Renewable Revolution

Freedom & Democracy => Who CAN you trust? => Topic started by: AGelbert on September 14, 2019, 07:19:18 pm

Title: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on September 14, 2019, 07:19:18 pm
3rd Democratic Debate: Medicare for All as the Bogeyman? (1/3)

September 13, 2019

The third Democratic Party's presidential debate featured all ten front-runners for the first time. In segment one of our debate discussion, we take a closer look how candidates discussed the healthcare issue. Our panelists are Osita Nwanevu, Helena Olea, and Jacqueline Luqman, with Greg Wilpert as host

Story Transcript

GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.

The ten Democratic Party candidates, who are ahead in terms of opinion polls and fundraising, held a third presidential debate on ABC Television on Thursday. It took place in Houston, Texas at Texas Southern University, a historically black university. The over two and a half hour debate covered a wide variety of issues; such as health care reform, racism, gun control, immigration reform, foreign policy and education reform. Notably absent were questions on climate change and economic policy.

Here at The Real News Network, we have been providing analyses of the presidential debates so far with a changing roster of panelists. Today we have joining us here in the studio, Jacqueline Luqman. She’s a host and producer here at The Real News Network as well as the editor of the website Luqman Nation. Also in the studio is Osita Nwanevu. He’s a staff writer at The New Republic and a former staff writer at The New Yorker and Slate. And then remotely, we have Helena Olea joining us. She is an international human rights lawyer with the Alianza Americas and she is a Lecturer at the University of Illinois at Chicago in the Departments of Criminology, Law and Justice. Thanks to all three of you for joining us today.


HELENA OLEA: Thank you.

GREG WILPERT: So we cannot cover everything that was discussed in this debate. And so we decided not to focus on this horse race that so many other people focus on. That is, who got under whose skin or who won the debate? Rather, we want to dig a little bit deeper into the actual issues that were discussed. So in this first segment, we start with the topic of healthcare reform, which has been a persistent issue in this presidential campaign.

SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR: While Bernie wrote the bill, I read the bill. And on page eight, on page eight of the bill, it says that we will no longer have private insurance as we know it. And that means that 149 million Americans will no longer be able to have their current insurance.

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: Insurance companies last year sucked $23 billion in profits out of the system. How did they make that money? Every one of those $23 billion was made by an insurance company saying “no” to your healthcare coverage.


MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG: The problem, Senator Sanders, with that damn bill that you wrote and that Senator Warren backs, is that it doesn’t trust the American people. I trust you to choose what makes the most sense for you.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: There’s 150 million people on private insurance. 50 million of those people lose their private insurance every year when they quit their jobs or they go unemployed or their employer changes their insurance policy. So if you want comprehensive health care, freedom of choice regarding doctor or hospital, no more than $200 a year for prescription drugs, taking on the drug companies and the insurance companies, moving to Medicare for All is the way to go.

GREG WILPERT: So it seems like one of the main dividing lines between the candidates are those who like to say, or who would like Medicare for All— that is, universal health care— and that they would like it to replace all private insurers. And that’s basically the position of Sanders and Warren versus everyone else who would like to expand Medicare or some version of it and keep private insurance. So let’s start with you, Osita. What’s your take on this distinction between the candidates on this issue and how they’re talking about it?

OSITA NWANVUE: Well, this has been front and center, I think, at just about every debate that’s happened so far. It used to be the case that when people talked about Medicare for All the big debate was, “well, how are you going to pay for it? How are you going to absorb the cost of creating this new government system?” Now it seems the critics of Medicare for All have shifted into this debate about whether private insurance gets kept under the new system, and it’s not a trivial distinction substantively or politically.

If you look at polls done by the Kaiser Family Foundation and other groups, most Democrats do support Medicare for All, just the idea of it in general. But when you ask them, “Do you support a system in which private insurance will be eliminated,” numbers start to go down. People who criticize Medicare for All say that this is inherently an inbuilt risk of advocating for the program. This means that people aren’t going to be willing to get on board with the system, the kind that Sanders is proposing.

I think what’s actually reflected in that number is something that Sanders and Warren both got at. People don’t really love Aetna. They don’t really love Blue Cross/Blue Shield. That number is there because people are worried that a new system will create a kind of instability. But if Sanders and Warren can assure people that in the new system everybody’s going to keep insurance, maybe not their private insurer, but insurance, and they’re going to be able to go to whatever doctor they want to, that might be something that reassures people who might be wary about the private insurance number.

GREG WILPERT: I mean, I think it’s interesting that this issue doesn’t seem to come out very clearly as to what the debate is really about. I mean they don’t seem to be able to get that message across, that this is really the core of the problem. And then they keep proposing it as if it was a fault in the system that they’re proposing. What’s your thought on this, Jackie?

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: So the problem with the way the Democrats are framing their resistance to Medicare for All is very interesting and it’s based on what Amy Klobuchar actually said. Now, she referenced the actual language in the bill to make the argument that Medicare for All, the Sanders’ bill and the bill that Warren backs, will eliminate private insurance altogether. But according to her own words, that’s not what the bill actually says. She said that on page eight of the bill that Sanders wrote, that we will no longer have private insurance as we know it.

So it’s not that under Medicare for All, private insurance will not exist anymore. It is that the way we operate in this system of relying primarily on private insurance for health care coverage, will not exist as it does now. Because if everyone is ostensibly covered under Medicare for All, then private insurance will not be a primary source of coverage. I think that’s a major distinction, but it’s a fine point that unless you really listening, you miss. And the Democrats are playing that up, I think very craftily, but I think it’s one that we really need to pay attention to.

GREG WILPERT: Helena, I want to turn to you. What do you think? What do you make of this kind of debate on this particular issue?

HELENA OLEA: I think it’s very interesting to go back to the point that workers do not choose their insurance, as it has been presented. I think that in that element in particular, Bernie was very good in stressing with the numbers that workers do not have a choice. It’s really the employer who chooses among plans and then presents to them, sometimes a limited choice between two or three insurances at best, in really large employers.

So I think that what we should be discussing here is coverage and quality of healthcare. The discussion is not about choosing— As some others have said, no one really cares about your insurance company. You do not feel you are being well-treated by your insurance company. And I think that Warren’s point about the profit that insurance companies make really addresses that argument, but they do have to present it differently. This idea that the government is choosing for you, rather than choosing yourself, has kind of taken over this discussion and it’s very unfortunate. It’s not the main point.

GREG WILPERT: Yeah, I think that’s a very interesting point. You want to add—

OSITA NWANVUE: I think I’d just say too, one of the things that escapes notice in this discussion is that if you look at the plans that are being offered by the other candidates— you know, Pete Buttigieg and people who have offered what they say are more moderate versions of Medicare for All— their plans also point to a world in which private insurance doesn’t exist or is radically eliminated. It’s just on the longer timeframe.

I mean, if you look at what Pete Buttigieg says at the last debate, he says that he prefers a system in which we create a robust public option, and if the public option really is good and it’s cheaper than what’s available in the private market, then most Americans are going to choose that and that undermines the private insurance system. Well, that’s still – it’s essentially what Sanders is saying he’s going to do automatically or from the get-go. Buttigieg just wants to stretch that out.

And I think politically, if you’re concerned about the Sanders plan, is that Republicans are going to attack it and conservatives are going to attack it as something that eliminates private insurance. I don’t think the Buttigieg plan fools them into not doing that or reassures people. Once the message gets out that just like Sanders, Buttigieg or Beto or whoever’s offering a public option plan, it’s also going to take us to a world in which private insurance doesn’t really exist.

So I think people should just be forthright and have a discussion about the role they envision private insurance playing in the system in terms of what private insurance is actually supposed to be doing in the healthcare system. Offer a defense of what Elizabeth Warren talked about. The fact that all of this profit in the industry is a product of private insurance companies saying “no” to certain services, “no” to different treatments. Offer a defense of that or debate the issue more directly than just scaremongering about the Sanders plan because I don’t think I really serves anybody very well.

GREG WILPERT: Yeah, I mean that’s really interesting, the things that they leave out. I mean, and just as Helena mentions, the fact that there’s also no choice. And the other thing that seems to me that is being left out of this discussion is kind of the class dimension. What I mean specifically is that if you keep private insurance, then you’re going to have a system I guess where the people who can afford the private insurance or who want doctors who charge way more than they would under the public option or the Medicare option, have offered a different kind of service, a different level of service with much higher premiums, with much higher basically insurance, but also higher charges for themselves. So then you have a very differentiated system in the end in terms of service. What do you think?

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: I mean truthfully, that’s exactly what we have right now even if you are an employee and you receive your insurance through an employer. You select your plan, if you have a choice of plans based on how much you can afford to pay out of pocket for each plan. And there are different levels for these plans. This is for people who have full-time jobs, who have full-time employee benefits, who get a choice in, allegedly, of what kind of insurance they can select. So if you’re a single person, you can choose the least out of pocket, the plan that gives you the least amount of coverage or the basic coverage for the least out of pocket expense for you.

But what if you have a family or what if you have some health issues or you just want more to be covered in your plan, then you would opt to pay for a higher level of coverage. You know, it’s the basic, it’s the gold, it’s the platinum level of health insurance plans. We already have that among one class of insured people and that’s full-time employed people. But then there are people who are not full-time employees, who are part-time employees, or who are unemployed and they’re on a different type of insurance or they have access to a different type of insurance. So we already have a class stratified health care coverage system in this country. Medicare for All really does seem to address that.

So the idea, I think, and this is the problem I had with what Pete Buttigieg said, that Sanders doesn’t seem to trust the American people to choose, but if we’re not giving American people an actual choice in whether they’re going to be fully covered or whether they have to worry about if they can afford decent healthcare coverage, how can the American people trust any of them with providing what’s supposed to be a choice or not? And I think it’s clear that Americans don’t.

GREG WILPERT: Another issue that hasn’t come up in this particular debate, but that’s very closely related and came up I think in a previous one, which is the issue of whether or not non-citizens, particularly undocumented immigrants, should be covered. And that gets to the issue – a human rights issue, right? And so I wanted to ask you, Helena, what do you think of the fact that this has been left out and you’re a human rights lawyer?

HELENA OLEA: Well, I think that we should also underscore the point that it’s incredibly positive and this is a great evolution in the United States that we are having a discussion about the right to health, that health care is a top element in the discussion of the presidential debate is an important gain. As of today, most Americans are even skeptical of the concept of the right to health. They still believe that it’s a service that you purchase in the market, so we are moving ahead and I think that that’s very important.

And I did miss from the discussion any mention whatsoever about ensuring access to healthcare for undocumented persons in the US and it’s interesting. I was wondering whether this was done on purpose, whether those who raised the point very strongly in the last debate decided that perhaps this was not going very well, and so they decided to retreat a little bit in this point, but we have the videos. It’s documented there, so we’ll see whether we observe it again. I’m sure the Republicans are going to try to throw it back at the Democrats as we move ahead in the election process.

GREG WILPERT: So we’re going to conclude our first segment here on the third Democratic presidential debate. I urge everyone to join us for the next segment where we’ll take up more on the issue of immigration, but also inequality and racism. Thanks for joining us here at The Real News Network.
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on September 14, 2019, 07:23:54 pm
3rd Democratic Debate: Education, Inequality, and Racism (2/3)

September 13, 2019

Our panel on the 3rd Democratic presidential debate takes a closer look at how the candidates look at and overlook crucial issues related to inequality and education in the United States

Story Transcript

GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.

This is our second segment on the Democratic Party’s third presidential debate, which took place last Thursday in Houston, Texas. Joining me here in the studio to analyze the debate are Real News host and producer Jacqueline Luqman, and New Republic staff writer Osita Nwanevu. Joining us remotely is human rights lawyer and University of Illinois-Chicago Professor Helena Olea. Thanks again to all three of you for being here.



HELENA OLEA: Thank you.

GREG WILPERT: So in this segment, we’ll take a closer look at the how the candidates discussed inequality, racism, and immigration.

SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS: I have, as part of my proposal, that we will put $2 trillion into investing in our HBCUs, but also—

LINSEY DAVIS: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS: But this is a critical point. If a black child has a black teacher before the end of third grade, they are 13% more likely to go to college. If that child has had two black teachers before the end of third grade, they are 32% more likely to go to college.

SENATOR CORY BOOKER: My kids are not only struggling with racial segregation and housing and the challenges of underfunded schools, but they’re also struggling with environmental injustice. If you’ve talked to someone who’s a parent of a child who has had permanent brain damage because of lead, you’ll know this is a national problem because there’s over 3,000 jurisdictions in America where children have more than twice the blood lead levels of Flint, Michigan.

LINSEY DAVIS: Thank you.

SENATOR CORY BOOKER: And so if I’m President of the United States, it is a wholistic solution to education— from raising teacher’s salary, fully-funded special education, but combating the issues of poverty, combating the issues of racial segregation, combating the issues of a criminal justice system that takes—

LINSEY DAVIS: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR CORY BOOKER: Parents away from their kids and dealing with environmental justice, is a major pillar of any climate policy.

LINSEY DAVIS: In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago, but as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Make sure that we bring in to help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. We bring social workers into homes with parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help; They don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio. Make sure the television, excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night. Make sure the kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school or very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.

GREG WILPERT: Okay, so there’s quite a bit to unpack here, but let’s take it from the top. And Jackie, I want to turn it to you to talk about specifically Kamala Harris’s a proposal on the HBCUs.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: You know, the HBCU discussion is really interesting in political discourse because people focus solely on providing more funding to HBCUs that’s going to unilaterally help every black kid who goes to college. And I preface what I’m about to say by saying that it’s not that HBCUs do not deserve and need additional federal funding— they do. The issue is that most black kids who go to college don’t actually attend an HBCU. Most black kids who go to college attend predominantly white institutions. So while additional funding for HBCUs is critical to continue the mission that HBCUs have to be a safe and robust and culturally relevant educational environment—Even though, yes, HBCUs produce almost every black doctor in this country, it’s also true that for most black students, they’re learning on the campuses of predominantly white institutions, so where is their assistance coming from? Where are they getting help if – not if,  but when HBCUs are getting additional assistance? That’s a real issue that I think certainly plays well on a debate stage at an HBCU, but when you look at the reality of the statistics, it raises questions about how genuine these politicians really are in closing every gap in inequality or every gap in quality of education between black and white students on college campuses, all of them across this country.

GREG WILPERT: This also raises the issue, I think, or is related to the issue of reparations in a sense because, of course, some have proposed that it would go specifically towards higher education for particularly the African American population in the United States. Now, I’m just wondering though, what do you make of this, Osita, this debate, and particularly also how it might relate to reparations, which came up very briefly? We don’t have a clip of it, but Beto O’Rourke did mention that he supported that, at least in a very general sense. Of course, nobody’s specific about it. What do you think of that?

OSITA NWANEVU: Yeah, the non-specificity is very important I think across the entire— I mean, the HBCU thing, HBCUs, as was just said, are absolutely wonderful institutions, but it’s a very narrow discussion. It’s a discussion narrow enough in fact, that the Trump administration has made a lot of gestures towards HBCUs over the past couple of years just because it’s such a non-controversial, kind of very small part of the education situation in this country.

If you want to deal with structural inequities that really impact most African Americans in the education system, you have to look at sort of the root alignment, the root structural systems that define education funding in this country. And that’s something that presidential candidates have often struggled to talk about in any kind of serious way because in this country, education is a state responsibility. A lot of the policy is set up at state and local level, so people can come out on the national debate stage and say this and that, but most of what you get in policy are sort of incentive programs from the federal government to get schools to adhere to certain standards. They’ll put out these carrots for federal funding, but that doesn’t actually change the fundamental aspects of education in this country.

It doesn’t change the fact that we become a country that’s re-segregated a lot of its schools. That’s going to take a lot more structural attention, and I think it ties into the reparation discussion too because in the exact same way, you have to think a lot bigger than the candidates are willing to really think right now and willing to talk about openly. I don’t know how anybody could oppose studying the issue. My suspicion is that when you study the issue, it’s going to become very obvious, empirically, as it’s become obvious to a lot of people that reparations make a lot of sense to close the racial wealth gap. The question then becomes what do you actually do? What kinds of sweeping proposals do you actually put forward? How do you make them work politically?

But everything is happening at the surface-level discussion where people are being more forthright about the history of racism in this country, that legacy of slavery, all the structural inequities. People talk with the right kind of talk, but the solutions are still very limited. You see that in education. You see that to the extent to which people are talking about reparations. It’s still a kind of inchoate policy conversation.

GREG WILPERT: Yeah. This goes also to the issue of, like you mentioned, the economic issue of inequality, which as I mentioned in the beginning in the first segment, it didn’t come up directly at least, and certainly not in the context of overall economic policy. Helena, I’m wondering what do you think of this lack of discussion of economic policy and how to address that in a larger, structural sense?

HELENA OLEA: I think that that’s a very good point because when we are discussing a number of issues such as healthcare, for instance, we are in a way kind of tapping on economic policy, but we are really not discussing it in deep. I think that that’s a crucial element of the debate and I think it’s related to the format that was used as well. I would like to point out a couple of things in this regard. It’s interesting that their choice was to bring the Latino journalist to ask questions about immigration, as if that was only an issue that affects Latinos, where it affects the population from all over the world. Similarly, when we’re talking about education, everyone is thinking about racial segregation and discrimination against African American students, and we should be thinking of education and discrimination from a wider stance.

