BERNIE SANDERS

Post Reply
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 17, 2019 at 6:43 pm

Paul Plante says :

It is not just our energy sector, Mr. Otton – these fools, who spin out pie-in-the-sky “solutions” to something they have no control over, that being the continual change of climates that are a feature of life on earth, as opposed to the moon, Mars, or Venus, are talking about turning our very lives upside down if their cock-a-mamie plans were somehow to be imposed upon us by AOC and Elizabeth Warren and barmy Bernie Sanders, none of whom really have a clue as to what the ramifications are of what they are proposing, nor do they care, because they will have power, which is what it is all about for them – control.

I lived through the northeast blackout of 1965, which was a significant disruption in the supply of electricity on Tuesday, November 9, 1965, affecting parts of Ontario in Canada and Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Vermont in the United States, and as far as we could tell from inside the affected zone, the world had come to an end.

Everything stopped.

Where there was formerly the light of cities and suburbs, there was now darkness.

I was going to get gas that evening, and was just about out when the power went out, so that was it for me.

Unless you are on top of a hill, and where you want to go is down, a car without gas is worthless.

Luckily, a friend lived near-by, so I was able to find a place to wait out whatever was happening, and since everything was off, nobody knew.

That is what these fools are proposing, except on a national scale, not just the northeast.

Getting back to the blackout of 1965, over 30 million people and 80,000 square miles (207,000 km2) were left without electricity for up to 13 hours.

And everything came to a halt, just like that.

So, what do AOC and Lizzie Warren and barmy Bernie Sanders propose to do when that happens again as a result of their Green New Deal or OFF Act?

Has anyone heard?

If so, could you please share it with us?

Thank you.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-178283
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

THERE IS A GOOD REASON HE IS CALLED "BARMY BERNIE" ...

POLITICO

"Sanders backers: Campaign plagued by dissension and disorganization"


By Holly Otterbein and Trent Spiner

17 SEPTEMBER 2019

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Some of Bernie Sanders’ fiercest supporters are sounding the alarm that the campaign is bogged down by disorganization, personality clashes, and poor communication between state operations and national headquarters.

After a pair of setbacks this week — the acrimonious shakeup of his staff in New Hampshire on Sunday and loss of the Working Families Party's endorsement to Elizabeth Warren a day later — Sanders’ allies and former aides are worried that recent disappointments are not one-off stumbles but rather emblematic of larger problems in his bid for the White House.

The concerns are particularly acute in New Hampshire.

“Seeing the campaign not be able to outshine Warren with WFP progressives doesn’t have me questioning WFP’s process,” said Rafael Shimunov, a former national creative director for WFP and 2016 Sanders volunteer.

“It has me questioning where the Bernie campaign could have done better, because I want to make sure the strongest candidate unmasks Biden and unseats Trump.”

The worries come as the campaign enters a critical, more urgent phase.

After Labor Day, more voters typically tune into the election and begin to make up their minds.

Expectations for Sanders are sky-high, especially in New Hampshire, where he defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 22 percentage points.

But Warren has jumped in the national polls to tie Sanders for second place, and Joe Biden has proven harder to knock off his first-place perch than his rivals expected.

“In 2016, Bernie was the David who beat Goliath in New Hampshire — the expectations this time around are incomparable,” said Andrew Feldman, a Democratic strategist with close ties to labor groups.

“It would be a mistake to try to replicate the type of campaign that Sanders ran in New Hampshire in 2016 because the dynamics of this race are completely different."

"For Sanders to be successful, a professional operation is critical.”

Jeff Weaver, a top Sanders adviser, told POLITICO that numerous rank-and-file members in the Working Families Party support Sanders and that his ground game in New Hampshire and other early states is strong.

Sanders has 14 times as many identified voters in the Granite State than it had at this time in 2016, according to his campaign, and is doubling his field staff there from 26 to 50 employees.

He also said the campaign’s national and states staff are in daily contact, and that he has a regular “states call” in which he asks his aides across the country to be honest about the problems they’re seeing.

If some of Sanders’ allies in New Hampshire have jitters, Weaver said, it is only because they are wrongly comparing the 2020 campaign to his first bid for the White House, when he took the lead in the state by August and vastly out-organized Clinton.

“Last time, our field program was so far superior that I think it may color people’s views,” Weaver said.

Now, “some of our competitors do have good field programs — Elizabeth Warren is one of them.”

He added, “Some people are trying to position themselves in quote-un-quote Bernie’s lane."

"But as the campaign goes on, people who want a bold, progressive vision for the country will come back to Bernie Sanders.”

Sanders has received good news in New Hampshire recently, including a Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald poll last week that showed him in first place with 29 percent, Biden in second with 21 percent, and Warren in third with 17 percent.

But that was quickly overtaken by bad press about the staff reorganization.

Sanders’ top brass told Joe Caiazzo, his New Hampshire state director, that he was being reassigned on Thursday.

