needs the grief, right? How about childhood friends? Not that I’ve heard of. Trump seems to view people almost entirely transactionally, as assets to be deployed, so it would hardly be surprising if none of them had stayed close. Given his penchant for demanding sycophancy, and lashing out instantly against even a hint of criticism, I suppose it would be hard to have any real long-term friends or even any long-term business pals. It’s kind of sad, actually.

1Against my will, but there you have it.

Link:

Does Donald Trump Have Any Friends?

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Does Donald Trump Have Any Friends?

Let’s Take a Look at How Tough Republicans Would Be Against ISIS

by ConnorTrudeau Posted on November 15, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris, conservatives are eagerly taking the opportunity to accuse Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of fecklessness and appeasement for not taking a harder line against ISIS. We need someone with the guts to lead, and who isn’t afraid to use the term radical Islam. Apparently that’s important.

Maybe so. But ground troops are the only way to destroy ISIS in the short term, and the Republican presidential candidates have all been oddly reluctant to get behind a serious American invasion force. So before we allow them to get too far up on their high horses about how tough they’d be, here’s a reminder of what they were saying about ISIS before two days ago.

Donald Trump wants to take away oil fields controlled by ISIS, but has explicitly dodged the question of whether he would use a substantial ground force to do it. His preference is for an air campaign: “I would just bomb those suckers. That’s right. I’d blow up the pipes. I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.”

From Tuesday’s debate: “If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%.“

Jeb Bush has previously ruled out a “major commitment” of ground troops. He would support a modest increase in “supportive” troops, and wants to unite the moderate anti-Assad forces in Syria. But he also thinks Trump is crazy.

From the debate: “Let ISIS take out Assad, and then Putin will take out ISIS?….That’s not how the real world works. We have to lead, we have to be involved. We should have a no fly zone in Syria.“

Carly Fiorina has specifically said ground troops are unnecessary. Our allies should provide any troops necessary.

From the debate: “We must have a no fly zone in Syria….We also have a set of allies in the Arab Middle East that know that ISIS is their fight….King Abdullah of Jordan….The Egyptians, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Bahrainis, the Emirati, the Kurds….They must see leadership support and resolve from the United States of America.”

Marco Rubio said last year the he would like to see a permanent US presence in the Middle East. “I’m not saying 100,000 troops, but certainly some level that allows us to project power quickly and confront challenges and threats.” More recently, he’s backed off that position: “ISIS is a radical Sunni Islamic group. They need to be defeated on the ground by a Sunni military force with air support from the United States.” And this: “Intervening doesn’t mean ground troops. Intervening can be a lot of things.” His official position on his website specifically recommends air strikes, special ops, training, arms for Sunni and Kurdish forces, diplomacy, financial targeting, and better PR. It does not mention ground troops.

From the debate: “ISIS is now in Libya….Soon they will be in Turkey. They will try Jordan. They will try Saudi Arabia….They hate us because of our values. They hate us because our girls go to school. They hate us because women drive in the United States. Either they win or we win, and we had better take this risk seriously, it is not going away on its own.”

Ben Carson has suggested that ground troops “might” be necessary, but has declined to go any further.

From the debate: “We’re talking about global jihadists….We have to destroy their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq. Outside of Anbar in Iraq, there’s a big energy field. Take that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there.”

Ted Cruz has suggested that Kurdish pesh merga are all we need: “We need boots on the ground, but they don’t necessarily need to be American boots. The Kurds are our boots on the ground.” Cruz has generally dodged specific questions about sending in American troops, instead supporting an “overwhelming” American air campaign.

From the debate: Cruz declined to address ISIS during the debate.

And just for comparison, here is Hillary Clinton on her website:

ISIS and the foreign terrorist fighters it recruits pose a serious threat to America and our allies. We will confront and defeat them in a way that builds greater stability across the region, without miring our troops in another misguided ground war. Hillary will empower our partners to defeat terrorism and the ideologies that drive it, including through our ongoing partnership to build Iraqi military and governing capacity, our commitment to Afghanistan’s democracy and security, and by supporting efforts to restore stability to Libya and Yemen.

So Hillary is a little bit more categorical about not using American ground troops, but basically she’d fit in just fine on the Republican stage. She supports an air campaign; she supports a no-fly zone in Syria; she supports arming the anti-Assad rebels; and she supports partnerships with our allies. If the Republican candidates are any tougher on ISIS than Hillary, they’ve been oddly timid about saying so.

Taken from:  

Let’s Take a Look at How Tough Republicans Would Be Against ISIS

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let’s Take a Look at How Tough Republicans Would Be Against ISIS

We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

by SandraSalting Posted on November 11, 2015

Mother Jones

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

OK, I’m up for this. Are you up for this? Sure you are! Together, we can get through the full two hours. We can do it! We can!

11:18 – And that’s a wrap.

11:17 – Trump: I’m spending my own money in this campaign. Actually, no, he isn’t.

11:14 – Carson: fight political correctness!

11:13 – Jeb wants to rebuild the VA.

11:12 – Fiorina: America will literally collapse if Hillary Clinton becomes president.

