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
ELIZABETH WARREN
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
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
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
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS TRYING SO HARD TO KEEP DIRT ON THEIR CANDIDATES COVERED UP?
FIRST HILLARY AND NOW JOE BIDEN …
WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?
CNN
"Schiff: Impeachment may be 'only remedy' to Trump keeping whistleblower complaint and Ukraine call private"
By Devan Cole, CNN
22 SEPTEMBER 2019
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Sunday that impeachment "may be the only remedy" to President Donald Trump's refusal to make public a whistleblower complaint and transcript of a phone conversation he had with Ukraine's president.
"If the President is essentially withholding military aid at the same time that he is trying to browbeat a foreign leader into doing something illicit that is providing dirt on his opponent during a presidential campaign, then that may be the only remedy that is coequal to the evil that conduct represents," the California Democrat told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union," stopping short of calling on Congress to immediately launch proceedings.
As previously reported by CNN, a person familiar with the situation said Trump pressed Ukrainian President Vologymyr Zelensky in a July 25 phone call to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
That call was also part of a whistleblower complaint submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, another person familiar with the situation told CNN.
Biden has accused the President of abusing his power to "smear" him, while Trump has branded criticism of the call a "Ukranian Witch Hunt."
There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.
Schiff, who has so far resisted joining other Democrats in calling for impeachment, told Tapper he has been "very reluctant" to push for proceedings against the President because he sees it as a "remedy of last resort," but also said Sunday that the President doesn't have the authority "to engage in underhanded discussions."
The chairman's apparent edging toward impeachment follows pressure from others in his party -- including from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- to start proceedings.
On Friday, Warren, who is vying for her party's presidential nomination, tweeted that "Congress is complicit" in failing to start impeachment proceedings against Trump after news broke that he had allegedly pressured Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden.
Echoing Warren's sentiments, Ocasio-Cortez suggested in a tweet on Saturday that her party's "refusal to impeach" Trump was an even bigger scandal than what she said was the President's "lawbreaking behavior."
Asked by Tapper Sunday about Trump keeping conversations with foreign leaders private, Schiff said: "Well not if those conversations involve potential corruption or criminality or leverage being used for political advantage against our nation's interest."
"This would be, I think, the most profound violation of the presidential oath of office, certainly during this presidency, which says a lot, but perhaps during just about any presidency."
"There is no privilege that covers corruption."
"There is no privilege to engage in underhanded discussions," he said, adding that he's not certain that the call is the subject of the complaint.
Earlier Sunday, Trump defended his controversial phone call with Zelensky and again slammed the whistleblower who filed a complaint about it last month.
"We had a great conversation."
"The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption -- all of the corruption taking place, was largely the fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son (adding to the corruption)," Trump told reporters as he left the White House.
The President described the conversation as "warm and friendly" and repeatedly urged reporters to look instead at Biden and Democrats, who he said -- without providing evidence -- have "done some very bad things."
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters on Saturday that he didn't think Trump had tried pressuring Zelensky during the July call, but stopped short of saying the subject of Biden's son wasn't raised.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
FIRST HILLARY AND NOW JOE BIDEN …
WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?
CNN
"Schiff: Impeachment may be 'only remedy' to Trump keeping whistleblower complaint and Ukraine call private"
By Devan Cole, CNN
22 SEPTEMBER 2019
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Sunday that impeachment "may be the only remedy" to President Donald Trump's refusal to make public a whistleblower complaint and transcript of a phone conversation he had with Ukraine's president.
"If the President is essentially withholding military aid at the same time that he is trying to browbeat a foreign leader into doing something illicit that is providing dirt on his opponent during a presidential campaign, then that may be the only remedy that is coequal to the evil that conduct represents," the California Democrat told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union," stopping short of calling on Congress to immediately launch proceedings.
As previously reported by CNN, a person familiar with the situation said Trump pressed Ukrainian President Vologymyr Zelensky in a July 25 phone call to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
That call was also part of a whistleblower complaint submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, another person familiar with the situation told CNN.
Biden has accused the President of abusing his power to "smear" him, while Trump has branded criticism of the call a "Ukranian Witch Hunt."
There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.
Schiff, who has so far resisted joining other Democrats in calling for impeachment, told Tapper he has been "very reluctant" to push for proceedings against the President because he sees it as a "remedy of last resort," but also said Sunday that the President doesn't have the authority "to engage in underhanded discussions."
The chairman's apparent edging toward impeachment follows pressure from others in his party -- including from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- to start proceedings.
On Friday, Warren, who is vying for her party's presidential nomination, tweeted that "Congress is complicit" in failing to start impeachment proceedings against Trump after news broke that he had allegedly pressured Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden.
Echoing Warren's sentiments, Ocasio-Cortez suggested in a tweet on Saturday that her party's "refusal to impeach" Trump was an even bigger scandal than what she said was the President's "lawbreaking behavior."
Asked by Tapper Sunday about Trump keeping conversations with foreign leaders private, Schiff said: "Well not if those conversations involve potential corruption or criminality or leverage being used for political advantage against our nation's interest."
