Tag Archives: person

Donald Trump Can’t Stop Lying About His Birther Past

Mother Jones

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

When Donald Trump tried to pin the birther movement on Hillary Clinton during his Friday announcement, the media jumped in to factcheck, pointing out that he was rewriting history. Late Friday afternoon, the Trump campaign sent a press release to reporters in an attempt to back up its claims—but instead it only contradicted the GOP candidate’s entire argument.

Trump’s “evidence” was laughably lackluster. The campaign pointed to a Friday CNN interview with Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, in which she said when a low-level volunteer coordinator with the campaign sent an email advancing the birther conspiracy, the Clinton campaign immediately fired the person. Solis Doyle couldn’t even recall if the person, a volunteer-coordinator, was a paid staffer or a volunteer.

So basically, Clinton fired someone who spread the birther conspiracy, therefore, in Trump’s mind, it’s all Hillary’s fault. Meanwhile, Trump himself spent years claiming the first African-American president was illegitimate and Obama was lying about his place of birth. And once Obama did release his longform birth certificate in 2011, it still didn’t satisfy Trump. He spent the subsequent years calling it a fake—making vague suggestions that Obama might have even killed elected officials to hide a cover up. “A lot of people don’t agree with that birth certificate,” Trump said in 2012. “A lot of people do not think it’s authentic.”

Original link: 

Donald Trump Can’t Stop Lying About His Birther Past

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Can’t Stop Lying About His Birther Past

5 Tips For Spending Less Time on Social Media

Social media has changed the world in a lot of positive ways. While many of us like to bemoan social media mainly for the fact that its causing us to communicate differently, theres no proof that its actually makingour connections any worse. In fact, surveys have shown that we actually report feeling more connected now than we did in the past, as our friends are only a status or photo posting away.

However, there are some drawbacks. While social media can make it easier for us to connect, thats not always a good thing. Many people suffer from stress associated with constant connectivity, especially those who utilize social media for work purposes. Social media can also facilitate bullying and have the effect of comparing ourselvesto others.

A lot of people have expressed a desire to disconnect a little bit from social media. Tuning down your use of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat and the like doesnt have to mean getting rid of these networks entirely. Sometimes, for our own sanity, its best to give ourselves more time to really be alone with our thoughts. If youre interested in spending less time on social media, here are a few tips to help you do it.

Track the Amount of Time You SpendAlready

The first step toward dialing down your social media use is tracking the amount of time you spend on social networking sites. Add up every little moment you spend checking Facebook on your phone or answering a direct messageyoull quickly see that these things add up. Once youre aware of how much time youre spending online (and how youre spending it) you may be more inspired to cut back a little. And most importantly, youll know exactly where those cutbacks need to take place (been spending too much time reading political articles shared on Facebook, perhaps?).

Increase Efficiency

This tip wont work for everyone, but if youre the kind of person who likes to post your status to multiple accounts (say, Twitter and Facebook), use an app like Hootsuite, Buffer or TweetDeck to make your posting more efficient. If youre OK with posting the same status to all your social media accounts, you can simply type it in once and post it to all of your accounts instantaneously, dramatically cutting down on the amount of times you need to open various apps and type in your content.

Delete Social Apps From Your Phone

If youre serious about cutting down your social media time, make it easier on yourself by deleting the apps from your phone. This way, youll only be able to use social media exactly when you intend towhen you sit down at your computer for exactly that purpose. No more intermittently checking Facebook while youre waiting in line at the grocery store.

Respond to Messages With a Phone Call

When friends send you direct messages or Facebook chats, get in the habit of giving them a phone call in response. This way, your conversation is likely to be a lot lengthier and deeper, and youll be able to hear more about what theyve been up to and whats going on in their lives. As a bonus, youll be spending that much less time on the social app itself.

Turn Off Notifications

Its hard to resist opening your Twitter app when theres a little red bubble telling you that someone has responded to your tweet. Turn off notifications on your phone so that you arent constantly checking the app to see whats up. Youll get all the information about whos responded when you open the app later on.

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

Link:  

5 Tips For Spending Less Time on Social Media

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Smith's, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Tips For Spending Less Time on Social Media

California Considers a "Brock Turner" Bill. Should Progressives Support It?

