Tag Archives: obama

New grocery store in Denmark sells only castoff foods

by AnaTripp5569051 Posted on February 25, 2016

New grocery store in Denmark sells only castoff foods

By on 24 Feb 2016commentsShare

The world wastes a shocking amount of food. By some estimates, a third of the food we produce each year gets tossed out, left to rot on the vine, or spoils en route to the consumer. It’s shameful.

Solutions to the food waste problem have been proposed around the world, from campaigns to embrace ugly produce in France to President Obama’s initiatives to reduce food waste in the U.S. by 50 percent. And now, some Danes have come up with their own novel solution: A grocery store that sells castoffs.

Wefood, a crowdfunded and volunteer-run store in Copenhagen that opened earlier this week, sells only surplus food, or the stuff conventional stores toss out. And it does it at 30 to 50 percent cheaper than regular stores.

“Wefood is the first supermarket of its kind in Denmark and perhaps the world as it is not just aimed at low-income shoppers but anyone who is concerned about the amount of food waste produced in this country,” Per Bjerre, who works for the nonprofit that launched the store, told the Independent. “Many people see this as a positive and politically correct way to approach the issue.”

Wefood contracts with one of Denmark’s largest supermarket chains for bread and other products, according to the Independent, and has agreements with other sellers for fruit, meat, and additional foods.

Could such a thing work in the U.S.? We certainly need it. Americans dump 50 percent more food today than we did in 1990, an average of 20 pounds of food per person each month. This isn’t just wasteful, it also harms the planet: Food left to rot in landfills is a source of the climate-warming gas methane, and if there’s one thing worse than food left to rot on the ground, it’s methane in the air.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Follow this link: 

New grocery store in Denmark sells only castoff foods

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New grocery store in Denmark sells only castoff foods

Republicans Decide to Boycott the Supreme Court Vacancy. Does This Remind You of Anyone?

by KarolynHDG Posted on February 23, 2016

Mother Jones

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

The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have officially announced that they aren’t willing to even hold hearings for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee—no matter who it is.1 There’s all the usual argle bargle about needing to “protect the will of the American people” blah blah blah, but none of that matters. They’re doing this because they want to do it and they have the power to do it. I doubt that Democrats would act much differently under similar circumstances.

That said, you can add me to the huge crowd of observers who are puzzled by the political tactics here. The obvious question is: Why refuse to even hold hearings? That just makes Republicans look sullen and obstructionist. Why not hold hearings normally, drag them out a little bit, and then vote down whoever Obama nominates? The result is the same, but Republicans look more like senators and less like small children throwing a temper tantrum.

I suppose the answer is that this is a good way of firing up their base, and they think that’s more important than appealing to the center. Fair enough. But that raises another question: What’s the best way to fire up the Republican base? I’m not trying to troll anyone here, but it seems like the answer is to hold hearings. That would keep the whole Supreme Court issue front and center for months on end. The base would be faced almost daily with the prospect of what a liberal justice would do; talk radio would go nuts; and there would be endless chances to find specific problems with the nominee—many of which would coincidentally require the production of reams of files and records to trawl through.

Democrats, conversely, would have less to get fired up about. Sure, they’d be unhappy, but they wouldn’t be able to carp endlessly about Republican obstruction. Their guy is getting a hearing, after all.

So it seems like holding hearings normally would be a better way to fire up the GOP base and a better way to keep the Democratic base a little quieter. It probably wouldn’t make a huge difference either way, but it’s still a win-win. What am I missing here?

1After which they undoubtedly went out for a beer and shared their bewilderment about the fact that so many Republicans have been trained to vote for a guy like Donald Trump. What could possibly have driven them in such a direction?

Original post: 

Republicans Decide to Boycott the Supreme Court Vacancy. Does This Remind You of Anyone?

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Decide to Boycott the Supreme Court Vacancy. Does This Remind You of Anyone?