"This would be, I think, the most profound violation of the presidential oath of office, certainly during this presidency, which says a lot, but perhaps during just about any presidency."
"There is no privilege that covers corruption."
"There is no privilege to engage in underhanded discussions," he said, adding that he's not certain that the call is the subject of the complaint.
Earlier Sunday, Trump defended his controversial phone call with Zelensky and again slammed the whistleblower who filed a complaint about it last month.
"We had a great conversation."
"The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption -- all of the corruption taking place, was largely the fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son (adding to the corruption)," Trump told reporters as he left the White House.
The President described the conversation as "warm and friendly" and repeatedly urged reporters to look instead at Biden and Democrats, who he said -- without providing evidence -- have "done some very bad things."
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters on Saturday that he didn't think Trump had tried pressuring Zelensky during the July call, but stopped short of saying the subject of Biden's son wasn't raised.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
THEY ARE HURTLING AT A PRETTY SLOW SPEED ...
THE NEW YORK TIMES
"House Barrels Toward Impeachment Decisions as Democratic Resistance Crumbles"
Nicholas Fandos
24 SEPTEMBER 2019
WASHINGTON — House Democrats hurtled on Tuesday toward a consequential set of decisions about the potential impeachment of President Trump, weighing a course that could reshape his presidency amid startling allegations that he sought to enlist a foreign power to aid him politically.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, who had stubbornly resisted a rush to impeachment, appeared to be rapidly changing course, as lawmakers from every corner of her caucus lined up in favor of filing formal charges against Mr. Trump if the allegations are proved true, or if his administration continues to stonewall attempts by Congress to investigate them.
“We will be making announcements later,” she told reporters in the Capitol around noon, declining to discuss her views on impeachment.
One possibility was the formation of a special committee — reminiscent of the one created in 1973 to investigate the Watergate scandal — to look into the president’s dealings with Ukraine and to potentially lay the groundwork for articles of impeachment based on the findings.
Ms. Pelosi planned a meeting Tuesday afternoon to coordinate strategy with the six committee chairmen who have led the investigations of Mr. Trump, followed by a broader closed-door meeting of all of the chamber’s Democrats to brief them and gauge their mood in light of the changed circumstances.
Calls for impeachment have mounted at breakneck speed, with a growing list of vulnerable moderates — until now the chief skeptics of the move — stating that they believe articles of impeachment would be the only recourse if reports about attempts by Mr. Trump and his personal lawyer to push Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son were true.
“The first responsibility of the president of the United States is to keep our country safe, but it has become clear that our president has placed his personal interests above the national security of our nation,” Representative Antonio Delgado, Democrat of New York and one of the party’s most politically vulnerable freshman moderates, wrote on Tuesday.
“I believe articles of impeachment are warranted.”
The outpouring reached a crescendo just after noon, when Representative John Lewis of Georgia, the civil rights icon who for a generation has been regarded as the conscience of the House Democrats, dropped his resistance to impeachment and urged his colleagues to meet what he said was the call of history.
“I have been patient while we tried every other path and used every other tool,” Mr. Lewis thundered from the well of the House.
“We will never find the truth unless we use the power given to the House of Representatives — and the House alone — to begin an official investigation as dictated by the Constitution.”
“The future of our democracy is at stake,” Mr. Lewis declared.
Mr. Trump, in New York for his second day of diplomatic meetings at the United Nations, dismissed the effort as a desperate political ploy by Democrats, and continued to maintain he had done nothing wrong.
“I think it’s ridiculous,” Mr. Trump told reporters.
“It’s a witch hunt."
"I’m leading in the polls."
"They have no idea how they stop me."
"The only way they can try is through impeachment."
"This has never happened to a president before.”
House Republicans’ campaign arm blasted out a statement predicting that Democrats would be ensuring the end of their House majority if they followed through.
The shift in outlook among Democratic lawmakers has been rapid, and could yet still turn away from impeachment if exculpatory evidence comes to light.
The developments that have turned the tide began less than two weeks ago, when Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee chairman, first revealed the existence of a secret whistle-blower complaint that the intelligence community’s internal watchdog had deemed “urgent” and credible but that the Trump administration had refused to share with Congress.
That complaint remains secret, and lawmakers are fighting to see it, but news reports have established that the complaint was related, at least in part, to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in which Mr. Trump pressed the foreign leader to investigate Mr. Biden and his son Hunter for corruption.
Just days earlier, Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.
While Mr. Trump denies having explicitly linked the two issues, lawmakers believe they are connected and have demanded documentation that could clarify the situation.
And whether or not the military funding factored in, the documents could shed light on whether and how the president attempted to pressure a foreign leader to help him tarnish a political rival, actions that many Democrats argued on Tuesday would be impeachable on their own.
Mr. Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, planned a midafternoon statement from Wilmington, Del., in which an aide said he would call on Mr. Trump to comply with requests by Congress to investigate the matter, and say that if the president does not, he should be impeached.