And so just as equally as it’s important for African American kids to have African American teachers, it’s equally important for Latino children to have Latino teachers, and we should be able to look at these issues from a broader perspective. I think we’re leaving that element out in this discussion. We are tapping onto it.

Similarly, I also want to point out that when we’re talking about reparations, it’s interesting also to consider where are we cutting the line? Are we only going to refer to slavery, or are we also going to address the continuous discrimination that has affected African Americans in the US until today? I think that the issue is much more complex. We definitely need a wide, open and long debate on this issue. So I agree absolutely with Osita, with the political correct point of saying, “Yes, I agree,” but that is a very empty comment. We really have to grapple with the basic and most important elements of this discussion on reparations.

GREG WILPERT: I want to turn now to the other part of the clip that we saw, which was particularly the one of Biden where he talks about the need for a different kind of education at home. What do you make of that, Jackie?

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: Okay, I have to breathe. Biden’s comment came in response to a two-part question that was asked of him. One, that he had to – what was his response to his previous comments, which were problematically racist, about the role that America has to play for addressing the legacy of slavery. And two, what does he see now 40 years later after his initial comments, how does he feel about that now? His response was that America has to basically help poor, black families raise their children because they don’t know how to. In a nutshell, in a nutshell, that is what he said. He said we need to send social workers in to help people raise their kids because it’s not that they don’t want to raise their kids, they just don’t know how, and they need to have the record player on at night so the kids can hear words.

And people don’t quite know what that is in reference to, but it’s in reference to a 40-year-old debunked study— “study,” I say that in quotes— that I think University of Kansas researchers did where they went to 42 families and followed their children from the ages of 16 months to 18 months for four years. And they came up with this bizarre conclusion that rich families, the children of rich families were exposed to hearing 30 million more words over that four years than the children of poor families did— the 42 families they’d studied over four years. That study has since been debunked for a number of reasons: because it didn’t account for all of the different people outside of parents that children have around them in different perspectives, didn’t account for different cultural environments where language is different and words may be different, didn’t account for the time spent with children and parents based on economic situations where wealthier families may have more time.

So it didn’t account for a lot of things, but Joe Biden is still relying on this idea that poor families just don’t talk to their kids. And especially in the context of this question, poor black families. That’s his idea of addressing the legacy of slavery. So that is the contrast that we are facing in dealing with this legacy of slavery and racial injustice, where you have one candidate, Beto O’Rourke, who rightfully does mention I support, if I’m president, I am going to sign HR 40 into law, and HR 40 does exactly what you say. It documents this history of not just slavery, but also, Helena, the continuing discrimination that is endured after slavery. But then at the other end of the spectrum, you have Joe Biden who is the so-called frontrunner who still believes that one of the problems of slavery is that black people don’t know how to raise their children.

GREG WILPERT: I also thought it was interesting that he seems to have this idea that you can fight poverty with social workers, but what do you think, Osita?


OSITA NWANEVU: This is what’s so interesting about this primary. I mean, across all kinds of issues, there’s been a breathtaking series of sweeping proposals advanced not just by Senators Sanders and Warren that you would expect to be the most ambitious, but even the moderate candidates have moved well left on a lot of different issues. Even Joe Biden on an issue like climate puts out a respectable plan. But when it comes to this core issue of antipoverty policy and in dealing with some of these inequities you’ve been talking about, the party still doesn’t exactly know what to do. It hasn’t matched the level of ambition that we’ve seen in other policy areas.

Biden’s answer was something that you would have expected somebody like him to say in the 90s. It’s obviously important to read to your kids and spend time with them. That’s not the reason why we see all these inequities. We know, given social science research, that even black parents who do everything right and kids who work hard at school, they’re still suffering from the same inequities that we see across the racial spectrum for them. We know that African Americans who are high-income or higher income than lower income white people, will often live in neighborhoods that are still underfunded, that still lack certain resources. There are racial components of inequity in this country that we haven’t really taken seriously outside of academia.

So as far as this idea that you’re going to solve those inequities by sending social workers into these communities and teaching parents how to raise their kids right, if you want to look at the most ambitious thing somebody said on poverty on the stage last night, it was actually Andrew Yang, Andrew Yang’s UBI. The idea of doing a universal basic income gives all Americans a certain level of income. They can use it to pay rent. They can use it to pay for childcare, whatever they find most necessary in their lives. That is a more serious solution that would help more black people than the Joe Biden’s idea of lecturing black parents that they’re not doing things right. Give people material resources and they will have the power to change the things in their life that they find the most burdensome.

Now Yang is not offering reparations specifically for African American people. There’s a narrowness to what he’s saying, but I think that the core idea that the thing that is hurting people the most is structural inequity that can be solved by improving people’s material situations. That is what the party has to dial into, just the way that it’s dialed ambitiously into the healthcare situation or the healthcare reform proposals. There needs to be some kind of commensurate interest and really rethinking antipoverty policy in this country, really reinvigorating the welfare state in a big way.

GREG WILPERT: I mean, just turning also to a clip that we saw from Corey Booker. I mean, what I thought it was interesting about his clip is that he did address the issue of inequality, of systemic inequality. He didn’t provide any solutions or answers in so far as I know his platform doesn’t really either, but at least he raised it as the core of the issue. That’s something that, at least in this debate, hardly anyone else really did. Although I would say that Sanders and Warren probably come closest to actually offering some solutions or some responses to that issue. I want to turn to you, Helena, what do you think of that? What was your reaction to Cory Booker and the possibilities of addressing this topic of inequality?

HELENA OLEA: Well, I do believe he deserves to be acknowledged for trying to understand education from a broader perspective and not giving the simple answer that we heard from many on the stage about teacher’s salaries. You know, that’s it. Education, teacher salaries, and we’re done with the topic. I do appreciate considering other factors and so I think he must be praised for that. I appreciate the inclusion of environmental justice, which I think is an important element and also including – it’s an interesting way to also mention criminal justice reform, which I think is also a plus in this aspect in particular. I think it’s the beginning of new conversations that we should be having on how to really address the needs in terms of education.

We should also move, hopefully in the future debates, to addressing access to higher education. More than that broader promise of “we’re going to eliminate all loans,” but something more concrete. How can we ensure that our college students do not have to work at least 40 hours a week? Because it’s impossible to obtain an education of quality when you have other burdens. How do we protect our students who are also parents at the same time? There are other issues on the table that I think we’re leaving out.

GREG WILPERT: Well, unfortunately, we can’t take up every issue in this discussion either, but we’ll continue to cover it as best we can. So this concludes our second segment on the third Democratic presidential debate. Join us for the next one. We will take up the issue of foreign policy and socialism. Thanks for joining The Real News Network.
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on September 14, 2019, 07:26:52 pm
3rd Democratic Debate: Foreign Policy Continues Imperialist Tradition (3/3)

September 13, 2019

While most Democratic candidates are finally shifting the debate on Afghanistan, 18 years after the war began, the discussion on other issues, such as Latin America, continues in the same old imperialist vein as before

Story Transcript

GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.

This is our third segment on the Democratic Party’s third presidential debate, which took place last Thursday in Houston, Texas. Joining me to analyze the debate are here in the studio, Real News host and producer Jacqueline Luqman, and New Republic staff writer Osita Nwanevu. Joining us remotely is human rights lawyer and University of Illinois-Chicago Professor Helena Olea. Thanks to all three of you for joining us again.


HELENA OLEA: Thank you.

GREG WILPERT: In this segment, we will take a closer look at foreign policy.

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: We need a foreign policy that is about our security and about leading on our values. The problems in Afghanistan are not problems that can be solved by a military. We need to work with the rest of the world. We need to use our economic tools. We need to use our diplomatic tools. We need to build with our allies. And we need to make the whole world safer, not keep troops bombing in Afghanistan.

DAVID MUIR: Senator Warren, thank you.

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG: We have got to put an end to endless war. The best way not to be caught up in endless war is to avoid starting one in the first place. And so when I am president, an authorization for the use of military force will have a built-in three-year sunset. Congress will be required to vote and a president will be required to go to Congress to seek an authorization because if our troops can summon the courage to go overseas, the least our members of Congress should be able to do is summon the courage to take a vote on whether they ought to be there.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I was opposed to the surge in Afghanistan. The whole purpose of going to Afghanistan was to not have a counterinsurgency, meaning that we’re going to put that country together. It cannot be put together. Let me say it again. It will not be put together. We don’t need those troops there. I would bring them home.

GREG WILPERT: This debate on Afghanistan, or actually the comments that the different presidential candidates made about Afghanistan, I thought it was rather interesting. It did seem to signify a certain amount of departure from the way it had been discussed, at least under President Obama, and of course under President Trump. One thing that wasn’t mentioned in this discussion, though, is the fact that, of course, there was supposed to be a peace agreement between the US Government and the Taliban, which was scuttled in the last minute, and nobody commented on that it seemed.

I just want to turn to you, Helena, first about what you think of this debate and the turn that it has taken in terms of, first of all, Warren talking about the need for diplomacy. That seemed like a significant shift within the Democratic Party and even Biden’s talk about him being opposed to the surge, which I think is actually one of the things that was accurate. Although, I am very skeptical still to what extent he actually favors diplomacy, considering that he actually favored the war in Iraq. What do you think, Helena?

HELENA OLEA:  I think the aspect of foreign policy was debated in a very particular way. The first thing that we should say is that only three topics were mentioned under it. It began with trade, but somehow trade ends up being separated from the rest of the discussion of foreign policy, which I think is unfortunate. Then they only refer to Afghanistan in tangent, they referred to Iraq, and I think it was also a result of Biden’s comments that it ended up being part of the discussion, but that was not the intention of the questions. Then Venezuela was mentioned shortly. I think that this is very schematic, but we are definitely observing an evolution. Public opinion is shifting to the point where they believe that the troops should – cannot continue in Afghanistan and we need to find a way out.

GREG WILPERT: Osita, what do you think? Does this signify an important shift in the Democratic Party, as regards at least to the war in Afghanistan? Perhaps not in other areas because we’ll get to those in a moment and we’ll see that that might be different, but at least on the issue of Afghanistan?

OSITA NWANEVU: I think that we see a wider shift in foreign policy, both on that debate stage, in Congress and really, even to some extent, across both parties. I think that there’s a wide public impatience with “forever wars,” as Pete Buttigieg called it. We’ve seen, obviously, moves against the United States’ involvement in the war in Yemen. All of this is of a piece with I think a broader public mood that is turning against these wars and doesn’t really see them as fruitful anymore.

It’s become clear that to the extent that we believe that there was an interest in going there after 9/11 to strike against the Taliban, we’re now trying, I guess, to meet with the Taliban. There’s a sense, I think, even if people aren’t willing to admit it openly that we overreacted in the last 20 years to the threat of Islamic terrorism, and engaged in a lot of conflicts that we had no real sense of how we were going to end them, I think that the public’s realization of that now is producing a sea change in American politics— not just within the Democratic Party, but more broadly outside of it.

GREG WILPERT: What do you think, Jackie?

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: I think the candidates’ responses were definitely a reflection of what both of you said— the public distaste for endless war now. But I think it’s also the Democratic Party’s response to the candidate that wasn’t on the stage, that I think in this issue of war that they most don’t want their message to come out, and that’s Tulsi Gabbard. I think it was sort of a surprise, a little bit, that it was another military veteran, Pete Buttigieg, who sounded so similar to what Gabbard would have said. I think that was probably a shock, a little bit, to the DNC because that’s the kind of message –  that we need to end endless wars. And we need to even further, what Buttigieg and Warren said, we need to not have them. The best way not to have an endless war is to not enter into a war.

We know that the defense lobby is an enormous contributor to both parties, so I’m sure Buttigieg’s comments and Warren’s comments on not even getting into wars made the defense benefactors of the DNC quite nervous. For the American people, both of their comments, and most of their comments at least on Afghanistan, because I agree also that they were very measured in how they talked about military engagement and war and the wider issue of imperialism in the United States and around the world. They were very careful to pick and choose where they would say, “Okay, we’ll stop doing this, but we have a different perspective on what should be done over here.” I do agree it’s a reflection of how this country is seeing our military differently in what it does around the world.

GREG WILPERT: I want to turn to the next clip that we have, which is on Venezuela. Let’s run that now.

JORGE RAMOS: You admit that Venezuela does not have free elections, but still you refuse to call Nicolas Maduro “un dictador,” a dictator. Can you explain why and what are the main differences between your kind of socialism and the one being imposed in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: First of all, let me be very clear. Anybody who does what Maduro does is a vicious tyrant. What we need now is international and regional cooperation for free elections in Venezuela so that the people of that country can create their own future. In terms of democratic socialism, to equate what goes on in Venezuela with what I believe is extremely unfair.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: In Venezuela, we should be allowing people to come here from Venezuela. I know Maduro. I’ve confronted Maduro.

JULIAN CASTRO: Sure. Thank you, Jorge. I’ll call Maduro a dictator because he is a dictator. What we need to do is to, along with our allies, make sure that the Venezuelan people get the assistance that they need, that we continue to pressure Venezuela so that they’ll have free and fair elections. And also, here in the United States, offer temporary protected status, TPS, to Venezuelans.

GREG WILPERT: Okay. Well, this topic could potentially open up a can of worms because there is perhaps substantial disagreement about the nature of Venezuela, although not on that stage, but perhaps among our panel here. We’ll see. Let me turn first to you, Jackie. What do you think of Sanders’s response, especially considering that all of them that we saw, or that spoke to Venezuela, didn’t say anything about the United States, but specifically did zero-in on Venezuela? What do you make of that?

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: This is where the Democratic Party is extremely weak and it is extremely complicit in US imperialism around the world. Sanders, his response about free and fair elections and even the question was deeply, deeply problematic, but the issue that Democrats, any of them, are saying that we’re going to ensure free and fair elections in Venezuela when they can’t even ensure free and fair elections here in the United States, that’s a serious problem. Then, there’s also this talk of the evil that Maduro does, and this is not to say that Maduro is a good guy, but that’s not the point. The point is that Venezuela is facing the economic issues it’s facing because of US intervention and sanctions, primarily. There’s certainly the other arguments and discussions to be made about decisions that Maduro and Chavez made, of course, but primarily the issue now is sanctions that the United States Government has implemented against the elected leadership of that country.

Then that’s the other issue, that the elections in Venezuela are continued to be framed by Republicans and Democrats as fraudulent, and that Maduro was not elected by the people, but six million people did vote for him. None of the candidates— certainly not Sanders, he was guilty of this also— also didn’t bring up the fact that nobody voted for Juan Guido. There are lots of issues with the way the Democratic Party frames this particular discussion because, in my estimation, the Democratic Party is just as pro-imperialist as the Republican Party is. I don’t think there’s much modulation between the two on this particular issue. Even given whatever legitimate arguments people have for or against Maduro as a leader of his country, all of their answers on this particular issue, and even the question itself, were a big problem.

GREG WILPERT: I think the contrast between the answers that they gave to Afghanistan and the answers that they gave to Venezuela is quite telling. That maybe the shift that I was talking about earlier with regard to Afghanistan is not as big as we might think, considering how willing they are to endorse this idea that the US should be involved in Venezuela. I want to turn to you next, Helena. What do you think of that? Is this— especially what Sanders, Castro and Biden said in this context?

HELENA OLEA: Yes. I agree a lot with Jacqueline. I think that the question was terrible and we really have to begin right there. It’s a personal feud that the journalist has with Maduro, which we understand, but I think that that was not the way to frame the issue. Element number one. I do believe that the point made about who elected Guido is quite important. There are a number of questionings about Guido and how – where he’s getting the funding, who’s helping him. There are very recent accusations that he is receiving paramilitary aid from Columbia. I do think that this is much more complicated than how the candidates understand it. I think it’s not a matter of how we label or not label Maduro. The real issue should be what should be the role of the US. Sanctions are very important.

The other element also is that the US withdrew aid to Central American countries to give it to Guido and the opposition in Venezuela. That was not mentioned there, which also reflects that they are very badly informed on this topic. Finally, there was no mention of the six million Venezuelans who are abroad, mostly everywhere in the Americas, trying to start a new life, just a brief mention of granting TPS for Venezuelans by Julio Castro. I think that the issue is much more complex than that, and so it did reflect this very limited view. I think that it’s a great shortcoming in terms of their foreign policy. They talked about human rights as a prescription that should be considered, particularly Elizabeth Warren mentioned it. Then what does human rights translate into, and how do we consider it and understand it from all of the topics? They could have connected that to the US migration policy, and they also failed to address that in their response.

GREG WILPERT: Yeah. I find it pretty amazing that they didn’t mention at all the issue of sanctions against Venezuela, which are absolutely crucial, especially in the context of the people leaving Venezuela, of course, and the problems, economic problems that the country has. I’m wondering what do you make of this, particularly the way these candidates are treating that particular issue, and does that mean that they’re still wedded to imperialist politics, as Jackie says?

OSITA NWANEVU: I think that to a large extent the Democratic Party obviously is. I don’t think that the American people and Democratic Party specifically have given a lot of thought to the United States’ history in South and Central America. The record of intervention is something that you know about it only if you’re very well read on the left. It’s not something that gets talked about in the media and its history is part of the reason why we have this situation in Venezuela now. I don’t think that there’s a very serious discussion on the Democratic primary debate stage or within the primary on that particular issue. Hopefully, Bernie Sanders and the other progressives in the field raise public awareness of what’s been going on.