The Clinton-Sanders Ad War Shows How Black Lives Matter Reshaped the Race

by SamualGrimstone Posted on February 23, 2016

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, competing for African American voters in South Carolina, released a new radio ad featuring film director and actor Spike Lee enthusiastically talking up the record of “my brother Bernie Sanders” in fighting racism.

“When Bernie gets in the White House, he will do the right thing!” Lee says in the spot, a nod to the movie that made him famous. “How can we be sure?” he continues. “Bernie was at the March on Washington with Dr. King. He was arrested in Chicago for protesting segregation in public schools. He fought for wealth and education and inequality throughout his whole career. No flipping, no flopping. Enough talk. Time for action.”

The high-energy Spike Lee ad is one of many in the ongoing ad war between Sanders and front-runner Hillary Clinton. Last week, Republican candidates blanketed the Palmetto State with ads that amounted to a million-dollar circular firing squad. The ad blitzes from Sanders and Clinton—primarily targeting hip-hop, gospel, and R&B radio stations—zero in on serious topics: police violence, mass incarceration, and inequality.

The ads in South Carolina, where more than half the Democratic electorate is black, were always going to be a little different than the ads in uber-white New Hampshire. But listen to an hour or two of drive-time radio, and it becomes clear how different the battle lines in South Carolina are from those in the three states that voted before it—and how the work of civil rights activists over the last few years has changed the dynamics of the 2016 race.

“I was one of the leaders in the House to take charge and say the Confederate flag has to come down now,” says Rep. Justin Bamberg, an African American Democrat in a Sanders ad, explaining why he switched from Clinton to the Vermont senator. “He has stood for civil rights his entire life. He marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King. Bernie Sanders will be the advocate to address the problems in the criminal justice system.”

Another Sanders spot features four African American activists from South Carolina, of varying ages, outlining why they back the self-described democratic socialist. “Bernie Sanders realizes that mass incarceration, especially among young people, is a rising epidemic,” says Hamilton Grant. Gloria Bomell Tinubu remarks, “We know that prison is big business; it’s been privatized. And Bryanta-Booker Maxwell says of Sanders, “He is the best champion for criminal justice reform.”

In another radio ad, Sanders, touting his plan to fight “institutional racism,” makes a direct pitch for himself: “Millions of lives are being wrecked, families are being torn apart, we’re spending huge sums of taxpayer money locking people up. It makes a lot more sense for us to be investing in education, in jobs, rather than jails and incarceration.”

Pro-Clinton ads hit similar points, but with three big additions: Obama, Obama, Obama. That is, as these ads depict Clinton as a pursuer of justice and equality, they hammer home her connection to the president.

“We all worked hard to elect President Barack Obama eight years ago,” a woman narrator says at the beginning of a heavily played ad aired by Priorities USA, a Clinton-backing super-PAC. “Republicans have tried to tear him down every step of the way. We can’t let them hold us back. We need a president who will build on all that President Obama has done. President Obama trusted Hillary Clinton to be America’s secretary of state.” And the ad turns toward racism at its end: “She’ll fight to remove the stains of unfairness and prejudice from our criminal justice system, so that justice is just.”

Another spot from the super-PAC cites Clinton’s “bold” plan to curb police brutality. And in an ad paid for directly by the Clinton campaign, former Attorney General Eric Holder, emphasizing his and Clinton’s ties to Obama, hails her efforts to protect civil rights and voting rights and her support for tougher gun laws and police accountability:

The most direct reference to the Black Lives Matter movement comes in an ad in which Clinton herself says, “African Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do. Too many encounters with law enforcement end tragically for African Americans.” A narrator cites a young Hillary’s work “standing up for African American teenagers locked up with adults in South Carolina jails.” Then Clinton adds, “We have to face up to the hard truth of injustice and systemic racism.”

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Sanders and Clinton’s fight for the airwaves is this: For all their heated exchanges on the debate stage, not a single spot goes negative.