Some of his primary rivals went further, saying impeachment should begin, in the words of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, “today.”
The House Judiciary Committee has been conducting its own impeachment investigation focused on the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, as well as allegations that Mr. Trump may be illegally profiting from spending by state and foreign governments, and other matters.
But that inquiry has never gotten the imprimatur of a full House vote or the full rhetorical backing of the speaker, as Democrats remained divided about the wisdom and political implications of impeaching a president without broader public support behind them.
What exactly a full impeachment process might look like, if it does go forward, remained unclear early on Tuesday.
It may hinge significantly on what comes of a pair of deadlines on Thursday.
Democrats have given Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, until then to turn over the whistle-blower complaint or risk reprisal.
And they have threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for a copy of the transcript of the president’s call with Mr. Zelensky and other relevant documents after Thursday if they are not shared voluntarily.
A select committee would not necessarily grant lawmakers any new fact-finding power.
Existing standing committees of the House already have the power to issue subpoenas and set rules of procedure as they see fit.
A senior Democratic aide said late Monday that no decision had been made about setting up such a committee.
But at least some of Ms. Pelosi’s advisers were pushing for one, arguing that the process would benefit from a small, staff-driven panel that could make a messy political investigation as professional-looking as possible, one of the advisers said on Tuesday.
Creating a special committee would also allow Ms. Pelosi to handpick its Democratic members — a potentially attractive prospect to a speaker who has second-guessed the work of the Judiciary Committee, where impeachment proceedings typically play out.
Lawmakers who have discussed the idea routinely raise Mr. Schiff, a close ally of the speaker, as a potential chairman, but senior members of the Judiciary panel are likely to protest any effort to minimize their role.
Whatever Ms. Pelosi and her leadership team decide, it appeared increasingly likely she would face little internal resistance from her caucus, as moderates and progressives, first-term lawmakers and seasoned veterans and others agreed the time had come for to move toward impeachment.
Representative Haley Stevens, Democrat of Michigan and another freshman who flipped a Republican seat last fall, said early Tuesday that “if investigations confirm recent reports, these actions represent impeachable offenses that threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections and jeopardize the balance of power within the federal government.”
Representative Lizzie Fletcher of Texas, who defeated an incumbent Republican last year to win her Houston-area district, said just the facts that Mr. Trump had already confirmed represent “a gross abuse of power.”
In a sign of where Ms. Pelosi may be headed herself, some of her closest allies who had been previously reluctant to back impeachment were shifting their positions, including Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, who said late Monday that impeachment “may be the only recourse Congress has if the president is enlisting foreign assistance in the 2020 election.”
In the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority, Democrats said they would attempt to bring up a nonbinding resolution directing the administration to turn over the whistle-blower complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.
It was an effort to force Republicans to either break with the Trump administration and join them in calling for the release of the material, or go on the record in favor of blocking its disclosure.
Jonathan Martin contributed reporting from Los Angeles.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
THE NEW YORK TIMES
"House Barrels Toward Impeachment Decisions as Democratic Resistance Crumbles"
Nicholas Fandos
24 SEPTEMBER 2019
WASHINGTON — House Democrats hurtled on Tuesday toward a consequential set of decisions about the potential impeachment of President Trump, weighing a course that could reshape his presidency amid startling allegations that he sought to enlist a foreign power to aid him politically.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, who had stubbornly resisted a rush to impeachment, appeared to be rapidly changing course, as lawmakers from every corner of her caucus lined up in favor of filing formal charges against Mr. Trump if the allegations are proved true, or if his administration continues to stonewall attempts by Congress to investigate them.
“We will be making announcements later,” she told reporters in the Capitol around noon, declining to discuss her views on impeachment.
One possibility was the formation of a special committee — reminiscent of the one created in 1973 to investigate the Watergate scandal — to look into the president’s dealings with Ukraine and to potentially lay the groundwork for articles of impeachment based on the findings.
Ms. Pelosi planned a meeting Tuesday afternoon to coordinate strategy with the six committee chairmen who have led the investigations of Mr. Trump, followed by a broader closed-door meeting of all of the chamber’s Democrats to brief them and gauge their mood in light of the changed circumstances.
Calls for impeachment have mounted at breakneck speed, with a growing list of vulnerable moderates — until now the chief skeptics of the move — stating that they believe articles of impeachment would be the only recourse if reports about attempts by Mr. Trump and his personal lawyer to push Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son were true.
“The first responsibility of the president of the United States is to keep our country safe, but it has become clear that our president has placed his personal interests above the national security of our nation,” Representative Antonio Delgado, Democrat of New York and one of the party’s most politically vulnerable freshman moderates, wrote on Tuesday.
“I believe articles of impeachment are warranted.”
The outpouring reached a crescendo just after noon, when Representative John Lewis of Georgia, the civil rights icon who for a generation has been regarded as the conscience of the House Democrats, dropped his resistance to impeachment and urged his colleagues to meet what he said was the call of history.