Mother Jones

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

The California legislature has passed a bill that would increase the penalties for raping an unconscious victim. Eric Levitz applauds the motivation for the bill, but takes issue with the overall message it sends. You should really read the whole thing, but here’s an excerpt:

If we accept the premise of California’s law — that combating rape culture requires imposing longer prison terms on rapists — then progressives will be forced to choose between their commitments to achieving gender equality and ending mass incarceration.

….The primary reason for America’s exceptional incarceration rate is that its voters are more comfortable with condemning their fellow citizens to cages for long periods of time than are those in other democracies….The most harmful thing about California’s bill may be the way it encourages this culture of incarceration.

If one focuses narrowly on the law’s immediate effects, a reasonable case can be made for its virtues: A three-year minimum sentence for raping an unconscious person is not wildly out of step with global standards….And, anyway, California’s bill contains a provision allowing judges to exercise discretion in “unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served if the person is granted probation.”

On the other hand, it is unlikely that many judges would take on the political liability of exercising such discretion. And the specter of a minimum three-year jail sentence has the potential to intimidate innocent defendants into plea agreements — a phenomena that is more likely to disadvantage the most-vulnerable members of our society, who can least afford to mount a compelling defense.

….Nonetheless, the problem with California’s law lies less in its immediate, legal implications than in its cultural and political ones. To end mass incarceration, progressives will need to persuade their fellow citizens that we can reduce penalties for violent crime without reducing our concern for its victims….In calling for Judge Persky’s repeal, the movement fostered social and political stigma against the exercise of judicial leniency. People who look like Brock Turner will not be the ones most affected by such stigmas.

….If there were strong evidence that longer prison sentences make a critical difference in deterring violent crime, then California’s law might still be worthwhile. But there isn’t. According to the 2014 findings of the National Research Council, applying a mandatory minimum to a given offense does not reduce its prevalence.

Progressives have recently taken the position that America operates a prison-industrial complex that vastly oversentences its millions of victims. This cruel and unfair system needs to dialed way back—unless the crime in question happens to be one that progressives are especially concerned about. In those cases, we should show no mercy.

There’s nothing logically contradictory about this. It’s possible that we do vastly oversentence for most crimes but undersentence a few particular crimes. Nonetheless, this is something more people should stop to ponder. Do we believe that locking up criminals for long periods of time is an effective deterrent, or don’t we? Do we believe in mandatory minimums, or don’t we? If we don’t, why are certain crimes an exception?

Link to original:

California Considers a "Brock Turner" Bill. Should Progressives Support It?

Posted in Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Considers a "Brock Turner" Bill. Should Progressives Support It?

After New York Win, Clinton Campaign Says Sanders’ Attacks Help Republicans

Mother Jones

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

After a decisive victory in New York on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign called on Bernie Sanders to strike a more positive tone in the final two months of the primary contest, hinting that the senator from Vermont should ultimately leave the race gracefully without damaging the party’s chances of winning in the fall. As an example for how Sanders should conduct his campaign, a Clinton aide pointed to how the then-Sen. Clinton helped unite the party behind Barack Obama in 2008.

Speaking with reporters after Clinton’s victory rally in Manhattan Tuesday night, Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri called on Sanders to run a more positive, issue-based campaign. “He needs to decide as he closes out the Democratic primary, if he is going to continue on the destructive path that he started down in the New York primary where he is making personal character attacks against her that mimic the attacks that Republicans make and aid Republicans, or if he is going to end this primary the way that he promised to run—the kind of campaign he said he would run—that was focused on issues,” she said. “There’s no question that Sen. Sanders, that the behavior of him and his campaign has been destructive.”

Palmieri pointed to Sanders’ recent comment that Clinton is not qualified to be president—a remark Sanders quickly walked back—as well as his assertion in the last debate that he questioned her judgment. She also noted that the Sanders campaign on Monday accused the Clinton campaign of campaign finance violations.

Palmieri cited Clinton’s own example in the 2008 primary against Obama as a guide for Sanders. Because Clinton stayed in that race until June, she said the Clinton team respects Sanders’ decision to see the race through to the end. But, she noted, Clinton did not contest Obama’s win at the Democratic National Convention in Denver that year.