See the original article here:

The Clinton-Sanders Ad War Shows How Black Lives Matter Reshaped the Race

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Clinton-Sanders Ad War Shows How Black Lives Matter Reshaped the Race

Congress Actually Did Something Pretty Great on Climate Change

by JaninaBeauchamp Posted on February 22, 2016

Mother Jones

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

In December, Republicans in Congress struck a deal with Democrats to extend a package of tax breaks for wind and solar energy projects. Prior to the deal, things looked bleak. The tax credit for wind had already expired the year before, and the one for solar was set to expire by 2016. So the extension, which came after Democrats agreed to support lifting the long-standing ban on US oil exports, was a big and unexpected win for clean energy—one that will help buoy the industry for the next six years.

It could also prove to be one of the most significant actions taken by this Congress to reduce America’s carbon footprint, according to a new analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Thanks to all the new wind and solar that will likely get built because of the legislation, electricity-sector greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by as much as 1.4 billion metric tons by 2030 compared with what they would have been without the extension, the study found. That’s roughly the savings you’d get if you removed every passenger car from US roads for two years.

In other words, the tax breaks—2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by a wind turbine and about 30 percent off the total cost of solar systems—add up to “one of the biggest investments in clean energy in our nation’s history,” Dan Utech, deputy assistant to President Barack Obama on climate, told reporters today.

How much wind and solar actually gets built (and thus the actual carbon savings) will also depend on what happens to the cost of natural gas, which has been low for the last few years thanks to the fracking boom but could rise again. Low gas prices make renewables less competitive, especially without the tax credit. But having the tax credit in place will enable solar and wind to compete in the market even if gas prices do stay low. The extension will also make wind and solar less vulnerable to state-level attacks on clean energy, as well as attacks on Obama’s broader climate agenda.

So, for once: Good job, Congress.

View article: 

Congress Actually Did Something Pretty Great on Climate Change

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, green energy, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congress Actually Did Something Pretty Great on Climate Change

How Hillary Clinton Won Nevada

by DemiLockett Posted on February 21, 2016

Mother Jones

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

It might have been closer than most people would have guessed a month ago, but Hillary Clinton’s long-term investment in Nevada paid off. The former secretary of state edged out Sen. Bernie Sanders by about five percentage points in the Nevada caucuses. It wasn’t quite the 20-point edge that Clinton had in polls from late last year, but it was a decisive win that backs up the Clinton campaign’s contention that Sanders won’t be able to maintain the same level of support he enjoyed in Iowa and New Hampshire as the contest moves to more diverse states.

Nevada was always a big priority for Clinton, a first test to see if she could bring together the multicultural coalition that has formed the Democratic base across the country. Her campaign manager, Robby Mook, got his start on the Clinton team running her 2008 campaign in the state. The campaign had a bevy of staffers in the state, including Mook disciple Emmy Ruiz, as soon as the national campaign launched in March. They replicated the sort of grassroots community organizing that Mook learned on Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign.

Sanders, meanwhile, didn’t get going until half a year later. His state campaign manager, Joan Kato, didn’t arrive until November. While the Clinton campaign spent the final weeks of the race running a get-out-the-vote effort to make sure Clinton backers actually showed up to caucus, the Sanders campaign was still trying to identify its supporters at a phone banking event Wednesday focused on reaching Latino voters.

“I think one of the reasons that we got here a little bit later, that the average person in Nevada understands, is that we were raising our money through small donor donations,” Kato told me later that day. “With a $27 average donation, it might take you a little bit more time to get off the ground.” But the Sanders campaign quickly ramped up, spending more on TV ads in the state and eventually opening more field offices (12) than the Clinton campaign (7).

Continue Reading »

Original article: 

How Hillary Clinton Won Nevada

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Hillary Clinton Won Nevada

Hillary Clinton Needs to Explain Why Young Voters Don’t Need a Rebel

by AnnelieHollande Posted on February 20, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Over at the LA Times, Cathleen Decker says that timing is a big deal in politics, and Hillary Clinton’s timing is rotten:

She’s running a campaign for president on the argument that she is the most carefully prepared, judiciously educated candidate for the White House — at a time when many voters want to cast their lot with newcomers.