“I have been patient while we tried every other path and used every other tool,” Mr. Lewis thundered from the well of the House.
“We will never find the truth unless we use the power given to the House of Representatives — and the House alone — to begin an official investigation as dictated by the Constitution.”
“The future of our democracy is at stake,” Mr. Lewis declared.
Mr. Trump, in New York for his second day of diplomatic meetings at the United Nations, dismissed the effort as a desperate political ploy by Democrats, and continued to maintain he had done nothing wrong.
“I think it’s ridiculous,” Mr. Trump told reporters.
“It’s a witch hunt."
"I’m leading in the polls."
"They have no idea how they stop me."
"The only way they can try is through impeachment."
"This has never happened to a president before.”
House Republicans’ campaign arm blasted out a statement predicting that Democrats would be ensuring the end of their House majority if they followed through.
The shift in outlook among Democratic lawmakers has been rapid, and could yet still turn away from impeachment if exculpatory evidence comes to light.
The developments that have turned the tide began less than two weeks ago, when Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee chairman, first revealed the existence of a secret whistle-blower complaint that the intelligence community’s internal watchdog had deemed “urgent” and credible but that the Trump administration had refused to share with Congress.
That complaint remains secret, and lawmakers are fighting to see it, but news reports have established that the complaint was related, at least in part, to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in which Mr. Trump pressed the foreign leader to investigate Mr. Biden and his son Hunter for corruption.
Just days earlier, Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.
While Mr. Trump denies having explicitly linked the two issues, lawmakers believe they are connected and have demanded documentation that could clarify the situation.
And whether or not the military funding factored in, the documents could shed light on whether and how the president attempted to pressure a foreign leader to help him tarnish a political rival, actions that many Democrats argued on Tuesday would be impeachable on their own.
Mr. Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, planned a midafternoon statement from Wilmington, Del., in which an aide said he would call on Mr. Trump to comply with requests by Congress to investigate the matter, and say that if the president does not, he should be impeached.
Some of his primary rivals went further, saying impeachment should begin, in the words of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, “today.”
The House Judiciary Committee has been conducting its own impeachment investigation focused on the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, as well as allegations that Mr. Trump may be illegally profiting from spending by state and foreign governments, and other matters.
But that inquiry has never gotten the imprimatur of a full House vote or the full rhetorical backing of the speaker, as Democrats remained divided about the wisdom and political implications of impeaching a president without broader public support behind them.
What exactly a full impeachment process might look like, if it does go forward, remained unclear early on Tuesday.
It may hinge significantly on what comes of a pair of deadlines on Thursday.
Democrats have given Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, until then to turn over the whistle-blower complaint or risk reprisal.
And they have threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for a copy of the transcript of the president’s call with Mr. Zelensky and other relevant documents after Thursday if they are not shared voluntarily.
A select committee would not necessarily grant lawmakers any new fact-finding power.
Existing standing committees of the House already have the power to issue subpoenas and set rules of procedure as they see fit.
A senior Democratic aide said late Monday that no decision had been made about setting up such a committee.
But at least some of Ms. Pelosi’s advisers were pushing for one, arguing that the process would benefit from a small, staff-driven panel that could make a messy political investigation as professional-looking as possible, one of the advisers said on Tuesday.
Creating a special committee would also allow Ms. Pelosi to handpick its Democratic members — a potentially attractive prospect to a speaker who has second-guessed the work of the Judiciary Committee, where impeachment proceedings typically play out.
Lawmakers who have discussed the idea routinely raise Mr. Schiff, a close ally of the speaker, as a potential chairman, but senior members of the Judiciary panel are likely to protest any effort to minimize their role.
Whatever Ms. Pelosi and her leadership team decide, it appeared increasingly likely she would face little internal resistance from her caucus, as moderates and progressives, first-term lawmakers and seasoned veterans and others agreed the time had come for to move toward impeachment.
Representative Haley Stevens, Democrat of Michigan and another freshman who flipped a Republican seat last fall, said early Tuesday that “if investigations confirm recent reports, these actions represent impeachable offenses that threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections and jeopardize the balance of power within the federal government.”
Representative Lizzie Fletcher of Texas, who defeated an incumbent Republican last year to win her Houston-area district, said just the facts that Mr. Trump had already confirmed represent “a gross abuse of power.”
In a sign of where Ms. Pelosi may be headed herself, some of her closest allies who had been previously reluctant to back impeachment were shifting their positions, including Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, who said late Monday that impeachment “may be the only recourse Congress has if the president is enlisting foreign assistance in the 2020 election.”
In the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority, Democrats said they would attempt to bring up a nonbinding resolution directing the administration to turn over the whistle-blower complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.
It was an effort to force Republicans to either break with the Trump administration and join them in calling for the release of the material, or go on the record in favor of blocking its disclosure.
Jonathan Martin contributed reporting from Los Angeles.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
SHE IS ESTABLISHING HER VICTIMHOOD HERE WHICH IS NOW A PREREQUISITE OF HOLDING HIGH OFFICE IN AMERICA …
IF YOU ARE NOT A VICTIM OF SOMETHING, YOU LACK THE NECESSARY CACHET TO BE AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT ...