I do think that it’s very hard for me to understand why this comes up as an issue time and time again in these debates when the only people who I think respond to the kind of fear-mongering that the moderators are trying to do about Venezuela and socialism are people who already watch Fox News and are not Democratic primary voters. I don’t really think that resonates with anybody. I don’t think that people, for better or for worse, are very clued into what’s going on in the country at all. I think there’s an education, there’s the public education aspect of what needs to go on here as far as Latin American policy is concerned. Hopefully, this sort of positive energy we’ve seen on other foreign policy issues eventually migrates over to that sphere of the world, and people begin taking the situation not only in Venezuela, but across the litany of states America has intervened in over the past couple of decades. Hopefully, people started taking those foreign policy questions more seriously.

GREG WILPERT: The issue that you raise, of course, of the socialism is one that came up and that’s a perfect segue to the next clip that we have, which is particularly Bernie Sanders’s response to that question, and also an ad that ran for the Republicans attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, where she is being portrayed as a socialist and being equated with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Let’s run that clip.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: What I believe in terms of democratic socialism, I agree with what goes on in Canada and in Scandinavia guaranteeing health care to all people as a human right. I believe that the United States should not be the only major country on Earth not to provide paid family and medical leave. I believe that every worker in this country deserves a living wage and that we expand the trade union movement. I happen to believe also that what, to me, democratic socialism means is we deal with an issue we do not discuss enough, Jorge, not in the media and not in Congress. You got three people in America owning more wealth than the bottom half of this country. You’ve got a handful of billionaires controlling what goes on in Wall Street, the insurance companies, and in the media. Maybe, just maybe, what we should be doing is creating an—

MODERATOR: Thank you.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Economy that works for all of us, not one percent. That’s my understanding of democratic socialism.

MODERATOR: Secretary [inaudible], you wanted to—

ELIZABETH HENG, REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN AD: This is the face of socialism and ignorance. Does Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez know the horror of socialism? My father was minutes from death in Cambodia before a forced marriage saved his life. That’s socialism: forced obedience, starvation. Mine is a face of freedom. My skin is not white. I’m not outrageous, racist, nor socialist. I’m a Republican.

GREG WILPERT: We can see here this incredible contrast between the way the Republicans are portraying socialism, and the way Bernie Sanders is portraying democratic socialism. Of course, this is going to be a major issue, one presumes, especially if Bernie Sanders were to become the candidate. But I imagine that even if not, we know that Obama was regularly being accused of being a socialist. Let me turn to you first, Osita. What do you think? Do you think that this will become like “the” campaign issue and how can Democrats deal with it?

OSITA NWANEVU: I think that’s going to be an issue even if Biden’s nominee. The Republicans, this is the button that they push in every election. The fact that they lost the House in 2018 doesn’t seem to have dissuaded them that this is a reasonable strategy, but it’s what they’re going to do. It’s the only trick that they’ve got. I don’t think that it really resonates with people. People in the country, broadly speaking, there’ve been numbers or polls showing that socialism has gone up in public estimation over the past several years. It’s still kind of underwater compared to when you ask people about capitalism, but that hasn’t really sunken Bernie Sanders’s popularity with the American people, broadly speaking. Maybe they have certain apprehensions about socialism, but he does just as well as any of the other candidates when you do look at these head-to-heads against Donald Trump. The election has yet to happen, obviously, and we don’t know how things would change in certain ways, but I think if you’re a Republican, you have to wonder about the extent to which this is actually something that is going to be effective.

I think it’s important that in the 2016 presidential election, Trump did not win by calling Hillary Clinton a socialist. In fact, he adopted a kind of populist rhetoric, he talked about the fact that the system was rigged, and that certain wealthy people controlled it. It was really like superficially similar to what people on the left said, and it resembled left rhetoric more close and it resembles these attacks on socialism we see now, the attacks on socialism we heard under Mitt Romney’s candidacy and John McCain’s candidacy. The one thing that’s actually won them is turning away from that kind of rhetoric and they don’t seem to have gotten that. They don’t seem to have internalized that fact at all. I think it’s going to be a real point of Republican messaging through the election. I don’t think it’s going to matter very much, but it is what we can, I think, pretty reliably expect them to harp on.

GREG WILPERT: Helena, let me just turn to you quickly. What’s your interpretation of the importance or significance of the issue of socialism in this particular campaign?

HELENA OLEA: I agree very much with Osita’s point. I think that he’s quite on point on a number of these issues. I think that it reflects a great ignorance and I also think that Republicans are failing to understand how faded in the American public the Cold War is right now. When you talk to the younger generations that were not a part of it, they really do not understand what you are referring to, and I think that this is a big mistake on their part, and socialism doesn’t scare the American people anymore. I think that they have to understand that, but they are so much scared that they produced ads like the one you showed. It’s very interesting to see them playing with the issue, portraying a non-white American attractive woman with long hair, dark hair like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, saying “there is another face to it,” and playing to these scare-mongering tactics of the past. I think that it’s in the back of the old Republicans, it’s not in the mind of the American people anymore.

OSITA NWANEVU: I actually want to jump in at that point because I think it’s extremely, extremely interesting and important that the person whose face was burning in that ad was not Bernie Sanders, but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That is no accident. I think the Republicans have been much friendlier to Sanders over the past couple of years, even though he is this socialist candidate who’s actually won millions of votes, than they have been to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who’s just this random Congresswoman. Why is she the focus of all these Fox News segments? Why is she the focus of all of this attention online and not Sanders, who is ostensibly the greater threat to the country as a socialist?

I think it has to do with the fact, as Helena said, that she is a non-white person, she’s a woman and, like the other members of the squad— Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar— these are the things that Republican voters find threatening. They look at Bernie Sanders, they understand he’s a socialist, but he also looks like them and that’s something that doesn’t register the same fear triggers that putting up a picture of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might. I think that’s an extremely important thing for us to notice and understand. It is not an accident at all that she is the focal point of all of this anxiety about socialism, and not the actual socialist candidate for president who millions of people in this country have already voted for.

GREG WILPERT: Right. Jackie?

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: Yeah. There are so many interesting angles to what Sanders said and the ad. I think what Sanders said is the perfect counter to the messaging of the evils of the bogeyman socialism as we’re moving. He moved the discourse from this, as Helena said, this outdated Cold War kind of rhetoric to, “This is the answer to our current economic crisis that we are all facing. And by the way, guess what? Other countries have already done it, so it can’t be that bad.” The interesting thing about what Sanders said is that when he mentioned other countries, he was careful to mention Canada and Scandinavia, but did not mention Cuba and Venezuela. If you’re looking at Venezuela, whatever issues you have with Maduro, Venezuela just completed a housing project where they built three and a half million units of free and affordable housing for working people.

We have an exploding homelessness crisis in this country and in California alone. That is a socialist success story to me, but it’s interesting that that wasn’t mentioned. Cuba routinely sends the best doctors in the world around the world to respond to disasters. Why? Because the people don’t go into debt becoming doctors in Cuba and the government pays for research. Those are socialist success stories, but just as it is intentional the way the Republicans used a woman of color to demonize socialism in their ad, I think Sanders and his team were very careful to use the same kind of imagery of socialist success stories as a counter, and not bringing up these kinds of problematic countries of color where socialism is successful and working for the people, but the government of this country has problems with the leaders. I think that’s intentional too, but I think that again, like we’ve said, the discourse on those issues around those countries is so surface-level, we may not see it. We may not understand it’s there, but it’s definitely. I don’t think his choice of words was accidental either.

GREG WILPERT: Okay. Unfortunately, we’re going to have to leave it there. We’ve run out of time, but I think this was a very interesting discussion. This concludes our third segment of the third Democratic presidential debate. Again, I was joined by Real News host and producer Jacqueline Luqman, and New Republic staff writer Osita Nwanevu. And joining us remotely was human rights lawyer and University of Illinois in Chicago Professor Helena Olea. Thanks again to all three of you for having joined us today.



HELENA OLEA: Thank you.

GREG WILPERT: I’m Greg Wilpert and thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on September 14, 2019, 09:42:15 pm
Bernie Sick of Republican Talking Points Against Medicare for All
2,829 views•Published on Sep 13, 2019

Thom Hartmann Program
171K subscribers

Why are the media and even other Democratic presidential candidates using Republican talking points against medicare for all?

Bernie Sanders sets the record straight on medicare for all on the Thom Hartmann program. 

Senator Bernie Sanders, fresh from the TV debate, joined Thom on the program live today.

What did Joe Biden ask Bernie Sanders? Listen to the answer.

Bernie Sanders has strong views on healthcare and Medicare for all.

Sanders shared his views on the debate, watch what he has to say.

📽️ WATCH NEXT: How Bernie Sanders Will Pay For Medicare For All -
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on September 17, 2019, 05:45:21 pm
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here ( to subscribe.

September 17, 2019

Top candidates (excluding Senator Sanders 👍) to skip MSNBC climate forum 👎, fifth IL coal plant to shutter, & more (
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2019, 11:05:24 pm
BLACK BEAR NEWS 9.18.19 Climate change & media
1,035 views•Published on Sep 18, 2019

Black Bear News
2.41K subscribers

Sanders to attend latest climate forum while Biden and Warren pass

Greta Thunberg to Congress: ‘You’re not trying hard enough. Sorry’

The Incredible Belief That Corporate Ownership Does Not Influence Media Content

Friday Gas Strike

Twitter @BlackBearNews1

Support via Paypal:

Support via Square:$RedLlamaMusic

Red Llama Music
PO Box 132
So Pasadena, CA 91031
Category People & Blogs
Title: Joe Biden's 'Gaffes' Are Much Bigger Problem for Democrats Than Embarrassment
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2019, 03:36:55 pm
Joe Biden's 'Gaffes' Are Much Bigger Problem for Democrats Than Embarrassment
8,270 views•Published on Sep 22, 2019

The Real News Network
352K subscribers

Joe Biden’s off-the-cuff comments aren’t playing well to audiences any more. Is this an indication of a too-long political career finally declining, or is this a sign of a much bigger problem for the Democratic Party in 2020? Jacqueline Luqman talks with The Week contributor Ryan Cooper

Subscribe to our page and support our work at
Category News & Politics
Title: Naomi Klein: Establishment Democrats may RUIN it for Progressives causing a Trump win!
Post by: AGelbert on September 26, 2019, 11:45:06 pm
No Is Not Enough, How Can We Stop Trump and Take Back Our Country? -

📕 BOOK: On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal -

➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel:
Title: 📢 This is our first television ad ✨ of the campaign 🧐
Post by: AGelbert on October 01, 2019, 06:50:09 pm

October 1, 2019


Shortly after reporting a record-setting number of individual donations for any presidential campaign at this point in the race, we made another important announcement:

( We are ON THE AIR in Iowa. (

This is our first television ad of the campaign, and we wanted you to see it immediately. We also need to ask you to do something very important in helping to make sure others see it as well.

Watch our new ad "Fights for Us" and share it with your friends today:

All my best,

Faiz Shakir
Title: Sanders has heart stent surgery after chest discomfort
Post by: AGelbert on October 02, 2019, 03:23:06 pm
Sanders has heart stent surgery after chest discomfort  (
Source: Politico

Bernie Sanders experienced chest discomfort during a campaign event on Tuesday and had two stents inserted to address a blockage in an artery, his campaign announced.

“Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits. He will be resting up over the next few days," senior adviser Jeff Weaver said in a statement. "We are canceling his events and appearances until further notice, and we will continue to provide appropriate updates.”

Read more:

I feared this greatly. ( Now the 🐘 Repukians and the pseudo-left Democratic Party Leadership will use this against Senator Sanders to try to destroy his presidential bid. ( (

I'm sure 🦀 Trump and his 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn enablers are all celebrating.   (


The future is looking brighter and brighter, for Tardigrades.

Title: 2020 Presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson ✨
Post by: AGelbert on October 03, 2019, 09:20:04 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This Candidate for President has GREAT plans for the USA! (

Exploring Marianne Williamson's Vision For America!
1,611 views•Oct 2, 2019

Thom Hartmann Program
182K subscribers

2020 Presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson ✨ joins Thom Hartmann, exploring her vision for America!

Which of Williamson's policies do you want to see enacted?

📽️ WATCH NEXT: Marianne Williamson 2020. Running for President - The Story So Far

➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel:
Title: Gelbert Memo
Post by: AGelbert on October 08, 2019, 04:06:50 pm

Oct 04, 2019 at 02:58:24 PM

Our republic is Fascist TOAST if we do not rid American politics of the influence of oligarch money.

You can call the following 📢 BRING REAL DEMOCRACY TO AMERICA marching orders memo for the Democratic Party the “Pelosi Memo” if she adopts it. Until she does, I’m labelling it the “Gelbert  Memo”. 🧐


1. IMPEACH TRUMP (and Barr, Pompeo, etc.) NOW. Expose the corrupt bastards in the Senate that support Trump Fascism by forcing them to vote to “acquit” 🦀 Trump and his criminal cronies. 

2. After we get control of the Senate and the White House, PACK THE SUPREME COURT. Go scorched earth on the right wing crooks there with Congressional Investigations, impeachment inquiries and lawsuits. Drive them into a corner and expose all their corruption and crimes. Tighten up all the campaign finance laws and eliminate corporate personhood. Make bribery illegal again! Get money out of politics PERMANENTLY. Eliminate “limited liability” from corporate law and charters. Severely limit bankruptcy protection for corporations and return personal bankruptcy protection to where it was before the banksters bribed Congress to shaft Americans that fall on hard economic times while greedy corporations stiff creditors with impunity.

3. Imprison everyone previously impeached. Arrest, Try and Convict Giuliani and the rest of Trump’s wrecking crew for crimes committed on orders from Trump.

4. Launch investigations into Fox News, Right Wing Hate Radio, Right wing funded “think” tanks and the Internet Troll farms pushing hate and fascism.

5. MASSIVELY strengthen Social Security and make Medicare for all and free University Eduction the LAW OF THE LAND.

Do all the above and the Democratic Party will dominate elections for DECADES! ✨

If Pelosi does not have the intestinal fortitude to methodically do the above, GET SOMEONE WHO DOES!

OR, let FASCISM DESTROY this country.


Agelbert NOTE: My memo does not mention Catastrophic Climate Change because I am firmly convinced that the actions I listed are Sine qua non to bankrupting the polluters that corrupt our politicians into providing "subsidy" handouts to them and doing nothing about addressing Climate Change. The polluters must be stripped of their power so we can take the society wide MASSIVE measures to clean up our bisophere.
Title: Robert Reich: Why 2020 Won't Be Won By Centrists
Post by: AGelbert on October 08, 2019, 08:54:50 pm
Robert Reich: Why 2020 Won't Be Won By Centrists
22,497 views•Oct 8, 2019

Robert Reich
154K subscribers

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains why we need big ideas in the 2020 Democratic primary.
Watch More: How to Build Progressive ( Power ►►
Category News & Politics
Title: Bernie Sanders Is America's Beating Heart
Post by: AGelbert on October 08, 2019, 09:25:23 pm

OCT 07, 2019 OPINION

Bernie Sanders Is America's Beating Heart (

Bernie Sanders Is America's Beating Heart Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0

Along with being where all blood goes, the heart is an enduring metaphor. As Bernie Sanders recovers from a heart attack, now might be a good time to consider some literal and symbolic meanings.

Bernie immediately used his heart trouble to advance a central mission. From the hospital, he tweeted: “I’m fortunate to have good health care and great doctors and nurses helping me to recover. None of us know when a medical emergency might affect us. And no one should fear going bankrupt if it occurs. Medicare for All!”

That’s the kind of being “on message” we so badly need. It’s fully consistent with Bernie’s campaign and his public life. (“Not me. Us.”) He has never been a glad-hander or much of a showman. He’s always been much more interested in ending people’s pain than proclaiming that he feels it.

About 10 years ago, I was lucky enough to dialogue with Bernie during an “in conversation with” event in San Francisco, where several hundred people filled the room. Before we went on stage, there was a gathering in a makeshift green room that raised a small amount of money for his senatorial campaign coffers. “I’ve never been good at raising money,” he told me.

I thought about that comment when the news broke a few days ago that the Bernie 2020 campaign raised a whopping $25.3 million during the last quarter, with donations averaging just $18. Bernie never went after money. It went after him; from the grassroots.

From the middle of this decade onward, as the popularity of Bernie and his political agenda has grown, so has the hostility from corporate media. The actual Bernie campaign is in sharp contrast with cable TV coverage as well as press narratives.

The campaign looks set to fully resume soon. When Bernie left the hospital on Friday, NBC News quoted the chief of cardiology at the UC San Diego School of Medicine, Ehtisham Mahmud, who said that the three-day length of hospitalization indicates the senator “probably had a small heart attack” — and “they require really a very short recovery time.”

So, from all indications, Bernie will soon be back on the campaign trail — once again hammering on grim realities that are evaded or excused by the political and media establishment, like the fact that just three individuals (Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates) have as much wealth as the bottom half of the entire U.S. population.

Last month, in an interview about his proposal to greatly increase taxes on the extremely rich, Bernie said: “What we are trying to do is demand and implement a policy which significantly reduces income and wealth inequality in America by telling the wealthiest families in this country they cannot have so much wealth.” Such concentrations of wealth — and the political power that goes with it — are antithetical to genuine democracy.