….Clinton heard it Thursday night, most painfully from one of her supporters….“We need a rebel,” a college student and supporter told the candidate, in explaining Clinton’s persistent problems with young voters. “My generation is a little wary of placing another politician in the White House. With your tenure in politics, how are you going to deserve our vote?”

If you are Hillary Clinton, how do you answer that?

I’m generally pretty skeptical of amateur speechwriting, which too often simply assumes that what a politician should really say is whatever the amateur speechwriter happens to believe. Maybe I’m about to do that too. But here’s roughly what I think she should say:

A rebel? No, that’s not what we need. What we need is a revolution.

But how do we get that? FDR got one. But he was no rebel: he was a rich patrician from the Hudson Valley. LBJ got a revolution, and he was no rebel either. He was a mainstream Democrat from Texas who loved to wheel and deal. Barack Obama got a mini-revolution, and do you think he’s a rebel? He’s not. He’s a pragmatic, evidence-driven, modern progressive.

So where did these revolutions come from? Listen to a few numbers. When FDR was elected in 1932, he got a Congress to die for: 60 Democratic senators who could power through almost any filibuster and a 71 percent majority in the House. In 1964 LBJ got 68 senators and 68 percent of the House. In 2008, Obama got 60 senators and 59 percent of the House.

What does that mean for young voters—or anyone else who wants to shake up the political establishment? It means we need a 50-state strategy—along with 50 states of grindingly hard work from the bottom up—to elect big Democratic majorities to Congress. And to go with that, we need a president who’s not only obsessive about pitching in to this tough slog from the top down, but knows how to work with Congress—including the few Republicans we’ll probably still need—to get things done.

That’s not Bernie. God love him, but he just isn’t much interested in getting more Democrats in Congress. Last quarter I raised $18 million to help Democrats get elected this cycle. Bernie raised nothing. Bernie has no real interest in a 50-state strategy. I do. Over a 25-year career in Congress, Bernie has accomplished virtually nothing—because he’s always been more interested in playing the gadfly than in building majorities for change.

If you want a revolution, don’t fall in love with someone who talks big. Fall in love with someone who cares about the same things you do and knows how to get them done. And help us get a Democratic Congress. It’s not sexy, but that’s where revolutions are born.

None of this is new ground for Hillary. She’s been calling herself a “progressive who likes to get things done” for a long time. She just needs a convincing elevator speech that really contrasts her favorably with Bernie on this score. Maybe not my little invention, but something along these lines.

View the original here:  

Hillary Clinton Needs to Explain Why Young Voters Don’t Need a Rebel

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Needs to Explain Why Young Voters Don’t Need a Rebel

Obama Kept His Immigration Reform Promise to Latinos in the Only Way That Actually Matters in Politics

by ColleenGooch Posted on February 19, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Dara Lind reports that young Latinos are torn between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. But not because of anything either candidate has said:

Instead, the president on their mind is Obama. They’re still wrestling with his failure to keep his campaign promise to pass immigration reform, and the record deportations of his first term.

….”My biggest fear,” says Jocelyn Sida of the civic engagement group Mi Familia Vota, “is that the mentality of Latinos is going to be all about broken promises, don’t trust any candidate or campaign.”…Sida’s reference to “broken promises” is right on. For many — especially for young Latinos, many of whom came of political age during the Obama administration — the outgoing president is associated with the promise he made, then broke, on immigration reform, as well as the deportations that took place in its stead.

There are lots of obvious things to say before I comment about this. I’m not young. I’m not Latino. I’m not idealistic. And I’m a pretty big fan of Obama. So I have my own biases.