CBS News
"Warren stands by account of being pushed out of her first teaching job"
Zak Hudak
8 OCTOBER 2019
On the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren often tells the story of how she was fired from her first teaching job in 1971 because she was pregnant, a pivotal moment that ultimately put her on a path to Harvard, the United States Senate, and quite possibly the presidency.
But recently, several media outlets have questioned the veracity of these claims.
In an exclusive interview with CBS News on Monday evening, Warren said she stands by her characterizations of why she left the job.
"All I know is I was 22 years old, I was 6 months pregnant, and the job that I had been promised for the next year was going to someone else."
"The principal said they were going to hire someone else for my job," she said.
Warren has repeatedly said that her principal "showed [her] the door" after discovering she was pregnant at the end of the 1971 school year.
The episode is pivotal to her life story, in that it dashed her dreams of remaining a public school teacher and launched her reluctantly down the path to public service.
Fresh out of the University of Houston, Warren was hired by the Riverdale Board of Education in New Jersey as a speech pathologist for the 1970-1971 school year.
Since she began her campaign for the presidency, she has repeatedly said that she was "shown the door" after just a year as a result of her pregnancy.
"By the end of the first year I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days: wished me luck, showed me the door, and hired someone else for the job," she said at a town hall in Oakland in June.
The "showed me the door" anecdote came up often on the campaign trail until recently.
And now some outlets have found a 2007 interview Warren gave in which she presents the story in a different light.
In an interview that year at the University of California, Berkeley, Warren gave the first known public account of her time at Riverdale.
"I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities."
"I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn't have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called," Warren said in 2007.
"I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don't think this is going to work out for me.'"
"I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years."
Asked by CBS News why she told the story differently at Berkeley a decade ago, Warren said her life since her election to the Senate in 2012 caused her to "open up" about her past.
"After becoming a public figure I opened up more about different pieces in my life and this was one of them."
"I wrote about it in my book when I became a U.S. Senator," she said in a statement from her campaign.
Warren's changes in phrasing when discussing her dismissal have sparked questions about her story's veracity.
Fox News has cited the 2007 interview as a contradiction with her more recent statements.
The Washington Free Beacon reported on a transcript from contemporaneous local school board meetings, also obtained by CBS News, which said Warren was rehired that spring and that the board "accepted with regret" her "resignation" the following summer.
In fact, the school board minutes show that the board voted by unanimous roll call to extend Warren a "provisional certificate" in speech pathology.
Local newspaper reports from 1971 also present reasons for her leaving the school alternative to what she describes on the trail.
The Paterson News, a local paper, reported that summer that Warren was "leaving to raise a family."
The next month, a story about the school board hiring a replacement said Warren had "resigned for personal reasons," even though the board had voted to "appoint" Warren to the same speech pathology job that April, according to an earlier report.
Warren told CBS News she stands by her characterization of getting "shown the door" because of her pregnancy and called it an "accurate description."
"When someone calls you in and says the job that you've been hired for for the next year is no longer yours, 'We're giving it to someone else,' I think that's being shown the door," Warren told CBS News.
In her 2014 memoir, published after she became a Massachusetts senator, Warren gave a similar account of her departure from Riverdale Elementary.
Warren also told CBS News that she was, in fact, officially offered the job for the following year as the school board minutes indicate.
"In April of that year, my contract was renewed to teach again for the next year," Warren said.
She also said she had been hiding her pregnancy from the school.
"I was pregnant, but nobody knew it."
"And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job," Warren said.
Asked repeatedly whether she meant she was fired when she said the principal showed her the door, Warren said, "When someone calls you in and says, the job that you've been hired for for next year, is no longer yours, we're giving it to someone else."
"I think that's being 'shown the door.'"
Recent profiles of Warren have referenced her departure from Riverdale Elementary and that stated she was fired from her job.
"Warren was laid off when she became pregnant, and after her daughter was born," The New York Times Magazine reported in June.
"She called the role a dream job, and one that she still might have today had she not been terminated for being visibly pregnant," The Huffington Post reported a month before.
Later in the summer, however, Warren was telling the same story about the principal without the part about him showing her the door.
"I was visibly pregnant."
"And back in the day, that meant that the principal said to me," Warren said, pausing, "wished me luck and hired someone else for the job.
Asked about this change in stump speech, Warren told CBS News she "actually hadn't noticed" she does not reference her firing like this anymore.
Interviews with retired teachers who worked for the Riverdale Board of Education at the same time as Warren suggest that while they do not remember Warren or the circumstances of her leaving the school, the workplace culture at the time may have left Warren with no option but to move on when her pregnancy became apparent.
Two retired teachers who worked at Riverdale Elementary for over 30 years, including the year Warren was there, told CBS News that they don't remember anyone being explicitly fired due to pregnancy during their time at the school.