For his entire adult life, Bernie Sanders has been part of social movements intent on challenging such profit-mad industries as corporate health care, financial services, mass incarceration and the military-industrial complex that cause so much opulence for the few and so much suffering for the many. The enormous inequalities of wealth and power are systemic and ruthless — with devastating effects on vast numbers of people.

That’s where the heart as metaphor is apt. Bernie has a huge and eternally healthy heart, filled with the lifeblood of empathy and dedication. In essence, that’s what the Bernie 2020 campaign is all about. As he has been the first to say, it’s not about him, it’s about us. How much compassion and commitment can we find in our hearts?
Title: Bernie's Back 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on October 19, 2019, 09:17:50 pm
BLACK BEAR NEWS 10.19.19 Bernie's Back 🌟 - XR fights human programming
27 views•Oct 19, 2019

Black Bear News
2.44K subscribers

#FridayGasStrike #ExtinctionRebellion #ClimateStrike
#GretaThunberg #ClimateChange
#BernieSanders #AlexandriaOcasioCortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Endorses Bernie Sanders at New York City Rally

Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the Climate

Twitter @BlackBearNews1

Support via Paypal:

Support via Square:$RedLlamaMusic

Red Llama Music
PO Box 132
So Pasadena, CA 91031
Category People & Blogs
Title: Why Most Americans Want To See "Far Left" Policies?
Post by: AGelbert on October 21, 2019, 09:08:51 pm
Why Most Americans Want To See "Far Left" Policies?
3,932 views•Oct 18, 2019

Thom Hartmann Program
187K subscribers

Although most Americans actually want to see the policies the media and opponents of progressives keep calling "Far left"

Thom Hartmann brings out the numbers, proving that these Far-Left positions are actually middle of the road! 

Things like medicare for all.

►Join our Membership and Support the Channel ➜

➡️ Subscribe to Our Channel ➜
Title: Ocasio-Cortez 🎋 is taking seriously the campaign’s ✨ motto, “Not me, us.”
Post by: AGelbert on October 22, 2019, 07:10:48 pm
The Intercept

October 21 2019, 5:38 p.m


By Ryan Grim


Put simply, she said that her endorsement is intended to help build a movement, which would shape not just whether Democrats beat President Donald Trump in 2020, but how. And, she said, it was a recognition that Sanders is the only candidate in the field who has been fighting consistently for working people for decades, making him the ideal leader of multiracial, working-class movement.

Full article: (

Title: "This is a brazen distortion of reality, a shameless and demonstrable lie ...
Post by: AGelbert on October 22, 2019, 07:22:56 pm
The Intercept

By Mehdi Hasan

AOC, Sanders, and Warren Are the Real Centrists Because They Speak for 🦅 Most Americans (

Title: 🔊 30 Years of 🦅 Sanders Telling the TRUTH LOUD AND CLEAR
Post by: AGelbert on October 22, 2019, 08:20:46 pm
🔊 30 Years of 🦅 Speeches

110,426 views•Mar 25, 2016

Bernie Sanders  (

241K subscribers

Watch this amazing video that a talented volunteer put together showing 30 years of speeches.

Video by EJH
Category News & Politics
Title: Creating A Progressive Movement For 2020 ✔
Post by: AGelbert on October 22, 2019, 08:41:55 pm
Creating A Progressive Movement For 2020   (

Oct 21, 2019

Thom Hartmann Program
187K subscribers

Friend of the show Morris called the Thom Hartmann Program to ask about creating a movement instead of merely a moment for the 2020 Presidential election.

Do you think we need to focus on winning the moment for 2020 or in creating a progressive movement?

►Join our Membership and Support the Channel ➜

➡️ Subscribe to Our Channel ➜
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on October 24, 2019, 06:10:09 pm
Missed Tom Live? Catch up here!

Tom joined his national organizing team and volunteers for a conversation about the campaign, the October debate, and what we’re fighting for. Watch a clip from the livestream, and sign up to be a TeamTom volunteer!
Title: Figuring the DLC's line of thinking on this is like trying to see a cowflop's bottom. 🤬
Post by: AGelbert on October 27, 2019, 10:42:56 pm

Faced with the possible re-election of a president who represents an existential threat to democracy in the U.S., the Democratic establishment apparently believes the solution lies with a Wall Street billionaire, a man who lost to George W. Bush, or a woman who already lost once to that same existential threat. (      (              (               (


Full article:

With Biden Floundering, Democratic 👹💵🎩Establishment Considers Clinton and Kerry (


Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on November 03, 2019, 06:01:59 pm
NYT - After the last Democratic presidential debate, pundits were adamant that the candidates most likely to win the general election were the centrists (, particularly Joe Biden ( and Pete Buttigieg, that the… (  (

( - Americans Hate One Another. ( Impeachment Isn’t Helping. (

Read more Doomstead Diner Daily 11/3/19 ( ( (

( the NYT propaganda piece signaling the election year ramp up of the "Americans will only elect a centrist" pearl clutching baloney, Pelosi has been on that particular (CAPITALIST) warpath against what the overwhelming majority of the American public wants, as the polls PROVE, for a while now.

Pelosi was noisily pushing this crap yesterday, echoing the NYT (I've always suspected they coordinate these things so the repetition of bold faced bullshit from different sources provides a patina of "truth" (  (

And yeah, Americans WANT Medicare for all and EXPANDED Social Security and a REAL WORLD cost of living computation (and so on). Pelosi and the NYT DO NOT WANT THAT. That is why Pelosi just spewed the laughably ridiculous BULLSHIT that "Left wing programs will lose votes in the  heartland states". She added some straw grasping pseudo-intellectual CRAP about "We need to win the electoral college", as if the electoral college "could not be won" by Sanders OR Warren if they "insist" on "unpopular SOCIALIST left wing" programs (

"This is a brazen distortion of reality, a shameless and demonstrable lie that is repeated day after day in newspaper op-eds and cable news headlines." - Mehdi Hasan of The Intercept (

😈 Pelosi, along with the 😈 NYT (and many other mainstream propaganda outlets that will join in the 😈 CAPITALIST LIE A MINUTE perception management election year bandwagon), has begun the "we 😈 CAPITALISTS don't want no expansion of social programs here" herding process ( BIG TIME.

Expect an AVALANCHE ( of this Orwellian punditry until Trump or some "centrist" (i.e. right wing fascist sporting the Democratic Party Label) "wins" the election in 2020.

It is going to be a LONG YEAR. Sanders 👍, who is NOT a Socialist in any true sense of the word, is the CLOSEST to the CENTER of anyone running for POTUS right now, though you will never hear that irrefutable truth uttered anywhere but by Thom Hartmann, places like The Intercept and, of course, by left wing librul crazies like ( me.

The Intercept

By Mehdi Hasan

February 26 2019, 12:17 p.m.

AOC, Sanders, and Warren Are the Real Centrists Because They Speak for Most Americans (
Title: Bernie Sanders' Surge Is Real! Front Runner Joe Biden Implodes In Iowa | CNN Flagrantly Lies
Post by: AGelbert on November 04, 2019, 05:54:46 pm
November 4, 2019


Bernie Sanders' Surge Is Real! ( Front Runner Joe Biden Implodes ;D In Iowa | 😈 CNN Flagrantly Lies
4,681 views•Streamed live 19 hours ago

Jamarl Thomas 👍
26.1K subscribers

Support the stream:

Bernie Sanders' Surge Is Real! Front Runner Joe Biden Implodes In Iowa | CNN Flagrantly Lies
Title: Bernie Speaks To Seniors in Iowa
Post by: AGelbert on November 04, 2019, 07:27:59 pm
Bernie Speaks To Seniors in Iowa
31,126 views•Streamed live on Nov 2, 2019

Bernie Sanders
246K subscribers

EXPAND SOCIAL SECURITY: We can live in a country where every senior lives in dignity and security. We will guarantee every American the right to a secure retirement and expand and improve Medicare to include dental, hearing and vision care. Join our town hall in Iowa:

Category Entertainment TRUTH (
Title: Will Trump Sell Out To Private Military Contractors?
Post by: AGelbert on November 05, 2019, 07:27:07 pm
Will Trump Sell Out To Private Military Contractors?
4,891 views•Nov 4, 2019

Thom Hartmann Program
189K subscribers

It looks like Donald Trump was blackmailed into removing troops from Syria, what happens when Trump is pressured to give something else up?
🔴 Subscribe for more clips like this:
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: Surly1 on November 06, 2019, 07:30:05 am
To your point above, rust never sleeps.

Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on November 06, 2019, 12:06:44 pm
To your point above, rust never sleeps.


Yep. That Erik Prince and his sister are a core part of the Capitalist ROT in the USA.

We do not live in a representative republic. The Rascists 'R' US oligarchs have thoroughly corrupted the place. I checked out what a map of the USA would look like if every state had an equal population (see below). I don't have to tell you that it would be lot harder for oligarchs to do their fascist thing if each senator had equal population representation. That is probably why it will never happen unless there is a massive revolution.

And what if you wanted to divide the U.S. into 50 states of equal population? If we turn the algorithm loose to create 50 states while seeking to optimize for total state compactness 👍, we get the map below.

f you don’t care about compactness, you can divide America into two halves of equal population in a bunch of different ways. Here are just a few of the options:

Read and view more:

If you look at the map of the Congressional Representatives that favor impeachment (229, over half of the 435 total, barely makes a dent on the total map!), you get an excellent idea of how the low population states have been 🐘 gamed AGAINST the best interests of the population, especially when you consider the totally corrupt 🐘 Senators from the low population states (Vermont is the only good guy there):

Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on November 06, 2019, 04:24:50 pm


Democrats flip Virginia Senate and House, taking control of state government for the first time in a generation (


Kentucky outcome embarrasses ( Trump and worries many Republicans  ( of 2020 ( - Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andy Beshear speaks at the Kentucky Democratic Party election night watch event Tuesday. (Bryan Woolston/AP) By Robert Costa close Robert Costa National political r…


Bernie Sanders "best" on health care, the economy, immigration and the environment among Democratic candidates in new 2020 poll ( - A new poll finds that, among 1,115 adult respondents living in the United States, 2020 Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is "the best" on several particular issues, including healthcare, the enviro…

Read more Doomstead Diner Daily 11/6/19 ( ( (

Congrats on being a proud citizen of a fully blue state! (

( Go Bernie!  (
Title: Elizabeth Warren unveiled her plan for Medicare for all and it will save TRILLIONS of dollars
Post by: AGelbert on November 06, 2019, 08:19:38 pm
$11 Trillion Reasons Warren's Medicare for All Saves Money
3,064 views•Nov 5, 2019

Thom Hartmann Program
190K subscribers

Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for all plan will save Americans over $11 Trillion dollars!
🔴 Subscribe for more clips like this:

Elizabeth Warren unveiled her plan for Medicare for all and it will save TRILLIONS of dollars, putting the money right back in the pockets of hard working Americans. (

⭐ Join our Membership and Support the Channel:
Title: A Note of Caution After This Election Day — And Before the Next
Post by: Surly1 on November 07, 2019, 09:32:32 am
A Note of Caution After This Election Day — And Before the Next (

Today’s Democratic success does not portend tomorrow’s Trumpian failure, because white nationalism has a long winning streak

LOUISVILLE, KY - NOVEMBER 05: Apparent Gov.-elect Andy Beshear celebrates with supporters after voting results showed the Democrat holding a slim lead over Republican Gov. Matt Bevin at C2 Event Venue on November 5, 2019 in Louisville, Kentucky. Bevin, who enjoyed strong support from President Donald Trump, did not concede after results showed Beshear leading 49.2 percent to 48.8 percent, a difference of less than 6,000 votes, with 100 percent of precincts reporting. (Photo by John Sommers II/Getty Images)

Apparent Gov.-elect Andy Beshear celebrates with supporters after voting results showed the Democrat holding a slim lead over Republican Gov. Matt Bevin at C2 Event Venue on November 5, 2019 in Louisville, Kentucky. Bevin, who enjoyed strong support from President Donald Trump, did not concede after results showed Beshear leading 49.2 percent to 48.8 percent, a difference of less than 6,000 votes, with 100 percent of precincts reporting

John Sommers II/Getty Images

Matt Bevin is the villain who gets caught at the beginning of the action movie. He’s the flunky, then henchman, the guy whose demise serves a plot device. He is the assistant bogeyman at best, the loudmouth whom ultimately proves disposable. We don’t know yet what will happen at the end.

That the outspoken and brusque Kentucky governor lost his seat in a narrow defeat to state attorney general Andy Beshear on Election Night is an unabashed good thing. This is the guy who, two years ago, more closely echoed Donald Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville than perhaps any public official and likened the moving of Confederate monuments to the actions of genocidal dictators like Hitler. The president who judged his race as a bellwether for his own popularity even called him a pain before the election. “If you lose, it sends a really bad message,” he told Republicans at a pro-Bevin rally on Monday night. “You can’t let that happen to me.”

Like the GOP and its television network, Fox News, Donald Trump tried to pretend as if Bevin’s loss bore good tidings for the party and for Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, who faces a contentious re-election race against Democratic challenger Amy McGrath next year. But like most everything, Trump may also be wrong about the result being bad for him. It probably doesn’t mean much of anything for 2020. Nor do many of the other positive results nationwide for Democrats.

Do the 2019 Election Results Tell Us Anything About 2020?
Trump Brags About GOP Governor Losing in State He Won by 30 Points

As long as the president still has his cult of personality and is still selling white supremacy, and as long as domestic disenfranchisement is pairing with foreign election interference to silence American voters whom Republicans don’t like, Trump stands a great chance of being re-elected.

Bevin, like many feckless henchmen, lost his job due to his own incompetence. He stubbornly refused to let Kentuckians in on the Medicaid expansion. He signed an unpopular teacher pension law. He meddled with Kentucky’s popular and highly successful health insurance exchange. And he made a host of knuckleheaded mistakes while campaigning. But by combining Trump’s endorsement with a parroted brand of the president’s bigotry in a red state, Bevin came close to winning anyway. Viewed through the lens of 2020, that’s terrifying.

If we look past Trump for one minute, we can see some truly substantive victories for the left on Tuesday night.

The pro-choice Beshear — who, in replacing Bevin, is succeeding his father Steve as Kentucky governor — has vowed to immediately restore the voting rights of 140,000 residents convicted of nonviolent felonies — one of every four black people in the state. Speaking of which, thanks to Florida’s Amendment 4, many citizens returning from incarceration voted in the state for the first time in years, or ever. There are now six state attorneys general who are African American. And seeing progressives sweep four key commonwealth attorney contests in Virginia — in large part because a racial gerrymander is now gone — may have flown under the radar when liberals celebrated a Democratic takeover of its legislature, but promises like Jim Hingeley’s to bring reforms “in the face of mass incarceration” shouldn’t go unnoticed when we’re looking for more progressives in prosecutor roles.

Those are progressive achievements worth recognizing and honoring, but they’re not reasons for the media to predict Trump’s demise. Even more perilously, they’re certainly not reason for the left to engage in self-congratulation or to get complacent about the task ahead. Trump’s presidency is an ongoing national emergency, and it should be treated as such until both the candidate and what he stands for are firmly defeated (and he is removed, physically and otherwise, from office).

Action films are more predictable than elections. It seems premature to consider Bevin’s political demise to have much bearing on what will happen at the end to the archvillain. Still, if there are warning signs for anyone, they are not so much for Trump, but for Democrats. There is the danger of self-congratulation at a moment like this, the temptation to think that they have **** some kind of code. If anything, they should take heed from Bevin’s apparently quixotic struggle to overturn Beshear’s victory.

Kentucky’s Republican Senate president, Robert Stivers, now claims that the legislature should decide the race. And Bevin himself is now asking the state to check the voting machines and absentee ballots after telling his supporters about unspecified election “irregularities.” If Trump were to lose next November, that will likely be more predictive of what we’ll see from the president than any of the tea leaves that folks are reading about this election and what it means for 2020.

Title: It's not Fascism when Republicans Do It? 😉
Post by: AGelbert on November 07, 2019, 12:23:22 pm
"Kentucky’s 🐘 Republican Senate president, ( Robert Stivers, now claims that the legislature should decide ( the race."

No surprise there.

Title: BLACK BEAR NEWS: Bloomberg - Tulsi & 9/11
Post by: AGelbert on November 08, 2019, 11:34:42 pm
BLACK BEAR NEWS: Bloomberg - Tulsi & 9/11
411 views•Nov 8, 2019

Black Bear News
2.45K subscribers

#FridayGasStrike #ExtinctionRebellion #ClimateStrike
#GretaThunberg #ClimateChange #CompassionateDegrowth

Democrats Win Control in Virginia and Claim Narrow Victory in Kentucky Governor’s Race

Bloomberg move underscores Democratic Party panic over 2020 field

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard demands release of documents related to Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11 attacks

Tulsi Gabbard Floats 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

Hijackers in the September 11 attacks

What We Now Know About the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers

Twitter @BlackBearNews1

Support via Paypal:

Support via Square:$RedLlamaMusic

Red Llama Music
PO Box 132
So Pasadena, CA 91031
Category People & Blogs
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on November 10, 2019, 02:11:58 pm

Dear Anthony,

Billionaires are wailing that wealth tax proposals by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are attacks on free-market capitalism ( Warren “vilifies successful people” (,, says Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase.

Rubbish. There are basically only five ways to accumulate a billion dollars, and none of them has to do with being successful in a genuinely free market: Profiting from a monopoly, insider-trading, political payoffs, fraud and large amounts of inherited wealth. (

😈 Jamie Dimon is worth $1.6 billion. That’s not because he succeeded under free-market capitalism. In 2008, the government bailed out JP Morgan and four other giant Wall Street banks because it considered them “too big to fail”.