And yet…there’s still something dispiriting about this. Did Obama break his promise to introduce comprehensive immigration reform in his first year? Yes indeed. He says it was because the economy had collapsed and he had to spend all his time dealing with that. But no one really buys that. The stimulus bill passed pretty quickly, and during the rest of his first year Obama found time to deal with health care, Afghanistan, General Motors, climate change, touring the Middle East, and plenty of other things. Was he really so busy that he couldn’t spend some time on immigration reform?

The answer is that Obama is skirting the truth here—but, oddly for a politician, not in a way designed to make him look better. The real truth is that during an epic unemployment crisis he had no chance of getting the votes to pass immigration reform. So like any president, he triaged. He spent his time on other things in hopes that he could make a successful run at immigration reform a little later. Was this the right call? We’ll never know, but it sure strikes me as correct.

In the end, of course, disaster struck: Democrats lost their House majority in 2010, and even with a strong enforcement record (all those deportations) and Republican support, immigration reform could no longer pass. But this is hardly the end of the story. Obama signed the mini-DREAM executive order in 2012. He worked hard to pass comprehensive reform in 2013. He signed another historic executive order in 2014 aimed at immigrant adults. And although this is seldom given much attention, the biggest beneficiaries of Obamacare have been Hispanics.

So did Obama break his promise? Yes. Should young Latinos be demanding that the next president make immigration reform a priority? Yes. That’s how you get things done.

But should they feel betrayed by Obama? I don’t think so. The nutshell version is this: Every president has to decide which of his priorities can pass Congress. If Obama had tried to push immigration reform in 2009, it almost certainly wouldn’t have passed, no matter how hard he had pushed. That’s the fault of reality, not presidential willpower. So, as Obama so often does, he waited. He waited for the economy to improve, and in the meantime he tried to set the stage for success with a strong enforcement record—even at the expense of losing political support from an important voting bloc. When the time came, he worked with Republicans and came close to passing something. But the House balked and it failed.

None of this would have changed if Obama had barreled ahead in his first year. He would have lost just as badly, but two other things would also have happened. First, some of his other first-year initiatives would likely have fallen by the wayside. Second, he would have had a big, symbolic losing fight to his name. That would have done him a world of good in the Hispanic community, but he wasn’t willing to go down that cynical path.

I’m not young. I’m not Latino. I’m not idealistic. But I don’t consider it a betrayal to have a president who shows me the respect of foregoing the cheap and cynical political stunt in favor of a longer, tougher, but more realistic chance of getting something actually done.

From – 

Obama Kept His Immigration Reform Promise to Latinos in the Only Way That Actually Matters in Politics

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Kept His Immigration Reform Promise to Latinos in the Only Way That Actually Matters in Politics

The 2012 Obama Campaign Took Bernie Sanders’ Primary Threat Seriously

by QuinnHefner Posted on February 19, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign prepared to fend off a threatened primary challenge from Bernie Sanders, a former senior Obama adviser told Mother Jones on Thursday.

The comment came as Hillary Clinton tries to persuade Democratic voters of Bernie Sanders’ past divergences from the party. In recent weeks, Clinton has repeatedly painted her opponent as anti-Obama, pointing to statements that he made before the president’s re-election campaign that suggested Obama needed to get a primary challenge from the left—perhaps from the Vermont socialist himself—a charge Sanders has generally dismissed as irrelevant and overblown.

Sanders tried once again duck away from his suggestion in 2011 that Obama needed a primary challenge from the left. Early in Thursday’s town hall hosted by MSNBC and Telemundo, moderator Chuck Todd pushed Sanders to explain those past statements, airing a clip of Sanders saying, “I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing.”

Sanders tried to swat it away as just a simple, unplanned response to a radio interviewer in 2011. “Look, this is a media issue,” Sanders said. “This is one thing I said on one radio show many, many years ago. Media likes that issue. Bottom line is I happen to think that the president has done an extraordinarily good job.”