But Trudy Randall and Sharon Ercalano each said that a non-tenured, pregnant employee like Warren would have had little job security at Riverdale in 1971, seven years before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed.
"The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant."
"Now, if you didn't tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn't know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer," Randall said.
"But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant."
As the school board minutes show, no member of the Riverdale school board at the time was a woman.
A full year after Warren's dismissal, the Associated Press wrote that a recent New Jersey State Division of Civil Rights decision meant that "pregnant teachers can no longer be automatically forced out of New Jersey classrooms."
After leaving her position at Riverdale Elementary, Warren took education and accounting courses at local New Jersey colleges before applying to Rutgers Law School in 1973, according to her law school application.
She graduated in 1976, again "visibly pregnant," and became a lecturer in law at Rutgers in 1977.
By the early 2000s, she had become a leading public intellectual and an expert on bankruptcy law.
She later was the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in 2012.
But according to Warren, had she not been pushed out of that teaching job at Riverdale Elementary, she would likely still be teaching special needs students.
"I would probably still be doing it today, but life has a way of putting another kink in it."
"By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant," Warren said at the Manchester Democratic City Committee's Flag Day dinner in June.
"And, back in the day, the principal did what principals did."
"Wished me good luck, showed me the door and hired someone else for the job."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=HPDHP17
IF YOU ARE NOT A VICTIM OF SOMETHING, YOU LACK THE NECESSARY CACHET TO BE AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT ...
CBS News
"Warren stands by account of being pushed out of her first teaching job"
Zak Hudak
8 OCTOBER 2019
On the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren often tells the story of how she was fired from her first teaching job in 1971 because she was pregnant, a pivotal moment that ultimately put her on a path to Harvard, the United States Senate, and quite possibly the presidency.
But recently, several media outlets have questioned the veracity of these claims.
In an exclusive interview with CBS News on Monday evening, Warren said she stands by her characterizations of why she left the job.
"All I know is I was 22 years old, I was 6 months pregnant, and the job that I had been promised for the next year was going to someone else."
"The principal said they were going to hire someone else for my job," she said.
Warren has repeatedly said that her principal "showed [her] the door" after discovering she was pregnant at the end of the 1971 school year.
The episode is pivotal to her life story, in that it dashed her dreams of remaining a public school teacher and launched her reluctantly down the path to public service.
Fresh out of the University of Houston, Warren was hired by the Riverdale Board of Education in New Jersey as a speech pathologist for the 1970-1971 school year.
Since she began her campaign for the presidency, she has repeatedly said that she was "shown the door" after just a year as a result of her pregnancy.
"By the end of the first year I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days: wished me luck, showed me the door, and hired someone else for the job," she said at a town hall in Oakland in June.
The "showed me the door" anecdote came up often on the campaign trail until recently.
And now some outlets have found a 2007 interview Warren gave in which she presents the story in a different light.
In an interview that year at the University of California, Berkeley, Warren gave the first known public account of her time at Riverdale.
"I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities."
"I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn't have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called," Warren said in 2007.
"I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don't think this is going to work out for me.'"
"I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years."
Asked by CBS News why she told the story differently at Berkeley a decade ago, Warren said her life since her election to the Senate in 2012 caused her to "open up" about her past.
"After becoming a public figure I opened up more about different pieces in my life and this was one of them."
"I wrote about it in my book when I became a U.S. Senator," she said in a statement from her campaign.
Warren's changes in phrasing when discussing her dismissal have sparked questions about her story's veracity.
Fox News has cited the 2007 interview as a contradiction with her more recent statements.
The Washington Free Beacon reported on a transcript from contemporaneous local school board meetings, also obtained by CBS News, which said Warren was rehired that spring and that the board "accepted with regret" her "resignation" the following summer.
In fact, the school board minutes show that the board voted by unanimous roll call to extend Warren a "provisional certificate" in speech pathology.
Local newspaper reports from 1971 also present reasons for her leaving the school alternative to what she describes on the trail.
The Paterson News, a local paper, reported that summer that Warren was "leaving to raise a family."
The next month, a story about the school board hiring a replacement said Warren had "resigned for personal reasons," even though the board had voted to "appoint" Warren to the same speech pathology job that April, according to an earlier report.
Warren told CBS News she stands by her characterization of getting "shown the door" because of her pregnancy and called it an "accurate description."
"When someone calls you in and says the job that you've been hired for for the next year is no longer yours, 'We're giving it to someone else,' I think that's being shown the door," Warren told CBS News.
In her 2014 memoir, published after she became a Massachusetts senator, Warren gave a similar account of her departure from Riverdale Elementary.
Warren also told CBS News that she was, in fact, officially offered the job for the following year as the school board minutes indicate.
"In April of that year, my contract was renewed to teach again for the next year," Warren said.
She also said she had been hiding her pregnancy from the school.
"I was pregnant, but nobody knew it."
"And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job," Warren said.