Around the same time, the Sanders team also parted ways with Kurt Ehrenberg, a well-respected liberal activist in the state.

Though the campaign had days to prepare a press rollout of the staff changes, the news broke on Sunday shortly after Sanders’ aides told his state steering committee that Caiazzo would be shipped off to be Massachusetts’ state director.

By that point, members of the committee were going public with their concerns.

POLITICO spoke with nearly a dozen current and former Sanders advisers and allies, some of whom declined to discuss internal dynamics on the record because of fear of retribution.

Since Sunday, campaign staffers have been calling members of their steering committee, asking them not to speak to the media since stories about the internal shakeup were published, according to three people who received the calls.

Weaver said Caiazzo was reassigned to Warren’s home state because he has years of experience there, including as Sanders’ political director in 2016, and the campaign is “not conceding Massachusetts to anyone.”

He said Caiazzo had done a “great job” building the team in New Hampshire, and that the shift was part of a series of changes aimed at growing the campaign’s operations in Super Tuesday states.

Sanders' team said it also recently hired senior staff in Oklahoma, Colorado and Minnesota.

“It’s another example of the campaign bungling things,” said a person with knowledge of the situation.

Instead of talking about “making aggressive moves here and building out Super Tuesday states … they’re answering bad press about why they’re moving their New Hampshire state director.”

Sanders’ allies have raised several concerns about New Hampshire in recent weeks.

Caiazzo warned about the staff’s productivity in the state, a source said.

A former Sanders adviser said the campaign is “both physically and mentally based in Washington, D.C.” and therefore too disconnected from on-the-ground state operations.

Members of Sanders’ steering committee in New Hampshire said they worried that Warren and others had a better ground game.

Caiazzo and Ehrenberg had also clashed: “There was some personality rubs, frankly,” Weaver acknowledged.

At the same time, some Sanders supporters are distressed that he didn’t win WFP’s endorsement.

The loss especially stung because they believe he has the most progressive labor plan of any presidential candidate in history: His proposal calls for European-style collective bargaining across industries.

Sanders has also stepped up his efforts to win more institutional support than in 2016, and his national political director, Analilia Mejia, was previously the executive director of the New Jersey Working Families Alliance.

Many Sanders’ supporters blame WFP’s leaders for making the wrong choice, and knock them for not releasing their individual vote tally of online members.

But some, like Shimunov, said they didn’t question and noted the campaign had agreed to abide by the rules ahead of time.

Sanders’ team declined to share details about what it did to try to secure the endorsement.

Some of Sanders’ allies said his challenges are deeper than any staff or communication issues.

Warren, like Sanders, is a left-wing populist — and though the two candidates had fairly different bases a few months ago, there are signs that’s starting to change.

For instance, Biden and Warren are now virtually tied for the second choice of Sanders’ supporters, according to Morning Consult’s latest poll; likewise, Sanders and Biden are tied for Warren fans’ No. 2 pick.

At the same time, Biden’s candidacy has proven more durable than many Sanders’ allies expected.

Unlike Clinton in 2016, Biden’s campaign has proven more nimble in reading the primary electorate and at times adopted more liberal proposals in response, they said.

Biden’s team has also borrowed some of Sanders’ movement-building message, with the former vice president saying recently that he would rally voters in Kentucky to bring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to heel.

“I don’t think Bernie’s doing poorly, but not as well as some people would like,” a Sanders ally said of his campaign in New Hampshire.

“Sometimes personnel changes aren’t to do with personnel having failed."

"... But if the change energizes people, whether or not it was actually necessary, that’s probably a good thing.”

Even some of Sanders’ rivals said it would be unwise to discount him.

Despite the concerns about his ground game in New Hampshire, his volunteer army remains formidable: A Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll released in August found that 35 percent of Democratic primary voters in the state who had heard directly from a campaign had been contacted by Sanders’ team, more than any other candidate.

"I think he will do well here, frankly, but I'm a bit of a contrarian on that."

"Everyone seems to be in a big rush to write him off,” said a top New Hampshire Democrat and veteran of many presidential primaries in the state.

“John McCain and John Kerry were both deemed 'dead men walking' at this stage, too, and came back to win the New Hampshire primary.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

CNN

"A crack just emerged in the financial markets: The New York Fed spends $53 billion to rescue the overnight lending market"

By Matt Egan, CNN Business

18 SEPTEMBER 2019

Borrowing rates skyrocketed on Tuesday in a corner of the markets the public rarely notices but that is critical to the functioning of the global financial system.

The spike in overnight borrowing rates forced the New York Federal Reserve to come to the rescue with a special operation aimed at easing stress in financial markets.

"It's unprecedented, at least in the post-crisis era," said Mark Cabana, rates strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

The episode demonstrates evidence of emerging strains in financial markets and raises concern that the Federal Reserve could be losing its grip on short-term rates.