That bailout is a hidden insurance policy, still in effect, with an estimated value to the big banks of $83 billion a year. If JP Morgan weren’t so big and was therefore allowed to fail, Dimon would be worth far less than $1.6 billion.

Insider trading is endemic in C-suites, too. SEC researchers have found that corporate executives are twice as likely to sell their stock on the days following their own stock buyback announcements as they are in the days leading up to the announcements.

Another way to make a billion is to buy off politicians.

The ( Trump tax cut is estimated to save 🦕 Charles and the late 🦖 David Koch and their Koch Industries an estimated $1 billion to $1.4 billion a year, not counting their tax savings on profits stored offshore and a shrunken estate tax. The Kochs and their affiliated groups spent some $20 million lobbying for the Trump tax cut, including political donations. Not a bad return on investment.

Other billionaires have made their fortunes extorting investors. 🐍 Adam Neumann persuaded JP Morgan, SoftBank and other investors to sink hundreds of millions into WeWork, an office-sharing startup. He used some of the money to buy buildings he leased back to WeWork and to enjoy a lifestyle that included a $60 million private jet. WeWork never made a nickel of profit.

The easiest way to be a billionaire is to get the money from rich parents or relatives. About 60% of all the wealth in America today is inherited, according to estimates by economist Thomas Piketty and his colleagues.

Capitalism doesn’t work well with monopolies, insider-trading, political payoffs, fraud and large amounts of inherited wealth. Billionaires who don’t like Sanders and Warren’s wealth tax plans should at least support reforms that end these anti-capitalist advantages.

Thanks for reading,
Robert Reich

P.S.: If you'd like to support our work, please consider making a donation ( to Inequality Media Civic Action (IMCA)*

Title: Bernie ✨ Rallies in Eastside L.A.
Post by: AGelbert on November 16, 2019, 04:19:52 pm
Bernie ✨ Rallies in Eastside L.A.

Bernie Sanders
251K subscribers

END THE GREED: Together we will take on the powerful special interests that control our political and economic life and transform our government into one that works for all people, not just the top 1 percent. Join me now in Eastside LA:

Category News & Politics
Title: "When the military intervenes, Jorge, in my view, that’s called a ‘coup.’ ”" -- Bernie Sanders
Post by: AGelbert on November 19, 2019, 02:08:15 pm

Bernie Sanders' Stance 👍 on Bolivia Matters  (

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks during a presidential forum hosted by Univision in Long Beach, Calif., on Saturday. (Chris Carlson / AP)

Toward the end of Saturday night’s Democratic forum hosted by the Spanish language network Univision, moderator Jorge Ramos posed what can charitably be called a leading question to 2020 hopeful Bernie Sanders. Ramos, who cemented his place in the public consciousness when then-candidate Donald Trump had him tossed from a news conference in 2015, noted that Sanders had called the overthrow of Bolivian President Evo Morales a “coup,” but that others maintain that Morales was attempting to become a dictator. So what does Sanders think?

In a Democratic field that seems to grow more crowded by the month if not the week, the Vermont senator’s answer was nothing short of revelatory. “I don’t agree with that assertion,” he said. “I think Morales did a very good job in alleviating poverty and giving the indigenous people of Bolivia a voice that they never had before. Now we can argue about his going for a fourth term, whether that was a wise thing to do. … But at the end of the day, it was the military who intervened in that process and asked him to leave. When the military intervenes, Jorge, in my view, that’s called a ‘coup.’ ”

Since Morales’ forced resignation, the response of leading Democrats and presidential hopefuls has been one of almost total silence, even among the party’s putative progressives. As video emerged of right-wing protesters burning the flag of the indigenous Wiphala and pro-coup police officers gleefully cutting it off their uniforms, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., declined to comment publicly despite the gruesome precedent in the region. (She has since issued a tepid tweet calling on Bolivian security forces to “protect demonstrators, not commit violence against them.”) The same can be said of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, who has made opposition to U.S. regime change the centerpiece of her campaign, although her anti-imperialism has always been questionable at best. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., an outspoken critic of the U.S.-backed Saudi war in Yemen, could only muster the following on social media:

The drama isn’t just in Washington today. Unrest is growing in Latin America, and the Trump Administration needs to pay attention.

In Bolivia, the U.S. needs to support a civilian-led transition of power at a perilous moment. We can’t botch this like we did Venezuela.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 13, 2019

Given that the U.S. has repeatedly backed coup attempts in Venezuela, most recently throwing its support behind President of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó, the last line of that tweet seems confusing at best and ominous at worst. What, after all, is the United States’ to botch? By contrast, British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn instantly condemned Morales’ removal from office as an assault on “democracy, social justice and independence.” Both Trump and Prime Minister Boris Jonson have officially recognized Bolivia’s interim government.

In the week since, the crisis in Bolivia has grown increasingly deadly. The Bolivian military has slaughtered dozens of demonstrators, and over the past two days, hand-picked president, Jeanine Áñez, has issued a pair of disturbing edicts. The first is that the Bolivian military will not be prosecuted for crimes committed in the suppression of protests, providing it with what members of the socialist MAS party are calling a “license to kill”; the second is the creation of a “special government apparatus” to detain MAS lawmakers, who constitute a two-thirds majority in the Bolivian legislature. Meanwhile, Argentinian journalists have been chased from the country under the threat of violence.

Ánez, whose deceptively named Democratic Social Movement Party won just 4.2% of the vote in the October elections, has called a New Year’s celebration of the Aymara people “satanic” and has referred to Morales as a “pobre indio” (a poor Indian). Upon assuming office, she declared that “La Biblia vuelve al palacio” (“the Bible has returned to the presidential palace”), bearing an oversize scripture to re-enforce the point. The New York Times notes that she has made her speeches “shadowed by an aide carrying a cross.”

None of this absolves Morales of his apparent illiberalism or real missteps in office. As his critics in Western media eagerly observe, he narrowly lost a 2016 referendum to determine his eligibility for a fourth term, receiving approval instead from his country’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice. Along similar lines, the U.S.-backed Organization of American States has reported irregularities in 2019’s presidential elections, although those remain in dispute. As “Empire’s Workshop” author and Latin American historian Greg Grandin recently wrote, “there has never been a coup in Latin America where the president being overthrown wasn’t considered ‘problematic.’ (Yes, not even [Salvador] Allende.)” Indeed, The Economist blamed the Chilean president directly for Augusto Pinochet’s seizure of power in 1973.

It seems telling, then, that the military asked Morales to resign after he agreed—likely under duress—to a second election. And while the current Secretary General of OAS Luis Almagro will not, former Secretary General José Miguel Insulza has said that Bolivia’s democratic interregnum meets the political definition of “un golpe” (a coup).

So why can’t Democrats do the same? Whether the Trump administration is directly responsible for Morales’ overthrow or the U.S. is merely the passive beneficiary of a new market-friendly and increasingly Christofascist regime is, ultimately, beside the point. (A passing familiarity with Bolivian history or Operation Condor more broadly point to the former, to say nothing of the attempts in Venezuela earlier this year, although I am loath to speculate.) Any presidential candidate who claims to represent workers and marginalized communities, who even nominally opposes U.S. imperialism, should be able to identify a coup as such. If they can’t, why should we trust them to implement a just and holistic foreign policy?

It’s a basic test that the party has, to date, failed miserably—one that not only illuminates the threat Sanders 👍 poses to ( America’s two-party duopoly but renders absurd the notion that he shares the politics of Warren or any other 2020 contender.
Title: "Republicans, and even some Democrats, are out to scare you about Medicare for All.
Post by: AGelbert on November 20, 2019, 12:58:59 pm

Robert Reich✨: 👍  "Republicans, and even some Democrats, are out to scare you about Medicare for All. They say it’s going to dismantle health care as we know it and it will cost way too much. Rubbish.

If you’re a typical American, you're already paying far more for health insurance than citizens in any other advanced country. And you’re not getting your money’s worth. The United States ranks near the bottom for life span and infant mortality. Or maybe you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance coverage at all.

Any Medicare for All is better than our present system.

But true Medicare for All is far better because it’s based on the simple and proven idea that we shouldn’t be paying private for-profit corporate insurers boatloads of money to get the insurance we need.

It’s time for true Medicare for All.
" (
Title: While others may defer to the rich, Bernie won’t, and I believe he’ll improve the quality of life fo
Post by: AGelbert on November 21, 2019, 02:19:08 pm
Ann Bley 👍

The tragedy for our country is that it has taken 3 years to bring this traitor down, and it is still likely that the senate will exonerate him. The mandate for We the People is to vote 🦀 Trump and every 🐘 Republican out of office November 2020.

I vote Progressive and support Bernie Sanders. Even Joe Biden concedes it’s time for us to take America back, and return our country to the people.

The momentum is there to shift America towards focusing on repairing 40+ years of rule by billionaire oligarchs and corporations.

While others may defer to the rich, Bernie won’t, and I believe he’ll improve the quality of life for all of us, giving U.S. Medicare for all, a Green New Deal, a real social safety net, and worker rights and protections. (


Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on November 22, 2019, 10:31:16 pm
Title: He was also involved in killing the so-called “public option” from the Affordable Care Act.
Post by: AGelbert on November 23, 2019, 01:52:10 pm

November 23, 2019 9:28 AM  Wendell Potter (

Who’s behind the massive disinformation campaign to kill Medicare for All?

Who’s behind the massive disinformation campaign to kill Medicare for All?

It’s not just the greedy insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Recent reporting shows that the for-profit hospital industry is just as concerned about protecting their investors’ profits―effectively putting the incomes of the rich over the health of the American people.[1]

And the man behind this propaganda campaign has a long history with both the insurance and for-profit hospital industry. 😈 Chip Kahn, CEO  ( the Federation of American Hospitals, is best known for the “Harry and Louise” commercials in the 1990s that helped sink the Clinton health care reform effort.

😈 Chip Kahn

He was also involved in killing the so-called “public option” from the Affordable Care Act.

I’ve known Chip for years. Back when I was part of communications efforts of the health insurance industry, Chip was the head of the Health Insurance Association of America. Now, he’s switched from for-profit insurance to for-profit hospitals. But he’s singing the same  ( tune.

In his new role, Chip has taken credit for the creation of the dark-money group, the ( Partnership for Americans Health Care Future (, whose membership boasts dozens of health insurance, pharmaceutical and investor-owned for-profit hospitals who are funding the anti-Medicare for All campaign.

As you read this, the Partnership is running attack ads on Facebook targeting Medicare for All in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They are trying to scare Democratic voters toward supporting candidates who do not back full-blown Medicare for All.

We know Chip's strategy of fearmongering. And we must defeat it in order to pass Medicare for All NOW!

Wendell Potter

( Medicare for All NOW! (

[1] “Documents Reveal Hospital Industry is Leading Fight Against Medicare for All,” ( The Intercept, Oct. 15, 2019
Title: 🐘 Republicans 😈 Game the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America to "win" elections
Post by: AGelbert on November 26, 2019, 05:43:48 pm
The top-level results compare urban (or “metropolitan”) counties — NCHS’s categories one through four — with rural (or “non-metropolitan”) counties, categories five and six. They deal a devastating blow to the urban versus rural thesis.


📢 Politics Is Not Rural vs. Urban, and Here’s the Data to Prove It

Within each of the 11 “nations” of the U.S., rural and urban voters actually behave very similarly—but very differently from voters in other regional cultures

By Colin Woodard 👍 Nov 8, 2017 · 9 min read


I don’t disagree that the United States is in crisis, with fissures breaking apart our facade of national unity and revealing structural weaknesses of the republic. Our federation — and, therefore, the world — is in peril, and the stakes are enormous. As the author of American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, however, I strongly disagree with the now-conventional narrative that what ultimately divides us is the difference between metropolitan and provincial life. The real divide is between regional cultures — an argument I fleshed out at the outset of this series—as it always has been. And I now have the data to demonstrate it. ... ...

That’s not to say that rural, suburban, and urban voters have the same political priorities — they absolutely do not, whether one lives in Thailand, the United Kingdom, or Colorado. But the differences between them are a secondary factor after deeper, wider cultural forces: the shared customs, beliefs, values, underlying assumptions, symbols, and stories that define and sustain the idea of being Thai or British or Far Western. ... ...

Nor are cities reliable bastions of Democratic support. The core counties of major metropolitan areas, like Phoenix, Jacksonville, and Virginia Beach — and lots of smaller ones, like Boise, Chattanooga, Corpus Christi, Mobile, Knoxville, Pensacola, Tulsa, and Wichita — voted Republican in every one of the past five presidential elections. ... ...

Far from voting alike, all but the very largest cities behave like the regional culture they belong to.

Listen to or read full article:

Agelbert NOTE: I think Colin Woodward is right.

The 😈 Republicans figured that out a long time ago. That is why the following map correlates so well ( with the one above.


The stark urban-rural divide in the country is to be found almost exclusively in the Midlands, where it has a disproportionate 🐘 effect 😈 on the Electoral College, as that region straddles several historic swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri among them.

Full article: (
Title: Ocasio-Cortez Raised More Money Than Any Other House Democrat in Third Quarter
Post by: AGelbert on November 27, 2019, 04:15:12 pm
( Ocasio-Cortez Raised More Money Than Any Other House Democrat in Third Quarter (

November 27, 2019


While many try to belittle a progressive agenda that centers working people & the public good, in truth it’s more powerful than ever.

I haven’t picked up a phone once this year to dial for dollars, & I don’t meet w/ corp lobbyists.

That is the power of your grassroots support.  (

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 27, 2019

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised more money for re-election than any other House Democrat in the third quarter of 2019 -- a testament to grassroots fundraising over schmoozing with corporate lobbyists and wealthy executives. Approximately $1.1 million of the $1.42 million Ocasio-Cortez raised in the third quarter came from donations under $200.

Read the Article → (
Title: Bernie Sanders ✨ Surges in Latest Polls
Post by: AGelbert on November 28, 2019, 03:48:00 pm
NOV 27, 2019 NEWS

Bernie Sanders ✨ Surges in Latest Polls (

By Jon Queally  — New findings indicate that the Vermont senator has pulled ahead in New Hampshire and is closing the gap between him and Joe Biden nationally. ... ...

Notably, as CNN points out, Sanders enjoys the trust of most voters when it comes to the key issues of the climate crisis and healthcare:
On health care, 28% say Sanders—an advocate of “Medicare for All” and the elimination of private health insurance—would best handle the issue. That’s about even with the 26% who choose Biden, who has argued against moving to a completely government-run system. Another 19% say they prefer Warren’s approach, which ultimately results in government health coverage for all, while 7% choose Buttigieg, and no other candidate has the backing of more than 3% on the issue.

Sanders leads the way more clearly on handling the climate crisis: 27% favor his approach, followed by 21% who prefer Biden and 15% Warren.

Read more ( (

Agelbert NOTE: Charlotte Ruse tells it like it is!

Charlotte Ruse
Of course Bernie is surging--checkout is campaign rallies on YouTube (since they never appear on mainstream media news) you'll always see thousands showing up passionately in support of Bernie's platform. It's really a diverse group of supporters it's NOT just the young. The audience is packed with college kids, millennials, baby boomers, and minorities. Working-class people of all ages want real change. Bernie's platform focuses on critical economic issues tormenting millions in the US: healthcare, affordable housing, student debt, medical debt, climate change, prison reform, and political corruption, etc...

Eighty percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck most don't have $400.00 to pay for an unexpected emergency and 87 million lack adequate access to healthcare. The government can keep pissing away money on more needless wars or millions can organize in a grassroots movement and demand that tax dollars being stolen by war profiteers should be reallocated to the rebuilding of the US infrastructure. Bernie 20/20

Charlotte Ruse
The record stock prices touted by Trump are, in fact, a measure of the increased economic exploitation that has produced the fall in life expectancy among workers."

For decades enormous wealth has been transferred to a tiny percentage of the US population. It's a simple equation-- owners and investors profit through worker exploitation. In other words, one person gains through another person's losses. That's really what the stock market represents. High dividends means LOW wages for the working-class. To accelerate profits industries must eliminate jobs, suppress wage growth, robotize manufacturing plants, or find wage slaves in other countries.

"Real average wages in the US (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers."

Towns that were once thriving communities look like an apocalypse movie set. This is especially the case for deindustrialized towns in the midwest like Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as parts of the south like
West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, and Tennessee. While the "affluent" coastal states are inundated with thousands of homeless. If the homeless are lucky they're sleeping in their cars rather than in cardboard crates or a tattered tents. Their cars have become their "official residence." They sleep in their car and then drive to a full-time low-paying job and then drive back to their "homeless community parking-lot."

Three people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the entire US population. "The three richest individuals—Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos—collectively hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of the domestic population, a total of 160 million people or 63 million American households. Roughly a fifth of Americans have ZERO or negative net worth."

Warren Buffett, takes great pleasure in f--king over the poor. His company Clayton Homes operates the two biggest mobile home lenders, 21st Mortgage Corporation along with Vanderbilt Mortgage. Clayton finances more mobile home loans than any other lender by a factor of more than seven. CultureBanx noted that in 2105, 72% of black borrowers got their loans from Clayton’s Vanderbilt Mortgage and 21st Mortgage. To put it simply Buffett capitalizes on trailer debt. Once the unsuspecting desperate poor get sucked into these loans their indebted for the rest of their lives.