11:11 – Kasich worries about his children and grandchildren if Hillary Clinton is president.

11:10 – Time for closing statements!

11:09 – Trump: bring back profits from overseas with a tax holiday. Paul: drill, baby, drill. Bush: natural gas is great.

11:04 – Cruz also says Hillary sucks.

11:01 – Bartiromo: Hillary Clinton has an impressive resume. Audience boos. Not really sure what the question is, but Rubio says Hillary sucks and this election is about the future.

10:59 – Hey, I thought Donald Trump had personally guaranteed this debate wouldn’t go over two hours. What’s the deal?

10:58 – Fiorina: Dodd-Frank is socialism. Freddie Mac was responsible for housing bust. Etc.

10:54 – Kasich: Put a sock in it, Cruz. Real executives need to make decisions, not philosophize. Kasich says he wouldn’t bail out banks, but would help the hardworking folks who put money in the bank. Big boos!

10:51 – Cavuto: Just to be clear, if Bank of America were on the brink, would you let it fail? Cruz: Yes. Also: we need fewer philosopher kings at the Fed. And the gold standard would be great for working men and women!

10:50 – Cavuto: Would you go after Wall Street crooks like Bernie Sanders? Freudian slip, I guess. Cruz would “absolutely” go after them. We need less cronyism. Blah blah blah.

10:48 – Kasich: too much greed on Wall Street.

10:46 – Question to Carson about big banks. This ought to be good. Answer: shouldn’t allow banks to “just enlarge themselves at the expense of smaller entities.” Low interest rates are bad. We need less regulation. Hurts the poor and middle class because it raises the cost of a bar of soap by ten cents. Baker: OK, but would you break up the big banks? Carson: I wouldn’t allow them to get big in the first place. But, no, I wouldn’t tear down banks that already exist.

10:40 – Bush thinks we should raise capital requirements on banks. He says we’ve reduced them. This is totally wrong.

10:37 – Kasich winds up with yet more whining about not getting enough time. Put a sock in it, John. Besides, what about Ted Cruz? He seems to have virtually disappeared for the past half hour.

10:36 – Kasich: If anyone cyberattacks us, they should know we will destroy their means to perform cyberattacks. Not really clear what this means. Then a tour of the world showing what a tough guy he is.

10:32 – Rubio: Putin sucks. Obama sucks. Blah blah blah, machine gun speech about all the terrible people in the world. Big cheers.

10:31 – Trump to Fiorina: “Why do you keep interrupting everyone?”

10:28 – Fiorina says she’s met Putin not in a green room, like Trump, but in a private meeting. Yee haw!

10:26 – Bush says Trump is full of shit. Trump says we have no idea who the rebels are. Look at Libya. Look at Iraq. He almost sounds like a Democrat. Almost.

10:24 – Trump is now in full ADD mode on foreign policy. Syria! China! Putin! Ukraine! Germany! But we can’t be policeman of the world.

10:22 – Bush says America needs to lead in the Middle East. But his plan is distinctly small-bore: no-fly zone, support the rebels, think about the refugees.

10:18 – Carson: we have to oppose Putin in Middle East. But it’s very complicated. Carson’s plan for ISIS: We have to make them look like losers. We do that by taking their oil fields and then destroying them. “We could do this, I believe, fairly easily.” Carson says he learned that from “several generals.” Names, please!

10:16 – Is anyone ever going to ask Fiorina to describe her tax plan? Come on. It’s only three pages long!

10:14 – Paul thinks Congress should have the ability to amend treaties. This would, of course, make it impossible to negotiate treaties.

10:11 – Trump says TPP is worst trade deal ever. We should sign deals with each country separately instead. Baker: Is there anything in particular you dislike about TPP? Trump: It doesn’t do anything about currency manipulation. China is killing us! Rand Paul points out that China isn’t part of the deal.

10:10 – Kasich tries to barge in. Baker finally shuts him up. Kasich is whining a lot tonight.

10:09 – Trump: We need a big military so no one will mess with us.

10:09 – Now Fiorina goes into yet another riff about zero-based budget and the three-page tax code. Jesus.

10:07 – Now everyone wants to chime in to show that they want a kick-ass military too.

10:05 – Now Rubio and Paul get into a fight. Somehow this ends up with Rubio saying he wants to spend more on defense, unlike Paul, who’s a big wimp. Then a riff about having the most powerful military in the world Huge cheers.

10:04 – Baker asks Rubio if his child tax credit is just a new entitlement. Rubio doesn’t really respond. He just natters on about how important the family is.

10:03 – Jeb Bush delivers some argle bargle about needing a better economy.

10:00 – Cruz would cut five agencies: IRS, Commerce, Energy, Commerce, and HUD. Paging Rick Perry!

9:56 – Rand Paul wants a flat tax. Ted Cruz wants a flat tax. Cruz promises that his plan totally adds up and it abolishes the IRS. The result will be incredible economic growth.

9:52 – Cavuto wants to know which tax plan God would prefer: Trump’s or Carson’s? Carson sort of rambles on about proportionality and putting more money in people’s pockets. Also: his plan will include some kind of rebate for poor people. I believe this is news.