"The funding markets are clearly stressed," said Guy LeBas, managing director of fixed income strategy at Janney Capital Markets.

Although it doesn't get as much attention as the Dow or the 10-year Treasury rate, this overnight market plays a central role in modern finance.

This market broke down during the 2008 financial crisis.
It's unclear what exactly is causing the stress in the overnight market, or how long it will last.

"No one knows why this is happening," Jim Bianco CEO of Bianco Research, said on Twitter.

"If it persists more than another day or two, it will be a problem."

Cabana, the Bank of America analyst, blamed the spike in overnight lending rates on the Fed badly underestimating the amount of cash needed to keep the financial system operating smoothly.

"The Fed just made a policy mistake," Cabana said.

"There is not enough cash in the banking system for the banks to meet all of their liquidity and regulatory needs."

The rate spike may also be a symptom of the sharp increase in Treasury bonds being issued to fund the federal government.

The federal deficit has spiked to $1 trillion this fiscal year because of the tax cuts and surge in government spending.

"The fundamental issue is there are just too many darn Treasurys out there," Cabana said.

"Both parties are to blame."

"The $1 trillion deficit will keep this an issue."

"The Fed won't admit this," Cabana said, "but it looks and smells an awful lot like the monetary authority is financing the fiscal authority."


http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... P17#page=2
THIS WHY THEY CALL HIM "BARMY BERNIE," BECAUSE THE DUDE JUST DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHERE THE MONEY TO RUN A GOVERNMENT MUST NEEDS COME FROM …

BARMY BERNIE, A POLITICIAN WHO DOESN'T WORK FOR A LIVING, THINKS MONEY GROWS ON TREES ...

AND BERNIE IS GOING TO PUT US ALL INTO GOVERNMENT HOUSING UNITS …

THE HILL

"Sanders unveils $2.5 trillion 'Housing for All' plan"


Tal Axelrod

18 SEPTEMBER 2019

White House hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday released a $2.5 trillion plan to guarantee housing for every American.

Sanders said the plan would "guarantee every American — regardless of income — a fundamental right to a safe, decent, accessible, and affordable home" and would be paid for by a wealth tax on the top one-tenth of 1 percent of income earners.


"There is virtually no place in America where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford a decent two bedroom apartment."

"At a time when half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, this is unacceptable," he said.

"For too long the federal government has ignored the extraordinary housing crisis in our country."

"That will end when I am president."

Sanders's plan seeks to invest $1.48 trillion over 10 years in the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to build and maintain 7.4 million "quality, affordable and accessible housing units" that he says will eliminate the gap in affordable housing for the lowest-income renters.

It would also invest another $400 billion to build 2 million mixed-income social housing units.


He also intends to use the plan to end homelessness by prioritizing 25,000 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund units to house the homeless in his first year in office and provide $500 million to state and local governments to help connect the homeless to case management and social services.

The Democratic socialist lambasted "corrupt real estate developers" for jacking up rent prices and President Trump for cutting federal housing programs.

He says he would create an office within the Department of Housing and Urban Development to strengthen rent control and tenant protections and make data on evictions and rent increases available to the public.

Sanders's campaign, much like his 2016 bid, has made a benchmark issue of income and advantage disparities between upper-class and working-class Americans.

The Vermont Independent first introduced legislation in 2001 to create the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is now funded through a small percentage of revenues from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored housing agencies.

Sanders has consistently polled in the top tier of national and statewide surveys, though he is facing a stiff challenge from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for the crowded primary field's progressive mantle.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=HPDHP17
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

FOX NEWS

"Gabbard says she's open to 'face-to-face' meeting with Clinton, amid 'Russian asset' accusation"


Gregg Re

22 OCTOBER 2019

Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard on Monday suggested that a "face-to-face" with Hillary Clinton might be an appropriate next step, as lawmakers from across the political spectrum, including President Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders, condemned Clinton's unfounded suggestion that the congresswoman is a secret Russian asset.

Speaking to reporters at an Iowa coffee shop, Gabbard, D-Hawaii, lamented that Clinton had pulled out of a planned appearance at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit, where Gabbard is set to speak.

Clinton was said to have abandoned the summit to avoid appearing with former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

"Well, she had something to say about me, and I would have been very happy to have that conversation directly face-to-face with her," Gabbard said.

Earlier Monday, Sanders, I-Vt., joined fellow presidential candidates Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson and Beto O'Rourke in defending Gabbard.

"Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line to defend this country," Sanders tweeted, referring to Gabbard's overseas deployments.

"People can disagree on issues, but it is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset."

Asked for her reaction to Sanders' comment, Gabbard said only, "Thank you for speaking the truth."

Gabbard said she had not spoken with Sanders since last week's presidential primary debate.

In addition to suggesting Gabbard was a "Russian asset" in a recent interview, Clinton asserted, also without evidence, that Russians were "grooming her to be the third-party candidate" and spoiler in the 2020 race.