Palmieri did not note the nasty tone of the 2008 contest. “I think she set a gold standard for how people who don’t end up with the nomination, who lose in that effort, should come together and help the party,” she said. “Given the primary that they went through, where they both went all the way to the end, very hard fought, to come and ask to play that role and be the person to who says, ‘By acclamation, I say this party stands behind this nominee and he’s going to be our next president’…that’s what we have seen happen before. We think that can happen again.”

More:  

After New York Win, Clinton Campaign Says Sanders’ Attacks Help Republicans

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on After New York Win, Clinton Campaign Says Sanders’ Attacks Help Republicans

Donald Trump’s Position on Abortion Changes Yet Again

Mother Jones

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

So what is Donald Trump’s position on abortion? Let us count the ways:

Wednesday:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

A few hours later:

Campaign statement: This issue is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination.

A few hours after that:

Campaign statement: The doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman….My position has not changed.

Thursday:

“It could be that I misspoke but this was a long, convoluted subject….This was a long discussion…which frankly they don’t run on television because it’s too long.”

(Ed note: This is a lie. Trump’s answer was televised in its entirety.)

Friday morning:

“A question was asked to me. And it was asked in a very hypothetical. And it was said, ‘Illegal, illegal’….But I was asked as a hypothetical, hypothetically. The laws are set now on abortion and that’s the way they’re going to remain until they’re changed….I think it would’ve been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set….And I think we have to leave it that way.”

A few hours later:

Campaign statement: Mr. Trump gave an accurate account of the law as it is today and made clear it must stay that way now—until he is President. Then he will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn. There is nothing new or different here.

The best part of all this is that when the Trump campaign issues a statement cleaning up after their boss, they always insist that nothing has changed.

No, wait: the best part is when John Dickerson asked Trump if he thought abortion was murder and Trump refused to answer. “I do have my opinions on it. I just don’t think it’s an appropriate forum.” Really? Face the Nation is not an appropriate forum for discussing one of the key political issues of our time? What is?

Continue reading: 

Donald Trump’s Position on Abortion Changes Yet Again

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Position on Abortion Changes Yet Again

Trump Wants to Outlaw Abortions and Punish Women Who Still Get Them

Mother Jones

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

Update, March 30, 2016, 5:13 p.m. ET: Donald Trump released a statement clarifying his position not long after his initial remarks.

It reads: “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as the life is in her womb. My position has not changed—like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he wants to ban abortions, and that women who get abortions illegally should be punished.

At a taping of an MSNBC town hall that will air later, host Chris Matthews pressed the Republican presidential front-runner Trump for his thoughts on abortion policy. Trump said he’s in favor of an abortion ban, explaining, “Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places, but we have to ban it,” according to a partial transcript from Bloomberg Politics.

Matthews asked if there would be a punishment for women who received abortions if they were made illegal. Trump responded, “There has to be some form of punishment.” He elaborated that the punishment would have “to be determined” and the law will depend on the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle and the 2016 election.

Trump’s proposal isn’t too far off from the current reality: A woman in Tennessee is being held on aggravated assault charges for attempting to self-induce abortion using a coat hanger.

This article is from: 

Trump Wants to Outlaw Abortions and Punish Women Who Still Get Them

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Wants to Outlaw Abortions and Punish Women Who Still Get Them

This Case Just Gave Apple Some Major Ammo in Its Fight With the FBI

Mother Jones

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

A federal judge in New York denied the government’s request to make Apple help unlock the iPhone of a suspect in a drug case, potentially dealing a major blow to the FBI’s effort to compel the company to assist the bureau in accessing an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters.

In both cases, the government requested that Apple help bypass the lock screen security on an iPhone to assist a federal investigation. The New York case was one of at least 12 in which Apple has refused to give the government the technical assistance it was seeking. The government’s argument in each case rested on the All Writs Act, a law first passed in 1789 that allows the government to issue orders, or writs, that are “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” But that power is also subject to limitation, including such orders being a last resort and not imposing an “undue burden” on the person or organization to which it applies.