So how real was Sanders’ threat? Real enough that it prompted the Obama campaign to consider it seriously, according to David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager in 2008 and a White House senior adviser when Sanders made his comment. “He did suggest that we get primaried, which is no small thing—like a big thing,” Plouffe told Mother Jones Thursday afternoon at a Clinton field office in Las Vegas. “We thought maybe he’d run against us.” When asked if that meant the Obama campaign made plans for that scenario, Plouffe said, “We prepared for everything. That’s a problem. He’s suggesting that progressives have been let down by Obama, that’s a problem. I think there’s no question that she’s been a more steadfast supporter.”

Plouffe had swung by the field office to rally Clinton volunteers, who were busy phone banking for Clinton ahead of Saturday’s caucuses. After Plouffe addressed the room, I asked him if it felt weird coming back to Nevada to stump for Clinton, eight years after he ran a campaign against her. “Of course it feels a little odd, given how intense that primary was,” he said.

But the former Clinton foe is now firmly on her side. He acknowledged that Sanders has run an impressive campaign, but he was generally dismissive of Sanders as a serious candidate. “Aspirational campaign not rooted in reality,” he said to sum up Sanders’ approach. Of Sanders’ planned political revolution, he added, “None of that stuff is going to happen. I hate to be a realist, but it wouldn’t get support by most Democrats in Congress, let alone Republicans. And I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. Taxing the middle class right now when they’re struggling with wage stagnation and income insecurity is the wrong way to go.”

“Right now, he’s running a very aspirational campaign, not terribly rooted in reality,” Plouffe continued. “There’s a place for that, and it’s getting a lot of appeal.”

See original article – 

The 2012 Obama Campaign Took Bernie Sanders’ Primary Threat Seriously

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The 2012 Obama Campaign Took Bernie Sanders’ Primary Threat Seriously

Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Was Against the Iraq War No Matter What He Actually Said at the Time

by LatashaGoldsmith Posted on February 19, 2016

Mother Jones

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

From Donald Trump, asked on September 11, 2002, if he was in favor of invading Iraq:

Yeah…I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.

That’s Donald being “loud and strong” against the Iraq War. For the record, his explanation is, yeah, he said it, but it was probably the first time anyone had asked him. But for sure he was against it a little later. Seriously. He was.

As you might expect, being confronted with this didn’t even cause him to break stride. He immediately segued into a lengthy rant about how he was totally opposed to the war and everyone knew it, there were all sorts of headlines, and it destabilized the whole Middle East, it was responsible for ISIS and Libya and, um, Syria, the biggest mistake ever in American history, and it was Obama’s fault too, just a disaster, and Saddam didn’t bring down the towers, it was probably the Saudis, and did I mention that it was a complete and total disaster? And I was against it. Totally.

Original article: 

Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Was Against the Iraq War No Matter What He Actually Said at the Time

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Was Against the Iraq War No Matter What He Actually Said at the Time

Watch Bernie Sanders Go After Obama’s Opponents in this Passionate Rebuttal of Racism

by KandiBean663121 Posted on February 19, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders launched into a tirade Thursday night over what he described as racist opposition to President Barack Obama, citing the “obstructionism and hatred” thrown at the president by opponents, including the false rumors that Obama was not born in the United States.

At a Democratic town hall event in Nevada, hosted by MSNBC, a question about how he would address Islamophobia prompted Sanders to lambaste the so-called birther movement, which was promoted for years by Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner:

By the way, I am appalled, people can agree with Barack Obama, you can disagree with Barack Obama, but anybody who doesn’t understand that the kind of obstructionism and hatred thrown at this man, the idea of making him a delegitimate president by suggesting he was not born in America because his dad came from Kenya—no one asked me. I’m a citizen and my father came from Poland. Gee, what’s the difference? Maybe the color of our skin… All of us together have got to say no to xenophobia and to racism and to bigotry of all forms.

Watch the full clip below:

Source article – 

Watch Bernie Sanders Go After Obama’s Opponents in this Passionate Rebuttal of Racism

Posted in Anchor, bigo, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Bernie Sanders Go After Obama’s Opponents in this Passionate Rebuttal of Racism