Clinton hinted that Gabbard was the "favorite of the Russians."

But, Gabbard reiterated to reporters Monday that she would commit to voting for the Democrats' eventual nominee, and would not run as a third-party candidate.

"I've already said that many times," Gabbard said when asked if she'd stay with the Democrats instead of mounting a third-party bid.

Gabbard acknowledged that she had met with Trump when he was president-elect in order to discuss foreign policy, but insisted the discussions were not about any potential role in his administration.

Gabbard also said she hadn't since talked to Trump about foreign policy.

"I was never offered a job," Gabbard said.

"That was not what is about."

"I was asked if I wanted to go and speak to the then-president-elect about foreign policy, and that's what I did."

Also Monday, Trump sounded a note of empathy for Gabbard, saying he had some familiarity with being accused of Russian collaboration without any evidence.

'I said, wait a minute, it took me two-and-a-half years, I wish [Clinton] would have said that earlier because people ... have realized she is crazy."

"She’s crazy," the president told Fox News' Sean Hannity.

"She's accusing everyone of being a Russian agent," Trump told reporters, referring to Clinton.

"She's not a Russian agent."

"These people are sick."

"There’s something wrong with them."

Trump added that he thought Clinton's accusations against Gabbard ultimately would help his own political chances in 2020.

Gabbard has asserted that Clinton was targeting her because Gabbard ended her tenure as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 by quitting and throwing her support behind Sanders.

At the time, Gabbard accused party leaders of stifling her freedom of speech and unfairly tipping the scales in favor of Clinton's presidential campaign.


"People warned me in 2016 that my endorsement of Bernie Sanders would be the end of my 'political career' — they said Clinton would never forget," Gabbard said a video posted on Twitter on Sunday, "that she and her rich and powerful friends — her allies in politics and the media — will make sure you're destroyed."

After a Clinton spokesperson all but confirmed Clinton was referring specifically to Gabbard as a "Russian asset," Gabbard fired back that Clinton was "queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party!"

Fox News' Kelly Phares in Grinnell, Iowa, contributed to this report.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 23, 2019 at 10:58 am

Paul Plante says :

This whole IPCC thing has descended into and become nothing more than a big, steaming heap of political horse****, plain and simple.

Supposedly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.

But that is bull****, because the IPCC is not objective, period.

It is political.

According to the propaganda, the IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, and the alleged objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.”

And there is the rub which has led to this Climate-gate kerfuffle and from there down to the hysteria of our times today, where we have scared children running around thinking the world is now going to end before they have a chance to grow up, which is hysteria-mongering for political purposes, not “science,” as if that word had any rational meaning, any more, because all the scientists in the world have no means of “stabilizing” the concentrations of any gases in the atmosphere, as if, like the Wizard of Oz, the most powerful wizard in all the land, they could literally make time stand still and have the earth’s climate obey them as if a spaniel that comes to heel on command.

One major flaw in the system, which is intentional, or by design, given the political nature of the lash-up, is that the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, but rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.

So, the IPCC fishes, which is not scientific research.

With respect to the political nature of the IPCC, its reports contain a “Summary for Policymakers”, which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments, which typically involves the governments of more than 120 countries.

So, science as lawyers say science should be, which is crap science, or horse**** science, or bizarre science, not real science by any stretch of the imagination.

With regard to how the IPCC came into being, the political United States Environmental Protection Agency and even more political U.S. State Department wanted an international convention to agree restrictions on greenhouse gases, and the conservative Reagan Administration was concerned about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies including UNEP and the WMO.

Thus, the U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments.

In this way, it was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organization, which means it is neither fish nor fowl, and it is designed such that politics controls what the outcome of science is going to be, which is known as the “Dame Snow Jeopardy,” where the conclusion to be supported politically is determined beforehand, and then data that doesn’t support the preferred conclusion is rejected out of hand.

And yes, people, that is very common where politics and “science” meet, because the whip hand and the purse are held by the political side of that equation – if you are a scientist who knows better, i.e. is compliant, then when told to keep your ******* mouth shut about something, you do so, and by way of reward, you get to keep your job and paycheck, as opposed to getting fired, having your career and life destroyed, and maybe having your teeth kicked down your throat, to boot.

So, yes, climate-gate.

And really, who is surprised?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-189618
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

POLITICO

"Sanders launches first ad touting AOC endorsement"


By Holly Otterbein

23 OCTOBER 2019

The Bernie Sanders campaign is launching its first ad highlighting his massive rally in New York City on Saturday — and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement of him.

The 30-second digital spot, part of a six-figure ad buy in Iowa starting Tuesday, features a popular line from Sanders' speech at the rally as well as images of the huge crowd.

"Take a look around you and find someone you don't know."

"Maybe somebody who doesn't look kind of like you."

"Are you willing to fight for that person as much as you're willing to fight for yourself?” Sanders said.