Apple argued the government’s requests overstepped its ability to demand cooperation. “We’re being forced to become an agent of law enforcement,” complained Apple’s lawyer, Marc Zwillinger, in arguments in the New York case last year, and Judge James Orenstein agreed. “After reviewing the facts in the record and the parties’ arguments, I conclude that none of those factors justifies imposing on Apple the obligation to assist the government’s investigation,” he wrote in his decision issued on Monday evening.

Orenstein echoed points made by Apple in its challenge last week to the court order in the San Bernardino case. The company wrote that the government’s demand that Apple write new software for the FBI created a “boundless interpretation” of the All Writs Act, allowing the government to order virtually any assistance it wanted. The court filing raised the specter of “compelling a pharmaceutical company against its will to produce drugs needed to carry out a lethal injection in furtherance of a lawfully issued death warrant, or requiring a journalist to plant a false story in order to help lure out a fugitive.” Orenstein similarly wrote that he rejected “the government’s interpretation that the All Writs Act empowers a court to grant any relief not outright prohibited by law.”

The judge’s ruling in the New York case rested on another Apple-friendly premise: the notion that what the government wants “is unavailable because Congress has considered legislation that would achieve the same result but has not adopted it.” Apple’s court filing argued that “Congress and the American people have withheld” the power to make companies break the security features of their own phones—for example, by expanding federal wiretapping laws to include cellphones—and thus the government should not be allowed to simply take that power through court orders. Orenstein backed that argument, saying that forcing Apple to comply would “transform the All Writs Act from a limited gap-filling statute…into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers.”

Even if the All Writs Act applied, Orenstein wrote, he found that the government’s request would still place an undue burden on the company. That’s further good news for Apple’s argument in the San Bernardino case. The company says complying with that order would take a team of 6 to 10 engineers at least two weeks to write the necessary software, and the technical assistance that Orenstein rejected in the New York case is less complicated.

Sheri Pym, the federal judge in the San Bernardino case, actually granted the FBI a court order similar to the one Orenstein rejected on Monday. But she kept her order from taking effect until Apple filed its challenge. And while the New York and San Bernardino cases aren’t identical, Orenstein’s ruling, as FBI Director James Comey put it in a congressional hearing last week, will likely be “instructive” as Pym considers Apple’s argument—and could severely dent the FBI’s hopes of getting the powers it wants.

Visit site: 

This Case Just Gave Apple Some Major Ammo in Its Fight With the FBI

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, Gandhi, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Case Just Gave Apple Some Major Ammo in Its Fight With the FBI

No One Wants to Take Orders From Marco Rubio

Mother Jones

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

When the “establishment” is trying to figure out who they support in a presidential primary, I figure one of the key issues is: “Can I imagine myself taking orders from this person?”

OK, not “orders,” precisely. But you know what I mean. The president is the party leader, and one of the whole points of being part of the establishment is that you’re the kind of person who accepts the leadership of your president. This explains, for example, why the establishment is horrified about Donald Trump. They can’t imagine taking orders from a politically ignorant jackass like him. And they hate Ted Cruz’s guts, so they can’t abide the idea of taking orders from him either.

But what about Marco Rubio? Everyone’s been wondering lately why the establishment didn’t rally around Rubio earlier, since he seemed like sort of an obvious choice. My guess is that it’s not because they hate Rubio, or because they think he’s a buffoon. But they do think he’s a nervous and overly ambitious young man who’s a bit of an empty suit. If he’s the nominee, they’ll suck it up and support him. But the idea of taking orders from this pipsqueak sticks in their craw.

They’re in quite the pickle, aren’t they?

Continued here:  

No One Wants to Take Orders From Marco Rubio

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No One Wants to Take Orders From Marco Rubio

Hey, I Like Hillary Clinton Too

Mother Jones

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

Sady Doyle:

I’ve come to believe that saying nice things about Hillary Clinton can be a subversive act.

Well, I don’t know about subversive. A little unusual, maybe, but that’s all. So what accounts for Doyle’s affection for Hillary? Basically, the fact that Hillary is still alive and kicking after spending nearly her entire life on the receiving end of attacks that would turn most of us into sobbing wrecks who refuse to answer the doorbell:

It’s almost as if, after a quarter-century of being attacked for her appearance, personality, and every waking move, breath, and word, Hillary Clinton is highly conscious of how she is perceived and portrayed, and is trying really hard to monitor her own behavior and behave in ways people will accept. Which is “disgusting,” of course. We want “authentic” candidates. Remind me: How well did the public and media react the last time she appeared in public without makeup? Or raised her voice? Or laughed? Or went to the goddamn bathroom? Or did any “authentic” thing that a real-life person does every day?