It should be noted, Invitation Homes owned by the Blackstone Group is even more predatory than Buffett's enterprise they've thrown millions out of their homes. If you have a chance read "Homewreckers" by Glantz. Oh, by the way the Blackstone Group posted a profit of $779.4 million, or $1.15 a share, compared with $442.7 million, or 64 cents a share, in the same period a year earlier. The value of Blackstone's main private-equity portfolio rose by 2.6% sequentially during the quarter.

Psychopathic Anthony H. Cordesman of the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies has the audacity to say that: "The US does not face any foreign threat as serious as its failure to come to grips with… the rise in the cost of federal entitlement spending.”

I would say, the greatest threat to the US is its hyper-militarism compounded by its political corruption inevitably leading to its own SELF-DESTRUCTION.
Title: Here's what a Sanders Presidency (with a supporting Congress) would bring to the USA
Post by: AGelbert on November 30, 2019, 02:50:08 pm

( Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds ( ( - In her study, Dr. Mutz sought to answer two questions: Is there evidence to support the economic anxiety argument, and did the fear of losing social dominance drive some voters to Mr. Trump? To find …

Read more Doomstead Diner Daily 11/30/19 ( ( (

I see the NYT is going to repeat, repeat, repeat the scaremongering about "Trump supporters" (hidden message: Trump supporters = whites ;)) "losing status" until most Americans believe that society dividing and destroying propaganda, thereby enabling Trump's total FASCIST takeover of the USA. It just might work. I'm praying it won't.

Here's what a Sanders Presidency (with a supporting Congress) would bring ( to the USA, something the NYT flat refuses to repeat, repeat, repeat, which it should repeat, repeat, repeat, but won't because it would put the LIE to that "whites losing status" propaganda they plan to repeat, repeat, repeat until we are all convinced it's "okay" to support ( Trump's xenophobia and cruel, murderous racism:


This web site has a 100% Renewable Energy Plan by 2050 for every country on Earth, plus plans for cities and US states.  (
Check your state or city out if you have the chance. (
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on November 30, 2019, 03:30:49 pm
Am finding the relentless pro-impeachment optimism of Bill Palmer and his menagerie increasingly hard to take.

Impeachment of Trump based on the evidence is necessary, is required for no better reason than it is the morally right thing to do.

Removal is impossible going in, because, as polls show, half the country is immune to and indifferent in the face of evidence. Not only do they not care, they don't want to hear it.

We have to share a country with THESE worthies.


Why? Unless you believe the percentage of people in the USA with the views of those pictured (two poor propagandized people that cannot be taken seriously because they probably do not speak a word of Russian) is above 20% (I'm being generous here. ;D), Palmer's posts look less like hopium than the bizarro land unreality clinging expectations of Trump supporters.

HALF the people in the USA, if the polls are to be believed, have had their belly full of 🦀 Fascist Trump. That is equivalent to a doom drum roll for Trump and his Wrecking Crew, no matter how many corrupt lackey politicians want to keep him there.

Remember that less than 30% supported the original American Revolution. Trump and his wrecking crew pretend otherwise, but they are sweating bullets 24/7. ( They have excellent reasons to 🦍 bet the fascist farm on destroying any remaining vestiges of democracy in this country ( BECAUSE, if they don't, they are OUT, with many of them headed for being prosecuted for all sorts of crimes afterwards.

It's not just Trump that half the country wants to impeach AND remove from corrupt, criminal political influence; it's the ENTIRE biosphere destroying ( elite dominating US politics! (

And, I'll wager a LOT MORE than half the country is in that camp.   

All that said, if your actual premise is unrelated to the picture you posted, but is based on the fact that the 👹💵🎩 Democratic Party Leadership would rather ensure 🦀 Trump stays in totally Fascist office rather than support a Sanders Presidency, then I would agree with you. Palmer, a worshipper of all things 🎩 Pelosi, does not get the FASCIST danger the Democratic Party, which gave us a Trump Presidency (see: 🐍 Obama's Bankster Bailout) in the first place, continues to pose for the USA.

The only way Trump goes is if the DLC is steamrolled by Sanders. 😈 Obama, the Wall Street Lackey, has already made it crystal clear that he will fight Sanders tooth and nail.

So, yeah, if the corrupt bastards like 🐍 Obama are successful, a Sanders Presidency may very well be mission impossible. 😟

Even so, I am totally convinced that if Sanders does not become POTUS, the outcome on the right of the following graphic is guaranteed. On the other hand, If Sanders DOES become POTUS, it may happen anyway, but at least a Sanders Presidency gives us a fighting chance. ( If Trump does not go away, it is GAME OVER in many, many more ways than one.


Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: Surly1 on December 03, 2019, 08:49:02 am

HALF the people in the USA, if the polls are to be believed, have had their belly full of 🦀 Fascist Trump. That is equivalent to a doom drum roll for Trump and his Wrecking Crew, no matter how many corrupt lackey politicians want to keep him there.

Remember that less than 30% supported the original American Revolution. Trump and his wrecking crew pretend otherwise, but they are sweating bullets 24/7.

That logic cuts both ways. I read "the Tipping point" when it came out as well.

Several weeks of televised hearings failed to move the needle of public opinion a single jot or tittle. And today the House announces its statement that trump did nothing wrong, further lashing themselves to Cult 45. Ensuring the victory of Party over Country.

From his pertain hell, Roger Ailes's rotting hand can ben seen on the throats of the American electorate. Fox News exists to ensure that what happened to Nixon may never happen again.

Dare I say, "Mission Accomplished?"

Title: Fox News Mission Accomplished?
Post by: AGelbert on December 03, 2019, 01:31:25 pm

HALF the people in the USA, if the polls are to be believed, have had their belly full of 🦀 Fascist Trump. That is equivalent to a doom drum roll for Trump and his Wrecking Crew, no matter how many corrupt lackey politicians want to keep him there.

Remember that less than 30% supported the original American Revolution. Trump and his wrecking crew pretend otherwise, but they are sweating bullets 24/7.

That logic cuts both ways. I read "the Tipping point" when it came out as well.

Several weeks of televised hearings failed to move the needle of public opinion a single jot or tittle. And today the House announces its statement that trump did nothing wrong, further lashing themselves to Cult 45. Ensuring the victory of Party over Country.

From his pertain hell, Roger Ailes's rotting hand can ben seen on the throats of the American electorate. Fox News exists to ensure that what happened to Nixon may never happen again.

Dare I say, "Mission Accomplished?"



The Republicans in the House may claim "Trump did nothing wrong", but the majority of the members of the House continue to think otherwise. Only in the Fox News bizarro world is the Impeachement of a 🦀 POTUS by the House of Representatives, though subsequently acquitted by the Senate, "good news" for the political future of said 🦀 POTUS. Fox News can go full Orwell and claim Trump's Impeachment by the House "so polarizes the nation with the unfair Trump witch hunt that people will turn out in droves to give him a second term". That "poor victimized Trump" dog will not hunt, even though it is 😈 par for the psychological projection course in Trumpian politics.

Fox news will, of course, continue to do what they do to normalize Trump's fascist tyranny. The New York times "Ministry of Truth" (See "1984" by George Orwell), CNN, etc. will also play their accustomed roll of pretending to be opposed to Government by, of and for the 1% (

A certain percentage of bought and paid for corporate Democrats, like Obama and Pelosi, will do all they can to keep a serious challenger to Trump's abuse of power rampage from being the Democratic Presidential candidate. The NYT, CNN, ABC, etc. will dutifully report on the Democratic Party hand wringing and pearl clutching about the "danger" of "Socialist policies" to the US economy.

The fascist media may think, because of "statistically insignificant" ;) changes in the impeachment polls, that through 😈 clever perception management mendacity, they enabled the 🎩👹 1% Oligarchs to dodge the consequences of half the electorate being disgusted with ( Trump and his wrecking crew. If Trump's only impeachable offense was lying to Congress about an affair (e.g. Clinton), I would agree, considering that the highest pro-impeachment numbers Clinton got to was 29% (even without impeachment hearings, 30% of the electorate wanted to impeach Bush and 33% wanted to impeach Obama) ( But that half of the electorate that wants Trump out shares a lot of reasons for wanting him out with a large percentage of the other half, that still support him out of greedy and/or pseudo-religious convenience. That logic is sound and cuts only one, damaging to Trump's political future, way.

Here's the short list (there are a lot more) of reasons, many of them technically not "impeachable offenses", but still constituting a political death sentence, why FAR greater than half the electorate will not vote to keep Trump in office, or support any Republican that acquits him in the Senate Impeachment Trial:

( -->(

Fox News Mission Accomplished?

Title: Your Life Is On The Line In the 2020 Election
Post by: AGelbert on December 03, 2019, 07:13:11 pm
Your Life Is On The Line In the 2020 Election
4,746 views•Nov 29, 2019

Thom Hartmann Program
199K subscribers

The next election could determine not only if we still have a democracy but also puts many Americans very lives at stake.
🔴 Subscribe for more clips like this:

⭐ Join our Membership and Support the Channel:

Title: Lobbyist helped Ohio legislator on newspaper column opposing "Medicare for All"
Post by: AGelbert on December 04, 2019, 12:05:39 pm

December 3, 2019

Headline: Lobbyist helped Ohio legislator on newspaper column opposing "Medicare for All"

Senator Bernie Sanders weighed-in on Twitter, sharing The Washington Post piece:

Our team at Medicare for All NOW! uncovered these examples of industry-crafted talking points under the bylines of state elected officials in an attempt to manipulate the public.

As a former executive at the big for-profit health insurers Humana and Cigna, Wendell Potter ( knows the greedy health care industry’s decades-old playbook―used previously by Big Tobacco and the NRA―being used now to try and kill Medicare for All.

We’re working to expose the health care industry’s secret efforts to protect their profits!

This reporting was due to Medicare for All NOW! issuing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests of various state lawmakers, confirming what we suspected. They were parroting health care industry talking points because their op-eds were actually written by the for-profit health care industry.

Medicare for All NOW! was founded to fight back against lobbyist efforts to kill health care reform. We’re here to represent the American people, not greedy corporations that put their financial bottom line ahead of our health.


Title: The way to change the minds that can be changed is to pick a scandal that resonates and just keep p
Post by: AGelbert on December 07, 2019, 06:03:37 pm
( House Democrats have finally c r a c k e d the code against ( Donald Trump
Bill Palmer | 7:15 pm EST December 4, 2019
Palmer Report » Analysis

Today’s televised House impeachment hearing wasn’t exactly blockbuster in nature. The witnesses consisted of multiple legal experts explaining why Donald Trump’s Ukraine antics were criminal and impeachable in nature, and one Trump apologist who made a fool of himself by misrepresenting what the Constitution says. The hearing wasn’t exactly anything to write home about on its own – but that’s the whole point.

Today’s hearings ensured that the mainstream media headlines for the rest of week will all have some combination of the words “Donald Trump” and “Ukraine” and “scandal” and “impeachment” in them. Just as the previous televised hearings ensured that those same words dominated the headlines during their respective weeks. The thing is, you see, the Democrats have finally c r a c k e d the code – by learning from the Republicans.

If you want a scandal to stick to a politician in the eyes of the nonpartisan general public, the key is repetition. You pick a scandal and you just keep hammering it home, until the average American associates that politician with that scandal. House Republicans did it to Hillary Clinton by hammering email and Benghazi over and over again, until the public was so fixated on these scandals, the media decided to keep running with them, because they were great for ratings. It didn’t matter that they were fake scandals; it just mattered that they were confusing scandals that left the average nonpartisan American with the impression that Hillary must have been doing some shady stuff with regard to email and Benghazi. Nevermind that she ended up being fully exonerated in the end.

House Democrats have chosen a Donald Trump scandal that’s very real, and very criminal, and very impeachable, in the form of his Ukraine extortion plot.


That’s because the Democrats are the good guys, and because their own constituents wouldn’t allow them to run with a fake scandal, and because Trump is such a criminal that no one would ever need to make up a fake scandal about him anyway. But the bottom line is that they picked a scandal that resonates with mainstream Americans, and they’re hammering it over and over and over again.

This isn’t for the sake of the Resistance, who will line up to vote against Donald Trump in 2020 anyway. Nor is this for the sake of Trump’s base, who will line up to vote for him. This for two other groups:

1) Those who somewhat dislike Trump and could either end up voting against him or staying home, and

2) Those who somewhat like Trump and could either end up voting for him or staying home.

These two groups pay the least amount of first-hand attention to politics, and are thus the most swayed by whatever they repeatedly hear second-hand.

There are dozens of major Donald Trump scandals, and some of them are arguably even worse than his Ukraine scandal. But the House Democrats can’t turn those two middle groups against him by simply pushing the generic mantra that “Trump is bad,” or by pushing a laundry list that gets lost in the noise, or by focusing on a scandal that for whatever reason just doesn’t resonate. The way to change the minds that can be changed is to pick a scandal that resonates and just keep pushing it, until it’s the first thing the voters in the middle think of when they think of that politician. House Democrats have finally c r a c k e d the code against Donald Trump. Now they just have to keep hammering away at it. (
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on December 07, 2019, 07:18:39 pm
Title: "From the bottom of my heart I hope that the US are able to stop this nightmare."
Post by: AGelbert on December 07, 2019, 09:46:13 pm
Heidrun Vyskocil 👍

I'm from Germany - born in the 60ies. I often asked myself since I was a teenager: How was someone like Hitler and the holocaust possible? It is very disturbing to see the similarties between Trump and Hitler, the way, they came to power, the narcism, the people, who support them, the propaganda machine and so on..... From the bottom of my heart I hope that the US are able to stop this nightmare. If not, there will be not so much hope for the rest of the free world and the future of our planet.

Associated article: 🕯️

Kasparov sees ( Trump as a potential harbinger of a coming deadly Winter (
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on December 11, 2019, 01:41:12 pm

December 10 2019, 4:34 p.m.

By Micah Uetricht


Many people have pointed out the irony that Buttigieg praised Sanders, when he is now running concertedly against the leftward pull that Sanders is helping effect in American politics. But if you read the essay closely, it comes off as less of an anomaly and more a reflection of the Mayor Pete we have come to know on the 2020 campaign trail.

Full article:  (

In 2000, Pete Buttigieg Wrote an Essay Praising Bernie Sanders. What, Exactly, Did He Admire? ( (

Agelbert NOTE: Pete Buttigieg EQUALS   ( 🎩  (

Title: 64% of Americans ARE either worse off financially or no better financially than they were in 2016
Post by: AGelbert on December 12, 2019, 11:01:53 pm
In even worse news for ( Trump, 64% of Americans said they were currently either worse off financially or no better financially than they were back in 2016. There was even a decent-sized minority of respondents – 18% – who weren’t even aware that the stock market’s been going up and thought it decreased.

James Sullivan | 6:00 pm EST December 12, 2019
Palmer Report » Analysis


Donald Trump has a whole new 2020 problem (

Title: Winning the 2020 Election: Robert Reich and Ro Khanna
Post by: AGelbert on December 22, 2019, 02:25:25 pm
Winning the 2020 Election: Robert Reich and Ro Khanna

24,772 views•Dec 13, 2019

Agelbert NOTE: YouTube is playing games (on behalf of the Capitalist/Fascist corrupt, middle class and poor crushing status quo) to keep you from seeing this excellent video. Right click on the video image below, copy the video URL and paste in a new window or tab to see the video. By doing this, you will help frustrate the DINO sneaky, crooked, low down efforts to prevent a Bernie Sanders VICTORY in 2020. (   (     (

Robert Reich
173K subscribers

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Congressman Ro Khanna discuss how a progressive nominee can win in 2020, how to get progressive policies enacted in Congress, and how big money will affect the upcoming election.

Category News & Politics

Title: The Last Democratic Debate And The Future Of The Democratic Party
Post by: AGelbert on December 23, 2019, 08:32:55 pm
The Last Democratic Debate And The Future Of The Democratic Party

December 23, 2019

Last week's debate didn't connect with viewers or mobilize the base.(
Title: Sanders Polling Surge Forces Democratic Establishment to Take Him Seriously
Post by: AGelbert on December 26, 2019, 04:35:33 pm

Sanders ✨ Polling Surge Forces 💵🎩👹 Democratic Establishment to Take Him Seriously

December 26, 2019


Sen. Bernie Sanders's recent surge in national and early state polls and his enthusiastic progressive base have reportedly forced some within the Democratic establishment to concede that he could ultimately win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Read the Article → ( (
Title: How Would Warren & Sanders Pay For A 🌞 Green New Deal❓
Post by: AGelbert on December 28, 2019, 01:51:31 pm
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie. (!/)

How Would Warren & Sanders Pay For A 🌞 Green New Deal? (

December 27th, 2019 by Carolyn Fortuna

In a recent CleanTechnica article, I wrote about Elizabeth Warren’s plan for defeating the climate crisis and transitioning the US economy to run on 100% clean energy. She stated explicitly that her plan to pay for a Green New Deal would require big, structural changes and would arise from $10.7 trillion in federal and non-federal funding. What are the financing tools Warren intends to tap to unlock state, local, and private investment? How would she direct it towards meaningful investments to mitigate climate change, produce jobs, and reduce inequality?


And what about other plans out there for a national switch to clean energy? What does Bernie Sanders, for example, outline for funding ideas? Let’s survey these prominent and provocative voices today in the clean energy movement and see their fiscal visions for carbon-free power and 100% renewable energy.