“If you and millions of others are prepared to do that, not only will we win this election, but together we will transform this country."

The spot ends with an image of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez clasping hands.

The phrase, “I'm willing to fight for someone I don’t know” has taken off online, with progressive activists, Sanders fans, and even some Hollywood stars, such as actors Don Cheadle and Piper Perabo, tweeting out the message of solidarity.

At the event, Sanders also said, "Are you willing to fight for young people drowning in student debt even if you are not?"

"Are you willing to fight to ensure that every American has health care as a human right even if you have good health care?"

"Are you willing to fight for frightened immigrant neighbors even if you are native-born?"

It's a new addition to Sanders’ stump speech, and notable for sending an implicit message to voters who are not yet supporting him.

The Vermont senator has struggled to expand his base in 2020.

The Sanders campaign estimated about 26,000 people attended the Saturday event, making it the biggest rally of any Democratic candidate this year.

It was the first rally he held since he suffered a heart attack at the beginning of the month.

Sanders’ spot also highlights a diverse array of audience members at the rally.

His aides have said the endorsement from Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Rep. Ilhan Omar, demonstrates the multiracial working-class coalition that he is building.

In addition to the first paid ad featuring Ocasio-Cortez, the Sanders campaign unveiled this weekend a video featuring her endorsement of Sanders.

It has nearly 3 million views on Twitter.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

CNN

"CNN Poll: Biden's lead in Democratic primary hits widest margin since April"


By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director

23 OCTOBER 2019

Former Vice President Joe Biden's lead in the race for the Democratic nomination for president has rebounded, and now stands at its widest margin since April, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

Biden has the support of 34% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters, his best showing in CNN polling since just after his campaign's formal launch on April 25.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont are about even for second, with 19% and 16%, respectively.

Behind them, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris of California each have 6% support, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke each at 3%.

Biden's rise comes largely from a consolidation of support among his core backers, and doesn't appear to harm any individual opponent.

Warren and Sanders hold about even with their standing in the last CNN poll in September, and no other candidate has seen a shift of more than 2 points in that time.

But Biden has seen big spikes in support among moderate and conservative Democrats (43% support him now, up from 29% in the September poll), racial and ethnic minorities (from 28% among all nonwhites in September to 42% now) and older voters (up 13 points since September among those 45 and older) that outpace those among younger potential Democratic voters (up 5 points among those younger than 45).

The gains come as Biden's time as vice president is put under the spotlight by President Donald Trump and his allies.

Trump is facing an impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives over allegations that he pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, as well as the 2016 US election in return for releasing hundreds of millions in congressionally mandated defense funding meant for Ukraine.

Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company while Biden was vice president.

There is no evidence that either Biden did anything wrong in Ukraine.

The poll suggests that although Biden's October debate performance did not blow away the audience (15% who watched or followed news about it said he had done the best job in the debate, well behind Warren's 28% — but better than most on the stage), the arguments he made on health care, foreign policy and the economy may have boosted his standing with the potential Democratic electorate.

Asked which candidate would best handle a range of top issues, Biden leads the way on four of the six issues tested in the poll.

He holds a massive edge over the field on foreign policy (56% say he would handle it best, well ahead of Sanders at 13% and Warren at 11%), and tops the next closest candidate by nearly 20 points on the economy (38% Biden, 19% Sanders, 16% Warren).

Biden also outpaces the rest of the field as most trusted on immigration (29% Biden, 16% each Warren and Sanders) and gun policy (27% vs. 13% Sanders and 11% Warren, with O'Rourke close at 9%).

Biden doesn't hold a significant edge on the critical issue of health care (31% Biden, 28% Sanders, 17% Warren) but he's surged 13 points on the issue since June, when he lagged behind Sanders.

Neither Sanders' nor Warren's numbers on the issue have moved significantly in that time.

And Biden now runs even with Sanders at 26% as best able to handle the climate crisis.

Warren is at 18% on that issue.

The results mark increases for Biden and Sanders, who were each at 19% on handling the climate in June.

The former vice president's advantages on the issues come as he emphasizes an approach that appears to align with the preferences of most potential Democratic voters.

A 53% majority say they want the nominee to advocate policies that have a good chance of becoming law, even if the changes aren't as big, vs. 42% who prefer advocating big changes even if they have less of a chance of becoming law.

Among those voters who prefer an approach that prioritizes policies with a better chance of becoming law, 38% support Biden for the Democratic nomination, 17% Warren and just 8% Sanders.

On the other side, it's nearly a three-way split, with 27% behind Biden, 24% Sanders and 21% Warren.

About 1 in 5 potential Democratic voters say they watched last week's debate among 12 Democratic candidates, and those who watched it came away with a different assessment than those who mainly followed news about the debate.

Overall, among everyone who either watched or followed news coverage on the debate, 28% say Warren had the best night, 15% Biden, 13% Sanders, 11% Buttigieg, 4% Klobuchar and 2% Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, with the rest at 1% or less.