Asked repeatedly whether she meant she was fired when she said the principal showed her the door, Warren said, "When someone calls you in and says, the job that you've been hired for for next year, is no longer yours, we're giving it to someone else."
"I think that's being 'shown the door.'"
Recent profiles of Warren have referenced her departure from Riverdale Elementary and that stated she was fired from her job.
"Warren was laid off when she became pregnant, and after her daughter was born," The New York Times Magazine reported in June.
"She called the role a dream job, and one that she still might have today had she not been terminated for being visibly pregnant," The Huffington Post reported a month before.
Later in the summer, however, Warren was telling the same story about the principal without the part about him showing her the door.
"I was visibly pregnant."
"And back in the day, that meant that the principal said to me," Warren said, pausing, "wished me luck and hired someone else for the job.
Asked about this change in stump speech, Warren told CBS News she "actually hadn't noticed" she does not reference her firing like this anymore.
Interviews with retired teachers who worked for the Riverdale Board of Education at the same time as Warren suggest that while they do not remember Warren or the circumstances of her leaving the school, the workplace culture at the time may have left Warren with no option but to move on when her pregnancy became apparent.
Two retired teachers who worked at Riverdale Elementary for over 30 years, including the year Warren was there, told CBS News that they don't remember anyone being explicitly fired due to pregnancy during their time at the school.
But Trudy Randall and Sharon Ercalano each said that a non-tenured, pregnant employee like Warren would have had little job security at Riverdale in 1971, seven years before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed.
"The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant."
"Now, if you didn't tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn't know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer," Randall said.
"But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant."
As the school board minutes show, no member of the Riverdale school board at the time was a woman.
A full year after Warren's dismissal, the Associated Press wrote that a recent New Jersey State Division of Civil Rights decision meant that "pregnant teachers can no longer be automatically forced out of New Jersey classrooms."
After leaving her position at Riverdale Elementary, Warren took education and accounting courses at local New Jersey colleges before applying to Rutgers Law School in 1973, according to her law school application.
She graduated in 1976, again "visibly pregnant," and became a lecturer in law at Rutgers in 1977.
By the early 2000s, she had become a leading public intellectual and an expert on bankruptcy law.
She later was the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in 2012.
But according to Warren, had she not been pushed out of that teaching job at Riverdale Elementary, she would likely still be teaching special needs students.
"I would probably still be doing it today, but life has a way of putting another kink in it."
"By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant," Warren said at the Manchester Democratic City Committee's Flag Day dinner in June.
"And, back in the day, the principal did what principals did."
"Wished me good luck, showed me the door and hired someone else for the job."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=HPDHP17
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
"Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’"
Jonathan Martin
22 OCTOBER 2019
WASHINGTON — When a half-dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked.
But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race — but could be lured in.
Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor?
One person even mused whether Michelle Obama would consider a late entry, according to two people who attended the event, which was hosted by the progressive group American Bridge.
It’s that time of the election season for Democrats.
“Since the last debate, just anecdotally, I’ve had five or six people ask me: ‘Is there anybody else?’” said Leah Daughtry, a longtime Democrat who has run two of the party’s recent conventions.
With doubts rising about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s ability to finance a multistate primary campaign, persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election and skepticism that Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, Ind., can broaden his appeal beyond white voters, Democratic leaders are engaging in a familiar rite: fretting about who is in the race and longing for a white knight to enter the contest at the last minute.
It is a regular, if not quite quadrennial, tradition for a party that can be fatalistic about its prospects and recalls similar Maalox moments Democrats endured in 1992, 2004 and in the last primary, when it was Mr. Biden who nearly entered the race in October.
But the mood of alarm is even more intense because of the party’s hunger to defeat President Trump and — with just over three months to go before voting starts in Iowa — their impatience with finding Mr. or Mrs. Right among the current crop of candidates.
“There’s more anxiety than ever,” said Connie Schultz, a journalist who is married to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another Democrat who some in the party would like to see join the race.
“We’re both getting the calls."
"I’ve been surprised by some who’ve called me.”
“I can see it, I can feel it, I can hear it,” Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor, said of the unease within the party.
He said he thinks Mr. Biden is best positioned to defeat Mr. Trump but called the former vice president’s fund-raising “a real concern.”
Mr. Biden’s lackluster debate performances and alarmingly low cash flow — he has less than $9 million on hand, not even half of some of his rivals — has fueled the Democratic disquiet.
But if the causes of the concern are plain to see, what exactly can be done about it is less clear.
And even some of those being wooed acknowledge that it can be hard to discern between people just being nice and those who genuinely want them in the race.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win, they would consider entering the primary — but that they were skeptical there would be an opening, according to Democrats who have spoken with them.
Former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who associates say has wondered aloud about whether he should have run and has found it hard to watch Mr. Biden’s missteps, has also been urged to get in.
But he still thinks the former vice president, who was once his longtime Senate colleague, is the party’s best nominee.
Another Obama administration official who weighed a campaign at the start of the year, former Attorney General Eric Holder, is considering a last-minute entry but has conceded it may be too late, according to a Democrat familiar with his thinking.