How Warren Would 💵 Pay for a US Switch to Clean Energy

The transition to clean energy is “an opportunity to transform our economy, creating new industries, like in zero-emissions building construction, and greatly expanding others, like electric vehicle manufacturing,” Warren says. She argues that the transition creates “huge opportunities” for state, local and non-federal investment in the process.

A Warren administration would create new financing tools to unlock state, local, and private investment. She is firm that these investments to tackle climate change, produce jobs, and reduce inequality will flow to the “right places” — not just the wealthy and well-connected.

Okay, Senator Warren, how would you pay for it?

A Green Bank: A Green Bank, aka the National Climate Bank Act, could mobilize $1 trillion in climate and green infrastructure investments across the country over 30 years. She says it would:
open up new markets for greater investment by working alongside existing federal authorities through direct spending, grants, and loans
provide security for investors looking for climate-friendly investments in mid- to large-scale infrastructure projects
increase the overall scale of clean energy investment and the pace of substitution of clean energy technologies for fossil-fuel based technologies
protect consumers by keeping energy prices low and ensuring compliance with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s regulations
expand opportunities for communities and the private sector by directing funds toward communities on the front lines of the climate crisis that have traditionally been left out of investment opportunities

A September report from the New York-based Coalition for Green Capital ( found that such a bank could mobilize up to $1 trillion of investment over 30 years. The bank would recycle its capital, lending the same dollars repeatedly as loans are paid back and the funds re-used.

Fourteen states, including Michigan, New York, and Hawaii already have such banks, and other cities and counties have explored their own. Washington, DC, for example, approved one in 2018 and Baltimore’s Climate Access Fund ( seeks to help low-income and minority residents access more expensive solar energy. Small focus target investment on a local basis, and the national version would help mobilize investment on a required and faster scale.

Green Victory Bonds: Much like current state programs for land use projects, river and habitat preservation, and energy and water infrastructure, green bonds have also surged in popularity worldwide, with sales growing 46% last year to a total of about $460 billion. A lot like the World War II-era “Victory Bond” program, Green Victory Bonds would be sold at levels that allow Americans across the socioeconomic spectrum the opportunity to “own a piece of the climate solution and to benefit from the new green economy that we build together.”

Sanders on How to 💵 Pay for a Green New Deal

Embedded in many of Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposals for attacking the climate crisis are financing plans. Here are some of his fiscal visions that would usher in a Green New Deal.

Green Climate Fund: Sanders’ plan to halt the climate crisis centers on US investment of $200 billion in the Green Climate Fund (GCF) for the equitable transfer of renewable technologies, climate adaptation, and assistance in adopting sustainable energies. Since approving its first project in November, 2015, the GCF has grown to become the world’s largest climate finance fund through its readiness in 129 countries, including allocation of over $5.6 billion of its funding to build a project portfolio of over $20.6 billion. It is playing a key role in supporting the implementation of intended nationally determined contributions (NDCs), driving a shift to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and supporting action to adapt to the impacts of climate change in developing countries.

Significant US Military Reductions: While Warren’s plan alludes to decreasing military funding in order to pay for a Green New Deal — “We’ll pay for this with savings from my plan to transition the 🦍 military away from its dependence on 🦕🦖 fossil fuels and other internal 🦍 Department of Defense funding shifts, she says” —  Sanders is much more explicit ( about redirecting military funds to mitigating the climate crisis. ( (


He says that the major industrialized nations spend trillions of dollars “on misguided wars and weapons of mass destruction,” He proposes to combat the climate crisis by recognizing that the Pentagon is the largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases in the world and that the US spends $81 billion annually to protect oil supplies and transport routes. “We are uniquely positioned,” Sanders explains, “to lead the planet in a wholesale shift away from ( militarism.” (

End Overseas 🦕👹🦖 Fossil Fuel Financing: The US federal government currently supports investments in fossil fuels through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, OPIC, the Export-Import Bank, and other multilateral institutions. These international investments are inconsistent with a goal to curb the global climate crisis, and Sanders says these “must end.” His administration would lead these international financial institutions, instead, toward advancing the equitable adoption of sustainable energy across the planet. (

“Butterfly amidst Blooms,” by Carolyn Fortuna, CleanTechnica

By redirecting money from these and other sources like income taxes from 20 million new jobs, taxes on fossil fuels, and selling power via federal power marketing authorities, 🦅 Sanders will establish a Climate Justice Resiliency Fund. Funded at $40 billion, the EPA, together with a number of other agencies, would conduct a nationwide survey to identify areas with high climate impact vulnerabilities and other socioeconomic factors, public health challenges, and environmental hazards. Each community will then be eligible for Climate Justice Resiliency funding in order of most vulnerable to least vulnerable.


Final Thoughts

The US is not alone in its quest to use financing to make the switch to clean energy a reality. A recent article in the Washington Post pointed out that the EU’s biggest climate weapon lies in the financial fine print. The EU is embedding environmental goals in standards for banks, money managers, and insurers, it seems, in the hope of directing trillions of euros to fund a radical revision of the region’s economy. Like most of the US Democratic field of candidates, the EU is committed to meeting the targets of the Paris Agreement. Some of the EU’s money management strategies are pointing toward:

֍ Disclosing how they incorporate sustainability factors into investment decisions
֍ Setting up low-carbon benchmarks, like indexes created to track companies with a low carbon footprint, to steer funds to environmentally friendly investments
֍ Lowering capital requirements to encourage green lending
֍ Scrutinizing the environmental risks that remain on balance sheets and possibly imposing extra capital demands to offset possible losses
֍ Assessing environmental risks facing borrowers before they lend

So there’s a lot about which to think when considering the funding necessary for climate action. In the next part of this series, we’ll look at the other Democratic presidential contenders — as well as a few insightful researchers and economists  — and review their plans to fund climate action. Stay tuned. (

( Agelbert NOTE: I trust Sanders, a consistent advocate of reducing military spending, eliminating fossil fuel subsides and funding Renewable Energy in the USA, to follow through on his Green New Deal promises far more than I trust Warren.
Title: top 5 mainstream myths that bolster income inequality and tout the ultra-rich.
Post by: AGelbert on December 31, 2019, 05:41:55 pm
The Top 5 Mainstream Media Myths That Perpetuate Income Inequality

The Real News Network
374K subscribers

The Real News takes aim at the top 5 mainstream myths that bolster income inequality and tout the ultra-rich.

Director: Dwayne Gladden
Audio Engineer: Taylor Hebden
Camera Operator: Adam Coley, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Video Editor: Stephen Janis

Subscribe to our page and support our work at
Category News & Politics
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on December 31, 2019, 07:46:22 pm

It gets "better". Wall Street is now busy, busy busy rewriting history to specifically blame the victims of Wall Street scams for the 2008 Financial Crisis. The 😈 banksters were not satisfied with getting Government Welfare Queened to the tune of 16 trillion dollars or so from we-the-people while the rest of us got the profit over people and planet shaft; they want to blame all those "irresponsible" brown and black minorities, of course, for taking out loans they ended up not being able to pay... You just cannot make this stuff up.

The following video covers that quite well and, in the second half, has an excellent discussion about some Democratic 2020 Candidates for President. 👍

#TheZeroHour #RyanGrim #TheIntercept
Ryan Grim: Who’s Erasing Wall Street from the Financial Crisis?
13,721 views•Dec 23, 2019

The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow
26K subscribers

#TheZeroHour #RyanGrim #TheIntercept

Subscribe to The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow for more:

If you liked this clip of The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow, please share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!

Some of the music bumpers featuring Lettuce,

Category News & Politics
Title: Trump promised to ban lobbyists in government and “drain the swamp” of corruption.
Post by: AGelbert on January 02, 2020, 07:20:00 pm
If you were a former Trump supporter, what is the point at which you finally said, “He’s gone too far this time, I’ve had enough”?

Ben Kleschinsky, studied at Nashua Community College

Updated Dec 27, 2019

I’ll tell Quora right up front my political beliefs when it comes to Donald Trump, and why I was a die hard supporter of his as a young adult going into the election.

It wasn’t one thing he said or one move he made that made me lose support. It was a lot more gradual than that.
This is the full story. (

A MAGA sign now sits in the farthest corner of my home collecting dust. What will one day be known as a relic of history, known as the day America made a grave mistake including myself. As the saying goes fool me once shame on you. I’m not going to let Trump fool me again.

My Conclusion:

So yes I supported him, I greatly supported what he said in the last election and I fully admit that. However it gets the point where you have to admit that someone is a liar, and that you were wrong. Well I admit as a Trump supporter that I was wrong, and in the next election I will no longer be voting for Trump. Everything that Trump said he was going to do, he did the exact opposite. (



Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on January 05, 2020, 11:42:09 pm
January 5, 2020

Anthony, CBS just released the first Iowa poll we’ve seen in weeks and the results are staggering. It’s all tied up. 23-23-23. ;D

Title: Expect The New York Times to (😈 backdoor) HELP 🦀 Trump with LIES in 2020, just like they did in 2016
Post by: AGelbert on January 07, 2020, 04:04:59 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Pay Attention to HOW the New York Times ( REPEATEDLY LIES pretending Trump is "against" war. (

Seven Things You Should Know About 🦀 Donald Trump and Iran
2,074 views•Premiered 35 minutes ago

The Intercept
134K subscribers

President Trump kicked off 2020 by ordering the assassination of Qassim Suleimani, the top Iranian general who was considered to be the second most important man in Iran.

Everyone’s worried what happens next, what kind of retaliation is coming America’s way, and whether we’re on the verge of some sort of major conflict in the Middle East—the kind of war that would make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan says there's seven things you should know about Donald Trump and Iran.

Subscribe to our channel:
Category News & Politics
Title: character assiassination, defamatory remarks, and scaremongering about Green New Deal "Socialist eco
Post by: AGelbert on January 09, 2020, 05:20:37 pm

The Media Is Waking Up to a Possible Bernie Victory. Get Ready for the 👹 Backlash. ( - For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, something unusual occurred in the final weeks of 2019. As the Democratic nomination race finally spluttered towards Iowa and New Hampshire the media’s posture …

Disinformation For Hire: How A New Breed Of PR Firms Is Selling Lies Online (

Read more Doomstead Diner Daily 1/9/20 ( ( (

Yes, the Propaganda arm of the 🎩 Dollars and 🏴‍ Drones U.S. Empire, otherwise known as the 😈 Mainstream Media, will go after Senator Sanders in order to demonize him with all sorts of character assiassination, defamatory remarks, and scaremongering about Green New Deal "Socialist economy endangering evils".

It won't work. BUT, that doesn't matter. (

Here's the 🦀🐘🦕🦖😈👹🐍 PLAN:

After months and months of serial defamatory bullshit, complete with wailing, gnashing of teeth and hysterical shrieking ( about how POTUS Sanders would put your entire family in a commie labor camp making solar panels and wind turbines, confiscate your 401K and health insurance, ban all "Christian" religious activity and turn America "criminally overrun" ( brown by welcoming immigrants of the "wrong" color, the REAL skullduggery, the RIGGING of poll numbers based on FAKE defamatory "news" about Sanders, will have been accomplished. The poll numbers will be manipulated so the American Public can be suckered into believing Sanders is, on the eve of the 2020 election, at the 50% approval rating point vs. WHATEVER the Trump (in the toilet) numbers are. (

As long as that "no higher than 50% Sanders approval" CORK is the perceived "reality" on the eve of the election, then the election rigging for a Trump "win" can then proceed without raising too many (see: preserving the 😇 "democracy" pig lipstick) eyebrows. (

The reality is that the popularity of 🦅 Senator Sanders will continue to grow. The ( jackals in our Capitalist Police State don't want to make a martyr out of him because that could spark a REALLY Socialist Revolution here, so the 😈 poll numbers perception management is the 🐍 plan.

ANYONE that believes that Trump won the election in 2016 fairly or has a chance to win the 2020 presidential election fairly is in denial of the facts. But then, denial of reality is an intrinsic part of the mindset of that small, but noisy, segment of our population that supports ( Trump.


If God does not step in to crush the poll manipulating and election rigging, Trump will steal the 2020 election. Then it really will be over for this country, and possibly the entire human species.

May God have mercy on us and prevent Trump, his Wrecking Crew, AND OTHER Capitalist Lackeys like Pelosi, from stealing the presidential election from Senator Sanders. TPTB are wih Trump. The VAST MAJORITY of the PEOPLE, some of them former Trump supporters, are with Bernie Sanders. (

Title: ... if voters learn just HOW MUCH taxpayers are putting up for Trump family vacations and travel.
Post by: AGelbert on January 10, 2020, 04:47:34 pm

JAN. 8, 2020

Trump ( Doesn’t Want Voters to Know How Much His Family’s Trips Cost Taxpayers

By Matt Stieb

Though the president’s displays of ostentatious wealth didn’t hurt his electoral prospects last time around, the administration is reportedly worried about the public response if voters learn just how much taxpayers are putting up for Trump family vacations and travel. According to the Washington Post, the administration is attempting to delay House Democrats’ efforts to reveal the Secret Service budget until after the 2020 election, in part so that voters do not learn how much they are spending on Trump trips.

The attempt to delay the release involves a bill drafted in part by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin bringing the Secret Service under his department’s purview, where it was housed from its foundation in 1865 until 2003, when the agency was enveloped by the Department of Homeland Security. As part of the proposed bill, Democrats would require that the Secret Service release how much it costs to protect Trump family travel within 120 days of its passage. 😈 Mnuchin is reportedly onboard for the reporting of travel expenses, but only if the practice begins in 2021. (

Though Trump promised during the campaign that he would “rarely leave the White House,” he has spent 114 days at his home in Mar-a-Lago and 75 days at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey. Full records of Secret Service spending are unavailable, but individual costs detailed over the years offer a glimpse of how much the agency is spending to protect our leisurely president — and why the administration might not want the details publicized in an election year.

In his first four trips to Mar-a-Lago in 2017, the Secret Service alone spent about $1.3 million on each visit. Just renting enough golf carts to follow the president — without hampering his ability to cheat on the green — has cost $588,000 since 2017, according to federal spending data available online. The Secret Service has also had to put taxpayer money directly into Trump’s pocket, spending at least $250,000 at Trump properties in the first five months of his term. For just one month in 2017, Trump’s travel costs totaled $13.6 million, including expenditures by the Secret Service, the Department of Defense, and the cost of renting space and equipment. As the Post notes: “Trump has made 22 more trips to Mar-a-Lago since then … If the Secret Service’s costs remained constant, that would mean more than $28 million in further spending by the Secret Service alone, and $75 million from the government in all — and just on a fraction of Trump’s total travel.” In contrast, and flouting Trump’s impression of his predecessor, the government reportedly spent around $96 million on travel for Obama over eight years. Less than two months into Trump’s term, the Secret Service asked Congress for a budget boost of $60 million to manage presidential travel.

Get unlimited access to Intelligencer and everything else New York LEARN MORE »
Trump’s family, too, has proven to be a serious expense for the agency. As the Post notes: “Since their father was elected, Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr. have made business trips to overseas locales including Ireland, Scotland, Dubai, Uruguay, and India. In 2017, Eric Trump’s visit to a Trump building under construction in Uruguay cost taxpayers $97,000.” Last September, the Secret Service also put in a bid to buy Jet Skis, so that federal agents could protect the Trump family off the shore of Mar-a-Lago.  ( (

Title: Trump tried to take credit for Ethiopian prime minister's Nobel Peace Prize
Post by: Surly1 on January 11, 2020, 06:58:58 am
A 'confused' Trump tried to take credit for the Ethiopian prime minister's Nobel Peace Prize (


At a rally in Ohio on Thursday night, President Donald Trump claimed that he deserved credit for the Nobel Peace Prize recently awarded to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

"I made a deal. I saved a country. And I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country. I said, 'What? Did I have something do with it?' Yeah," Trump said. "But you know, that's the way it is. As long as we know, that's all that matters."

Trump last year offered to help negotiate an agreement between the Ethiopian prime minister and Egypt's prime minister over a dam on the Nile. But Ahmed was awarded the prestigious prize for negotiating a peace deal between Ethiopia and neighboring Eritrea following 20 years of bloody conflict. Trump had nothing to do with these peace negotiations.

The Democratic-led House Foreign Affairs Committee slammed Trump's remark, tweeting, "Trump is confused."

House Foreign Affairs Committee ✔@HouseForeign

Trump is confused.
PM @AbiyAhmedAli was awarded the @NobelPrize for his efforts to bring peace to the Horn of Africa, not stalled negotiations about a new dam on the Nile.

If they gave the Nobel for deals that didn’t happen, the Pres. would have a shelf full of them. 

Aaron Rupar ✔@atrupar
Replying to @atrupar

"I made a deal, I saved a country, and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country. I said, 'what, did I have something do with it?'" -- Trump whines about not having a Nobel Peace Prize

Embedded video

Title: Bernie Sanders [ Leads in "Gold-Standard" Iowa Poll for First Time
Post by: AGelbert on January 11, 2020, 05:26:45 pm

Bernie Sanders ( Leads in "Gold-Standard" Iowa Poll for First Time


Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading for the first time in a poll considered the "gold standard" in Iowa, which will hold the opening caucus of the Democratic race in the next three weeks. This is the first time in either of his campaigns for president that Sanders has led in this poll, which puts him ahead of Elizabeth Warren, who is polling at second place.