9:49 – The moderators are fulfilling their assigned roles and asking softball questions almost exclusively. Bartiromo said she was going to get to the bottom of all the tax and budget plans, but so far she’s done virtually none of that.

9:45 – Fiorina: Nobody can possibly understand Obamacare. Follow-up: What’s the alternative? Fiorina: high-risk pools. Obamacare is helping no one and crushing small business. We need free market health care. Also: again with the three-page tax code. Fiorina is really obsessed with this tonight.

9:42 – Cruz delivers pretty good line about elite opinion on immigration being different if it was bankers or journalists crossing the Rio Grande. Probably so!

9:40 – Rubio delivers stock speech about taxes, regulations, energy, and Obamacare.

9:38 – Bush has Kasich’s back. We can’t just ship all the illegal immigrants back. Big cheers (!).

9:37 – Trump: I’m rich, I don’t need to listen to Kasich. Big boos (!).

9:34 – Finally, Kasich starts a fight with Trump over immigration. Then he defends Ohio’s honor.

9:32 – Carson: I’m an honest guy. Trump: Immigration is bad.

9:27 – Very subdued debate so far. Everyone seems to have decided that fighting each other just makes the whole field look like children. I wonder how long this will last?

9:26 – Rand Paul goes through a riff on the Fed that I honestly didn’t understand. Plus: we should all move to cities and states with Republicans in charge.

9:23 – Fiorina: We need five things. Zero-based budgeting. Three-page tax code. Total review of all regs. Pass the REINS Act. Hold government officials accountable for their performance. Big applause.

9:20 – What specific regs would Bush cut? Answer: repeal every rule Obama has put in place. Internet. Clean power. Water. Repeal ’em all.

9:17 – Cruz says keys to economic growth are tax reform, slashing regulations, and sound money.

9:14 – What would you cut from the budget? Kasich tap dances. Doesn’t mention a single thing he’d cut. Follow-up: he’d cut Social Security. And Medicaid. Freeze nondiscretionary spending. Increase defense spending. So: cut basically all domestic spending and increase defense spending.

9:10 – Rubio: if we raise the minimum wage, people will be more expensive than machines. We need more welders and fewer philosophers. (No, I don’t get it either.)

9:08 – Carson: people need to be educated on the minimum wage. Wages are too high. Lower wages will create more jobs. High wages create dependency, or something.

9:06 – Trump opposes $15 minimum wage because….we don’t win anymore. Also: wages are too high. People are just going to have to buck up.

9:04 – Could Jeb Bush possibly look less enthusiastic during the introductions?

9:00 – And we’re off. But first, an inspiring video.

8:58 – Tonight features 90-second answers from the candidates. Substantive!

8:57 – Everybody is already at their podiums. I miss having them walk in and wave.

More here – 

We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

Posted in Anker, Cyber, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

Republicans Are Very Mad About Obama’s Keystone XL Decision

by GusDransfield3 Posted on November 6, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Friday morning, after years of heated battles between environmentalists and Republicans, President Barack Obama announced that he is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

In a speech, the president criticized both supporters and detractors of the pipeline from placing too much emphasis on a project that, according to the State Department’s analysis, would neither create many jobs nor ruin the climate if approved. Still, reactions to his decision from Republicans in Congress and the 2016 presidential primary were swift and terrible.

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic candidates were quick to praise the decision:

Notably absent, so far, is a reaction from Hillary Clinton. She only recently took a public position against the pipeline, after years of dodging the question.

UPDATE 3:30pm ET: A couple latecomers:

Credit – 

Republicans Are Very Mad About Obama’s Keystone XL Decision

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Are Very Mad About Obama’s Keystone XL Decision

Hillary Clinton’s Newest Ad Zeroes in on Calls for Increased Gun Control

by Luz67Wegjv Posted on November 3, 2015

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign debuted a new television ad that zeroed in on the need for increased gun control laws—an issue the Democratic front-runner is using to position herself as a markedly different candidate to her rival, Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont. The spot is being shown in the early battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire, according to the New York Times, and stands out as novel compared to recent presidential campaigns in which Democrats have mostly been on the defensive about gun control.

“We need to close the loopholes and support universal background checks,” Clinton is seen telling a crowd in the clip titled “Together.” “How many people have to die before we actually act?”

The ad comes just one day after Clinton held a private meeting with several family members of victims of gun violence, including the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice:

Shortly after the deadly rampage in Oregon last month, Clinton announced a series of proposals to help combat rising gun violence, including using executive authority to close the so-called “gun show loophole” if she became president.

In recent months, Clinton has accused Sanders of being too lax on gun control, taking swipes at the Vermont senator for supporting a controversial law in 2005 that protected gun manufacturers from being sued by victims of violence.

Her momentum on the issue has been steadily growing, particularly after she charged Sanders with not doing enough to tackle gun violence at the first Democratic debate in October. You can watch that tense exchange below:

Read this article – 

Hillary Clinton’s Newest Ad Zeroes in on Calls for Increased Gun Control

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Newest Ad Zeroes in on Calls for Increased Gun Control