Among those who say they watched it, though, Warren remains on top at 29%, but 21% say Buttigieg had the best night, then 13% Biden, 11% Sanders, 10% Klobuchar and 4% Booker, with everyone else at 1% or less.

And those who watched the debate seem to have more favorable views of the lesser-known candidates who were seen as having good nights than do those who followed coverage.

Among debate watchers, 74% have a favorable view of Buttigieg, vs. 54% among those who followed news instead.

Booker's favorability rating is 80% among those who watched, vs. 55% among those who followed coverage, and Klobuchar's favorability stands at 56% among watchers vs. 36% among those who followed news.

Warren tops the list of candidates who potential Democratic voters say they want to hear more about: 31% name her, 24% Buttigieg, 23% Harris, 18% Booker, 17% Sanders, 16% Biden, 13% Klobuchar, 11% O'Rourke and 10% businessman Andrew Yang.

Majorities of potential Democratic voters say they would at least be satisfied with any of the top three becoming the party's nominee, with about 4 in 10 saying they'd be enthusiastic about Biden (43%), Warren (41%) or Sanders (39%).

Fewer would feel as excited should Buttigieg become the party's nominee (27% enthusiastic).

Registered voters generally give Biden, Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg large advantages over President Donald Trump in hypothetical general election matchups.

Biden leads the President by 10 points, 53% to 43%, with Sanders up 9 (52% to 43%) and Warren up 8 (52% to 44%).

Buttigieg holds a 6-point edge, 50% to 44%.

The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from October 17 through 20 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer, including 424 registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents.

Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

For results among potential Democratic voters, it is plus or minus 5.8 points.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 24, 2019 at 10:58 am

Paul Plante says:

This whole “climate-gate” story is so bizarre that it is hard to believe that it could have even happened in a world that alleges to be sane and rational, given who or what the CRU started out to be, and who its founder was.

According to its own published history, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was established in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich in 1972.

The contribution of the Founding Director, Professor Hubert H. Lamb, cannot be overstated.

end quotes

There is what makes this “climate-gate” so bizarre, because Hubert H. Lamb is the author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, which has as its introduction as follows:

We live in a world that is increasingly vulnerable to climatic shocks— affecting agriculture and industry, government and international trade, not to mention human health and happiness.

Serious anxieties have been aroused by respected scientists warning of dire perils that could result from upsets of the climatic regime.

In this internationally acclaimed book, Hubert Lamb explores what we know about climate, how the past record of climate can be reconstructed, the causes of climatic variation, and its impact on human affairs now and in the historical and prehistoric past.

This second edition incorporates important new material on: recent advances in weather forecasting, global warming, the ozone layer, pollution, and population growth.

Providing a valuable introduction to the problems and results of the most recent research activity, this book extends our understanding of the interactions between climate and history, and discusses implications for future climatic fluctuations and forecasting.

H.H.Lamb is Emeritus Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences and was the Founder and first Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

end quotes

In the Preface to the Second Edition, written by the author in December of 1994, he states thusly:

Since this book was published in 1982 its subject has been continually in the limelight and research has been active.

Also, as is by no means unusual, further noteworthy weather events have been in the news.

Some additional reports, remarks and comments have therefore become desirable, yet the main body of past historical work is still not well known.

It has therefore been decided to issue this revised text which incorporates notices of much new, important, material, thus making our knowledge of the past — particularly the interactions between climate and history — more accessible and providing a handy introduction to some of the problems and results of ongoing research.

Some of the climatic problems affecting humanity arise perhaps more fundamentally from the pressures of the burgeoning human population of the world than from climate.

Anxieties about the possibility of drastic warming of world climates resulting from the continual build-up of carbon dioxide (and other intrusions) in the atmosphere due to human activities have been forced upon the notice of politicians and industrial managements.

In these years there has also been a succession of very great volcanic eruptions that have loaded the atmosphere with debris and, perhaps more importantly, with gases and vapours that veil the sun’s radiation and may be interrupting or even reversing the tendencies towards warming of world climates.

There have been very notable advances in these years in weather forecasting by mathematical models, enormously improving the forecasting for up to five to seven days ahead.

But much of the gain is jeopardized by modern tendencies to use sloppy and inappropriate language in forecasts.

Thus, it is now fashionable to speak of ‘best temperatures’ in forecasts rather than ‘highest’ or ‘lowest’ whichever may really be best for the activities in prospect.

And forecasters in southern England seem to like to assume that summer temperatures in England are much the same as in the Mediterranean, or if they are not, they should be and it is a bad year.

The idea of climatic change has at last taken on with the public, after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant.

But it is easy to notice the common assumption that Man’s science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environment must be due to us.

It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance.

Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.

end quotes

And instead, what we have gotten from his successors at the CRU, and the media, which constantly demonstrates its own willful ignorance of that which it reports on, especially this “carbon pollution” and the “climate crisis,” which is not a crisis, at all, is a steaming heap of pig **** for political, not scientific reasons.

Getting back to the CRU published history:

Hubert Lamb’s determination and vision can only be appreciated in the context of the view, generally prevailing within the scientific establishment in the 1960s, that the climate for all practical purposes could be treated as constant on timescales that are of relevance to humanity and its social and economic systems.

The weather changed from day-to-day, from week-to-week, and season-to-season.

There was interannual variability, but over years to centuries (the perceived argument went) a constancy was reliably evident.

It is now recognised that the climate is not constant, but changes on all timescales – years to millennia, as well as the climatic changes on longer (e.g. ice age) timescales that had become accepted in the late 19th century.

end quotes

And there is where the fistfight begins that led to the “climate-gate” kerfuffle, because the present-day argument requires that the climate be unchanging, unless changed by humans, which is bunkum and twaddle, but necessary, as we see from the following from that same history:

Hubert Lamb retired as Director in 1978.

He was succeeded by Tom Wigley (to 1993), Trevor Davies (1993-1998), Jean Palutikof and Phil Jones (jointly from 1998 to 2004) and Phil Jones (to the present).

Each has brought their own specialities to bear in guiding CRU through what have mostly been good times as far as successful research is concerned, but occasionally through periods of fallow funding, and sometimes very difficult periods.

end quotes

Scroll back to “fallow funding,” and there is the key to the present day disputes about CO2, as again we see from the CRU History, to wit:

Since its inception in 1972 until 1994, the only scientist who had a guaranteed salary was the Director.

Every other research scientist relied on ‘soft money’ – grants and contracts – to continue his or her work.

end quotes

Which means scientists have to pander for money, people.

Getting back to that history, which is quite relevant to this CO2 discussion today, we have:

The early priority of CRU was set against the backdrop of there having been little investigation before the 1960s of past climatic changes and variability, except by geologists and botanists, although there was an excess of theories.

end quotes

Yes, people, an excess of theories, which translates as a lot of competition for that pool of “soft money,” which means scientists have to find out who has the most money to give out to support whatever their pet theory is, which takes us back to pandering.

Getting back to the history:

The objective of CRU, therefore, was “to establish the past record of climate over as much of the world as possible, as far back in time as was feasible, and in enough detail to recognise and establish the basic processes, interactions, and evolutions in the Earth’s fluid envelopes and those involving the Earth’s crust and its vegetation cover”.

The early efforts towards this objective were the interpretation of documentary historical records.

This was painstaking and challenging work and progressed through the 1970s.

end quotes

And what we do not find as a result of that painstaking and challenging work is any definitive evidence that carbon dioxide is doing what the “CARBON CULT” true-believer scientists say carbon dioxide is doing.

To believe the “CARBON CULT” dudes today from this CRU, it becomes necessary to take not only Lamb’s book, but all the books that an engineer uses to learn “science,” and toss them in the **** can, because the CO2 theory cannot stand otherwise, as it is a negation of science.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190019
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 23, 2019 at 7:03 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, yes, people, the Great Democrat “‘Climate Crisis’ Scam,” where the word “scam” in this specific case means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt obtain money or something else of value.

As is the case here with this Democrat “climate crisis,” which is a HYPE TERM not supported by actual science, scams traditionally reside in confidence tricks, where an individual would misrepresent themselves as someone with skill or authority, i.e. a lawyer or politician posing as a climate scientist, which takes us back to this IPCC, and through the IPCC, back to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992 with an objective to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

When we read that, we must needs keep in mind that water vapor (H2O) is the strongest greenhouse gas, and the concentration of this gas is largely controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere.

And of importance to this discussion, “UNFCCC” is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operation of the Convention, with offices in Haus Carstanjen, and the UN Campus (known as Langer Eugen) in Bonn, Germany.

The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies.

And again of importance to this discussion, Article 3(1) of the Convention states that Parties should act to protect the climate system on the basis of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, and that developed country Parties should “take the lead” in addressing climate change.

As to that statement, the United States would be considered a “developed country party,” so the burden of “taking the lead” in addressing climate change would fall to us, which takes us back around to the Democrat “climate crisis scam,” which is intended to make us both terribly scared and very angry going into the 2020 presidential elections, so that we will all vote Democrat and hand them control of our federal government, because it is only the Democrats who can save us now, which takes us to Article 4(7) of that convention, as follows:

The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.

end quotes

Focus in on that last sentence there, people: “will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

Social development is an overriding priority of developing country parties, so that we, the American people have to provide them with financial resources and the transfer of technology to make that possible?

And, besides nothing, what does that have to do with the alleged goal of “preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth’s climate system?”