Read the Article → ( (
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2020, 02:12:30 pm

Jordan Davidson Jan. 08, 2020 11:15AM EST


'Forever' chemicals, which are often referred to as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals), are a class of heat and water-resistant chemicals used in a variety of industrial products, flame retardants and nonstick products, such as raincoats, cookware and packaging and have leeched into water supplies in almost every state in the country, according to The Hill. They are known carcinogens and do not degrade in the environment nor in the human body.

Full article:

🦀 Trump to Veto Bill Intended to Keep Forever Chemicals out of Groundwater (

Agelbert NOTE: As if the PFAS carcinogen 24/7 boost to the oncologists' (i.e. cancer doctors) "business model" wasn't enough of a HEALTH problem for Americans, there is more to this veto threat PROMISE from Trump than meets the eye.

You see, ALL those chemicals that Cheney got a free pass for way back in 2003, under his engineered Fracking "injection fluids ☠️ exemption" from the Clean Water Act, INCLUDE a significant percentage of PFAS chemicals. If this new bill is passed, Fracking pollution will no longer get a free pass.

🦀 Trump, a loyal lickspittle lackey of the (🦕😈🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn, will do all he can to continue to defend the right of Frackers to poison we-the-people on behalf of profit over people and planet.

As you can see in this link, the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn CORRUPTED EPA ( has deliberately avoided publishing a comprehensive list of chemicals ☠️ in the fracking injection fluids, even though PFAS (and several other highly toxic chemicals) have been indentified in Fracking injection fluids for OVER 15 YEARS.

TOXIC ☠️STEW What’s in Fracking Wastewater (





Title: Calling Bernie Sanders Anti-Semitic Is Islamophobic
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2020, 03:15:11 pm
Calling Bernie Sanders Anti-Semitic Is Islamophobic
3,000 views•Jan 13, 2020

The Real News Network
376K subscribers

Sahar Aziz discusses her article from The New Arab, “Accusing Bernie Sanders of anti-Semitism is nothing but thinly veiled Islamophobia." The accusation of anti-Semitism has been weaponized to attack people who promote solidarity with Muslim Americans and who demand sustainable foreign policy towards the Middle East.

Director/Video Editor: Cameron Granadino
Audio Engineer: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Chase Producer: Genevieve Montinar

Subscribe to our page and support our work at
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2020, 06:55:08 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Yes, this video belongs in this topic thread. Beside the fact that Sanders is the only candidate that can lead us to properly address Catastrophic Climate Change, Warren's mendacious claim about Sanders is debunked.

Breaking: Rio hits 130F 👀
837 views•Streamed live 6 hours ago

Black Bear News
2.58K subscribers

Category People & Blogs
Title: Linda Benesch: Why Seniors Should Vote Progressive
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2020, 10:14:33 pm
Linda Benesch: Why Seniors Should Vote Progressive
375 views•Jan 14, 2020

The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow
26.3K subscribers

Subscribe to The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow for more:

If you liked this clip of The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow, please share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!

Some of the music bumpers featuring Lettuce,
Category News & Politics
Title: Re: 2020 Presidential Election
Post by: AGelbert on January 15, 2020, 01:50:49 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This JonSellers witty sarcasm accurately communicates the American "Health" Insurance ( Situation.

I, for one, am happy to pay any amount demanded by our health insurance companies. The sacrifices these people go through in order to negotiate prices with doctors and hospitals is almost beyond comprehension. Not to mention the hours our great actuaries spend determining prices to charge. And don't get me started on the efforts of the humble bill checkers who have to scan so many doctor's bills for possible errors.

And think of the shareholders! Imagine the Galt-like heroes, every day risking their capital on us unscrupulous, sick know-nothings. Thank God that they have been rewarded for their wild risk-taking. Why I know one fellow who inherited a measly $200 million from his Dad and had the guts to invest $20 million in Aetna! He could of lost a few million dollars! What would he have done? Just go without the second yacht? Like an animal?

We have the greatest health-care system in the world. Canadians have to wait decades just to buy an aspirin. When we can get one same day for just $300 at the emergency room! Some of you Commie, liberal, Socialists may want to pay less, but for me, give me my liberty to work until I'm 67 so I can pay our insurance companies all that they're worth! I'm with Mish!

Mish is a Libertarian 👎 who, though able to add and subtract quite well, cannot bring himself to do the U.S. health care reality based math, which every other advanced industrialized country has done, proving that single payer is the best option for BOTH controlling costs and providing the highest quality health care.

Mish is a study in ideological blindness. He exposes the government corruption that produces artificially low inflation numbers and out of control health care costs, but totally fails to connect said calculated defrauding of the poor and middle class with those (i.e. Capitalist oligarchs running the Federal Reserve and Wall Street for the benefit of said greedballs) actually responsible for this U.S. Government corruption.

All that said, Mish is not totally out to ideological lunch. He does admit that soaring health care costs may very well give Bernie Sanders, a person Mish is totally at policy odds with, the 2020 Presidential election. The comments below explain why that is a real possibility, since Sanders is the only Presidential candidate pushing for unrestricted Medicare-4-ALL. (   

Realist  👍
Yep. Health care, currently 18% of US GDP, heading toward 25%.

Compared to “single payer” systems in much of the developed world which cost 8-11% of GDP, and cover everyone.

I know I keep repeating myself whenever Mish brings this up, but the US will eventually arrive at a single payer system at some point in the distant future. But not before they try everything else possible first. And not until the costs begin to approach 25% of GDP.

I agree. I actually thought 20% would do it, but now it may be 25%. The US continues to believe that it can support medical advances for the world, but it can't, at least not for much longer. Eventually we will go to a single payer system, perhaps like the VA, perhaps like Medicaid, and we can just let medical advances stagnate. It has to happen, sooner or later.

Ted R 👍
I agree too because at some point the average person just can't afford health care anymore and they will begin to care more about health care and what it costs them than any other topic and that will force the politicians to do something about it.

Sechel 👍
System is broken. Drug companies get created to buy drugs with competition and raise the price 10,000%. Low deductions on insurance remove any incentive for consumer to price shop for the best price. U.S. should really be using the swiss health care model . And even though Swiss health care costs are above the Swiss inflation rate in 2019 they only went up 3%

lol 👍
Everything (literally) outpaces the massively manipulated (cooked) bs CPI calculations, and not by a little, by a whole lot, just using health care as a metric inflation would be up 25% least, that means healthcare (most everything) is in (stealth)hyperinflation.

LB412 👍
I manage benefits for a small business. Our healthcare cost has risen No LESS than 6% per year over the past 5 years. Our base plan, which is also the most popular, rose by a whopping 18% this year. Its total insanity.

WarpartySerf 👍👍👍
Absolute criminal racketeering ...... And try using your Medicare with any of the criminal doctors .... they'll laugh at you ..... Land of the free

Associated post:

Medical Care Costs Soaring Out of Control (
Title: House released documents turned over by Rudy Giuliani’s fixer, Lev Parnas.
Post by: Surly1 on January 15, 2020, 02:19:35 pm

House released documents turned over by Rudy Giuliani’s fixer, Lev Parnas.

Eye-opening. Straight, no chaser. Copy of original letter from Schiff to Nadler, plus scans of Rudy's handwritten notes, plus text messages from several, including Rudy and Hyde, Rudy's goon. Wowza. (

I fully appreciate that not everyone has the same appetite for following this story. But I've been intent on following the truth of the matter, and trying to get to the story behind the MSM bullshit and spin.

If you follow the above link, you eventually get to Lutsenko, a former Prosecutor general of Ukraine and the apparent originator of a lot of the "evidence" manufactured against the Bidens. If you want to understand the seamy underbelly of this Ukraine issue, you have to understand Lutsenko.

Here is the best article I have found to date. It is complicated, and nuanced, but a damned good job of repertorial restraint.

The Ukrainian Prosecutor Behind Trump’s Impeachment (
How the efforts of Yuriy Lutsenko and Rudy Giuliani to smear Joe Biden led to a Presidential crisis.

It's pretty clear (to me, anyhow) that by luring Trump into the Ukraine rat's nest, Giuliani has ended up damaging him more seriously than Robert Mueller or James Comey ever did. Well done, Rudy 9-11!
Title: Jim Wright on Parnas docs
Post by: Surly1 on January 15, 2020, 02:20:59 pm

House released documents turned over by Rudy Giuliani’s fixer, Lev Parnas.

Eye-opening. Straight, no chaser. Copy of original letter from Schiff to Nadler, plus scans of Rudy's handwritten notes, plus text messages from several, including Rudy and Hyde, Rudy's goon. Wowza.

Jim Wright's take:

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the President of the United States, via his personal lawyer, plotted against an American ambassador.

The evidence is overwhelming and utterly damning.
Rudy Giuliani literally coordinated surveillance on Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. One text, from Giuliani's subordinate Robert Hyde to Lev Parnas, LITERALLY described Ukrainian underworld figures willing to "help" with Yovanovitch for "a price"

Verbatim: "They are willing to help if we/you would like a price."

That picture of Trump? The guy with him is Robert Hyde.

A bit later, Trump talked to Ukraine President Zelensky. Which is what started the whole impeachment. Trump HIMSELF provided a summary of that call. In that summary, Trump says to Zelensky, "She's going to go through some things." He was specifically, according to his own "transcript," talking about ambassador Yovanovitch.

She's going to go through some things.

He said that, KNOWING Rudy Giuliani was engaged in surveillance on the ambassador and that the Ukrainian underworld was involved.

Shortly thereafter, Yovanovitch was told to leave Ukraine immediately over concerns about her safety. Threats against her safety that were specifically generated BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

Then, last night at his rally, instead of explaining any of this, Trump instead went on a tear against light bulbs, dishwashers, fridges, toilets, and showers. Like you do if you're completely sane. Right?

Of course, there should be no surprises here. This is how business does business. This is American business every day, right here. This is who Trump is. A crooked mobbed up businessman from New York.

You know what I'm gonna say: If you elect a businessman, then you're gonna get the business.

And you're gonna get it good and hard.

But, it's worse than that.

Because this morning we're sitting here, watching this shitshow. Literally watching Trump plot the death of his own ambassador while the Senate Majority Leader openly flies top cover for him and Congress openly refuses to do its Constitutionally mandated duty. We're watching all of this unfold, right? In real time. Right now. Our government utterly failing not only the country but the entire world. We're watching this, right?

And instead of forcefully and definitely taking the lead, Democratic Candidates are right now petulantly throwing **** at each other like spoiled rotten children absolutely determined to lose once again to Donald Trump.

Title: Bernie won the debate last night
Post by: AGelbert on January 15, 2020, 02:48:35 pm

Bernie won the debate last night

Our Revolution 11:10 AM (3 hours ago) to me

Last night, at the final Democratic presidential primary debate before Iowa votes, corporate-backed candidates and moderators attacked Bernie Sanders and his vision of a democracy that works for all Americans, not just the economic elite.

But despite their best efforts to divide our grassroots movement, Bernie Sanders walked off stage the clear winner of the most important debate so far. (

While the media wants to turn politics into a game, everyone reading this email knows that the stakes in 2020 are life and death for our democracy (and our planet). (

Agelbert NOTE: The circular firing squad is an old Divide and Conquer trick the DINOs have played often in the past, in order to pretend they really didn't want a fellow fascist (i.e. a Republican) to win the election. Now, as in 2016, their guns are pointed at Senator 🦅 Bernie Sanders, the only Presidential Candidate who actually can even begin to get us out of the profit over people and planet mess we are in. Don't get distracted by all the BULLSHIT from the bought and paid for fascist media AND the DINOs sniping at Sanders. When they solemnly tell you that Senator Sanders is "expletive deleted", mark down who spewed the defamatory legerdemain. Whether it is CNN or Elizabeth Warren or Pelosi, they are not to EVER be trusted to defend your interests.

Those attacking Senator Sanders are defending the interests of 👹 TPTB. How have the interests of TPTB worked for you?


Title: CNN Attacks Sanders in Iowa Dem Debate
Post by: AGelbert on January 16, 2020, 06:16:37 pm
( CNN Attacks Sanders in Iowa Dem Debate 🤬
13,942 views•Jan 15, 2020

The Real News Network
377K subscribers

The Warren/Sanders feud is splitting progressives. Can Sanders unite the working class with anti-war policies and Medicare for All?

Director/Video Editor: Adam Coley
Audio Engineer: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Camera Operator: Will Arenas
                                 Cameron Granadino
Visual Producer: Andrew Corkery
Chase Producer: Genevieve Montinar

Subscribe to our page and support our work at
CategoryNews & Politics
Title: Sanders Leads Democrats in New National Poll
Post by: AGelbert on January 17, 2020, 07:10:40 pm

January 17, 2020


( (

Sanders Leads Democrats in New National Poll (

Amid a series of endorsements from key groups and allies in crucial primary states this week -- and despite the "brouhaha" with Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- a new national poll shows Sen. Bernie Sanders now in the lead over former Vice President Joe Biden and the rest of the Democratic primary field.
Read the Article → ( (
Title: The times, they are a-CHANGIN'! ✨
Post by: AGelbert on January 20, 2020, 10:17:24 pm
The times, they are a-CHANGIN'! ✨

Title: everything that moms and dads should warn their daughters never to emulate
Post by: AGelbert on January 21, 2020, 12:34:28 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Right on election year DINO (i.e. 🐘) schedule, 😈 Hillary has officially started the bold faced mendacity laced defamation and demonization of 🦅 Senator Sanders. I did not post the following comment, but it explains the Clinton DINO mens rea modus operandi accurately:

SonOfSam 👍

"nobody likes bernie"

says the Cersei Lannister of American politics. A power mad witch who thought it was "Her Turn", as a reward for years of not only looking the other way when hubby Billy fuc ked everything with a va gina, but also going after those women like a junkyard dog whenever they threatened her golden ticket to becoming Queenie of the universe.

This flaming piece of ( is everything that moms and dads should warn their daughters never to emulate

January 21, 2020


The interview is classic Clinton. She feigns reluctance to criticize Sanders during the primary. She insists “I am not going to go there yet” and then goes there.

Full article authored by Jonathan Turley:

Hillary Clinton: "Nobody Likes Bernie" (
Title: "I have cast some lonely votes, fought some lonely fights, mounted some lonely campaigns. ...
Post by: AGelbert on January 21, 2020, 10:58:59 pm

January 21, 2020 10:11 PM

"I have cast some lonely votes, fought some lonely fights, mounted some lonely campaigns. But I do not feel lonely now." - Bernie Sanders

Title: enormous waste and bureaucracy that exists in our cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system,” Sander
Post by: AGelbert on January 22, 2020, 03:24:28 pm
January 21, 2020


In Historic Shift, U.S.'s Second-Largest Physician Group Endorses Medicare for All (

The fight for Medicare for All received a two-handed boost from tens of thousands of doctors on Monday when the American College of Physicians (ACP) officially endorsed a single-payer system as among only one of two possible ways to improve the nation's health care woes. Representing 159,000 doctors of internal medicine nationwide, the ACP is the largest medical specialty society and second-largest physician group in the country. ... ...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and the author of the The Medical for All Act of 2019 now in the U.S. Senate, welcomed the development.

“I am delighted that the American College of Physicians has come out in support of a Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare system,” Sanders said in a statement emailed to Common Dreams.

“All over this country, a growing number of doctors are sick and tired of the enormous waste and bureaucracy that exists in our cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system,” Sanders added. “They are sick and tired of spending time filling out reams of paperwork and arguing with insurance companies. Medicare for All will give doctors the freedom to focus on making their patients healthy, not making health insurance executives wealthy.”

Read the Article → ( (
Title: establishment standard-bearer jumping into the fray in a moment when the establishment is WORRIED
Post by: AGelbert on January 22, 2020, 03:31:17 pm

January 21, 2020


Is 👹 Hillary Clinton Running for President Again? Sure Seems Like It.

There are no accidents in politics, and the timing of this speaks for itself: Hillary Clinton seems to be hoping for a brokered Democratic convention so she can offer herself up as the "reasonable" compromise candidate. I believe her efforts to this end began with the recent Hollywood Reporter interview, and will be further underscored during a brawling primary-stuffed March, potentially coming to full bloom at the convention in Wisconsin, where exhausted delegates -- terrified by another potential loss in November -- might just take the bait.
Read the Article →  (
Title: starting wars to get Americans killed so that more can be killed in some sort of sick honor to earli
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2020, 05:16:11 pm
By David Swanson ✨,

January 21, 2020 | EDUCATE!


"What every presidential candidate ought to produce, at a minimum, is a basic outline of a federal discretionary budget. This would serve as a preview of what each candidate would ask the Congress for as president. If candidates feel they need to produce larger budgets outlining changes to mandatory spending as well, so much the better."

Full (lengthy, but well worth the historical education gleaned) article: ( (
Title: Regardless of which candidate one prefers, it’s hard to deny Sanders’s record of accomplishments ove
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2020, 06:02:34 pm

Clinton Says Sanders Achieved "Nothing." My Community Clinic Shows She's Wrong.


In a new Hulu docuseries about herself, Hillary ( Clinton paints Bernie Sanders as an isolated career politician who failed to achieve anything meaningful in the Senate.

However, Sanders's push to expand community health centers -- the only affordable, quality source of primary care for many people living in rural, lower-income areas -- under the Affordable Care Act has touched millions of lives, including mine. Read the Article → (