….Honestly, ask yourself: How long would you make it, if people treated you the way you treat Hillary Clinton? Would you not just be furious by now? Would you not have reached levels of blood-vessel-popping rage and despair? She’s been dealing with it for decades, and keeps voluntarily subjecting herself to it, and knows exactly how bad it will get and exactly what we’ll do to her, and yet she is running for president again, and—here’s the part I love, the part that I find hard to wrap my head around—she might actually win. That is awe-inspiring.

Yeah, pretty much. I like Hillary Clinton too,1 and for much the same reason as Doyle. I view her as nearly the exact opposite of her reputation in popular culture. She’s not cunning or devious. In fact, she’s the farthest thing from that. She’s dutiful and always has been. She wants to do good. She’s demanding of herself. She’s not naturally extroverted, but forces herself to do what needs to be done. She’s not naturally brilliant, but she’s a studier and a hard worker. And I imagine that the relentless attacks she’s put up with have indeed wounded her pretty deeply. Unlike her husband, she’s not the kind of person who can brush them off as just part of the game.

Do I like Hillary because of all this? Sure, though not in any deep sense. I don’t really like people I’ve never met. But I sure as hell admire her. She could have ended up like Richard Nixon, but she didn’t. She keeps gutting it out, over and over. For that, she’ll always have my esteem—and maybe even my affection.

1I also like Bernie Sanders. I used to like Martin O’Malley, but not so much anymore.

Continue reading:

Hey, I Like Hillary Clinton Too

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hey, I Like Hillary Clinton Too

Why Were Last Night’s Debaters Cut Off When They Actually Started to Debate?

Mother Jones

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

Rebecca Traister, along with practically everyone on the left, is dumbfounded that the Democratic National Committee has gone out of its way to reduce viewership for its debates. The first two were both held on Saturdays, and yesterday’s debate was on the Saturday before Christmas. Do they really want to lower the profile of the party that badly? It’s a wonder anyone tuned in at all. But there’s more:

The DNC’s poor choices pale in comparison to the choices of Saturday night’s ABC News moderators, the usually terrific Raddatz and her colleague, World News anchor Muir. They did fine for the first hour, but as the candidates began to actually debate each other in compelling and important ways, Muir especially began to talk over them in an effort to cut them off and adhere to the rules. That precision reffing may be necessary when it comes to shutting down an offensive monologue from Donald Trump, or halting a candidate’s whine about not getting enough time. But when, as on Saturday, the top contenders for the nomination are engaging each other seriously about tax policy, drowning them out and preventing the audience from hearing what they have to say doesn’t do anyone any favors.

For what it’s worth, Twitter opinion on Martha Raddatz shifted so fast it almost gave me a neck sprain last night. At first everyone thought she was great. By the second hour, she was the worst moderator ever. Mostly, I think, this was because she spent too much time interrupting the candidates when she didn’t happen to like their answers. This was especially annoying since, for the most part, they didn’t really dodge or tap dance very much. They mostly provided substantive answers.

As for the “precision reffing” that cut off a potentially interesting argument, I suspect that Martin O’Malley is the person to blame here. O’Malley may be a vanity candidate at this point, but he’s still a candidate, and that means he’s supposed to get equal time in the debates. If the moderators allow Sanders and Clinton to get into long arguments, it takes away from O’Malley’s time and there’s really no way to entirely make that up. So the moderators apply the rules strictly and demand that Sanders and Clinton shut up and allow them to ask O’Malley a question.

This is one among many reasons that O’Malley needs to grow up and get out of the race. He’s polling at 3 percent in a 3-person race, and he’s doing himself no favors by stubbornly staying in. It makes him look like a sore loser, not a serious politician.

Original link:  

Why Were Last Night’s Debaters Cut Off When They Actually Started to Debate?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Were Last Night’s Debaters Cut Off When They Actually Started to Debate?