And there is a look at what the Great Democrat “‘Climate Crisis’ Scam” is really all about, social engineering, where the word “scam” in this specific case means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt obtain money or something else of value, which thought takes us to an article in the New York Times entitled “Climate Town Hall: Several Democratic Candidates Embrace a Carbon Tax” by Coral Davenport and Trip Gabriel on 5 September 2019, as follows:

WASHINGTON — Democratic candidates promised unprecedented new action on climate change on Wednesday night in the first prime-time televised forum devoted to the issue in a presidential campaign, vowing to undo the Trump administration’s environmental policies, spend trillions of dollars to promote renewable energy and force companies to pay new taxes or fees.

end quotes

Ah, yes, people, spend TRILLIONS and FORCE companies to pay taxes or fees, which in turn will filter down to us, and here, let me clarify that I am over 70 and living on a fixed low income, so these Democrat taxes will have an outsized impact on people like myself, as well as other low income Americans, this so we can engage in social engineering in poor countries around the world with our tax dollars.

Getting back to that NYT article:

In perhaps the most significant development of the night, more than half of the 10 candidates at the forum openly embraced the controversial idea of putting a tax or fee on carbon dioxide pollution, the one policy that most environmental economists agree is the most effective way to cut emissions — but also one that has drawn intense political opposition.

Around the country and the world, opponents have attacked it as an “energy tax” that could raise fuel costs, and it has been considered politically toxic in Washington for nearly a decade.

end quotes

I should say that the Democrats are totally insensitive to the impact these taxes are going to have on the poor folks in this country who won’t be able to run out and buy themselves a new Tesla, which again takes us back to the NYT:

In addition to proposing $3 trillion in spending on environmental initiatives, Ms. Warren also responded “Yes!” when asked by a moderator, Chris Cuomo, if she would support a carbon tax — a measure she had not spelled out in her official policy proposal.

end quotes

So, there is Lizzie Warren who is going to spend $3 TRILLION on environmental issues, but to do that, she has to first scare enough people into believing that we have an actual “climate crisis,” as opposed to Democrat HYPE, and to do that, get us scared enough to vote for her, she needs us to take this IPCC crowd seriously, and there is where her whole house of cards comes tumbling down, because the IPCC is so blatantly political that it has no credibility.

And that brings us to “barmy” Bernie Sanders from that same article, as follows:

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has not explicitly taken up Mr. Inslee’s ideas, said, “We are proposing the largest, most comprehensive program ever presented by any candidate in the history of the United States.”

Mr. Sanders has sought to win over the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with a plan that takes its name from the Green New Deal and has the biggest price tag of all the candidates’ proposals — $16.3 trillion over 15 years.

end quotes

Think about it, people – $16.3 TRILLION.

Where exactly is that kind of money coming from, given the size of our present national debt, and more importantly, besides down a rat hole, where is that money going?

And how would “barmy” Bernie convince us to shake loose with $16.3 TRILLION and give him control over that kind of money other than by telling us the sky is falling and we are faced with a “CLIMATE CRISIS,” EGADS!

SAVE US, Bernie, SAVE US!

WE’LL GIVE YOU THE MONEY IF YOU’LL JUST SAVE US, Bernie!

You’re our hero, sigh!

Yeah, right!

And remember, friends do not let friends get sucked into Democrat climate crisis scams, hence this thread!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-189165
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BERNIE SANDERS

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 24, 2019 at 6:45 pm

Paul Plante says :

And what is interesting and ironic here is that while the Democrats are endlessly prattling on about our precious democracy being under attack by foreign elements, they are at the same time paying homage to what is the most un-democratic body on the face of the earth, that being this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC.

According to its history, the United Nations formally endorsed the creation of the IPCC in 1988 in a resolution full of wishy-washy weasel words to include as follows:

“(C)ertain human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe economic and social consequences”; and

“[C]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.”

end quotes

So it could, and it might, and maybe it will but then again, if it could, it also might not, and round and round we go on that, which takes us back to the un-democratic nature of the IPCC as follows:

The Panel itself is composed of representatives appointed by governments.

Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives.

Non-Governmental and Intergovernmental Organizations admitted as observer organizations may also attend.

Sessions of the Panel, IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.

The opening ceremonies of sessions of the Panel and of Lead Author Meetings are open to media, but otherwise IPCC meetings are closed.

end quotes

Dogs, Irishmen, and other white trash who are not committed members of the carbon pollution crisis cult and true believers need not apply, because you won’t make it past security at the door.

So much for our precious democracy, people – it is a joke, which again takes us back to the political nature of the IPCC, as follows:

The IPCC has published five comprehensive assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as a number of special reports on particular topics.

These reports are prepared by teams of relevant researchers selected by the Bureau from government nominations.

end quotes

Ah, yes, people – researchers selected from government nominations, and if one is not nominated by a government for its own political purposes, one is left completely outside the process, on the outside looking in, and that is what the Democrats want us to believe is valid, independent scientific inquiry.

To which I must respectfully respond – not hardly.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-190166
Post Reply