Mr. Brown, who nearly entered the race earlier this year, said the pressure on him to reconsider from labor leaders, Democratic officials and donors has “become more frequent.”
And Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor, who also weighed a campaign run before deciding not to, said he too has been nudged by friends to reconsider.
“It’s nice to be rumored about,” he said, before notably refusing to rule out a last-minute entry.
“Don’t ask me that question,” he said.
But Mr. Patrick suggested an 11th-hour bid was highly unlikely and had a message for increasingly angst-ridden Democrats: “Everybody needs to calm down, it’s early."
"It’s so early.”
The chances that another major contender decides to run are remote: While Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both been encouraged to enter the race, Democrats close to them believe the only scenario under which they’d consider running is if Mr. Biden drops out or is badly weakened.
Neither is likely to take place before the end of this calendar year, at which point the filing deadline to be on the primary ballot in large Super Tuesday states like California and Texas will have passed.
But that’s not stopping the speculation, which has only grown of late thanks in part to the 2016 Democratic nominee’s public comments.
Mrs. Clinton, after largely staying in the background of the Democratic primary, has been more vocal this month, promoting a book she wrote with her daughter and taunting Mr. Trump on Twitter.
She also opened a feud with Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii by claiming the long-shot candidate was being supported by the Russians, as a potential third-party spoiler in the general election.
Democrats who have recently spoken with Mrs. Clinton say she shares the same concerns other party elites have about the field — worried about Mr. Biden’s durability, Ms. Warren’s liberal politics and unsure of who else can emerge to take on Mr. Trump.
But these people, who spoke anonymously to discuss private conversations, say she enjoys the freedom that comes with not being on the ballot.
Mr. Bloomberg is said to be more eager to find a way into the race — and chatter about his potential candidacy has only grown among Democrats who work on Wall Street and are concerned about Ms. Warren’s rise.
He raised some eyebrows recently by putting off a fund-raising request from one third-party Democratic group until he knew about his own intentions, according to two Democrats familiar with the conversation.
But the former New York mayor has flirted with presidential runs before, only to pull back.
Friends say he recognizes his long odds at this stage of the race and his advisers suggest he will play a significant financial role in the 2020 race without his name on the ballot.
Still, it’s unlikely that the what-if musing, particularly among the party’s class of donors, elected officials and strategists, will quiet down as long as Mr. Biden is struggling and Ms. Warren, the Massachusetts senator, is surging.
“With Trump looming, there is genuine concern that the horse many have bet on may be pulling up lame and the horse who has sprinted out front may not be able to win,” said David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama.
While much of the daydreaming about a last-minute entry comes from pro-business Democrats, it is not confined to the wealthy.
Mr. Brown and Ms. Schultz noted that they were hearing from a broad range of people but declined to offer any names.
He said he was staying out of the race and had no regrets.
The Ohio senator said he was confident Democrats would eventually rally behind their nominee, but he warned the party not to embrace a single-payer health care plan that eliminates private insurance.
“I think it’ll be a hard sell to the public if we go into the general election for ‘Medicare for all,’” said Mr. Brown, citing the risk of alienating union workers who would lose their negotiated plans.
One longtime Democrat who originally sought to entice Mr. Brown into the race, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, could not help letting out a loud “oy!” when asked about the possibility of another candidate joining the sprawling field.
“For as long as I have been in politics, I’ve heard Democrats fretting about their presidential contenders,” said Ms. Weingarten.
Indeed, for some Democrats, the grass is always greener outside their field.
There were multiple stages of the 1992 primary when Bill Clinton’s candidacy was seen as doomed, either because of his own vulnerabilities or because of the third-party threat of H. Ross Perot, the wealthy Reform Party candidate.
Would-be Democratic saviors that year included Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, former Senators Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, Sam Nunn of Georgia and Al Gore of Tennessee, and Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
In the 2004 race, Mr. Gore was again sought after as a potential candidate.
That race evolved along similar lines to the current primary, with Democrats desperate to oust an incumbent Republican (George W. Bush) but nervous that their front-runner into the fall (Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont) would prove unelectable as the nominee.
That time, a candidate did come in relatively late in the race, Wesley K. Clark, a retired general, but he gained little traction and Mr. Kerry ultimately won the nomination.
At this time four years ago, it was Mr. Biden who some Democrats were hoping would join the race to offer the party another option besides Mrs. Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Mr. Biden, of course, decided not to run.
But now it’s his own candidacy that’s prompting a familiar call for the cavalry, or at least one horse-bound white knight.
“If Biden were surging, I doubt you would be hearing this,” said Harold Ickes, a longtime Democratic consultant.
“This shows a restlessness among a lot of people.”
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
"Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’"
Jonathan Martin
22 OCTOBER 2019
WASHINGTON — When a half-dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked.
But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race — but could be lured in.
Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor?
One person even mused whether Michelle Obama would consider a late entry, according to two people who attended the event, which was hosted by the progressive group American Bridge.
It’s that time of the election season for Democrats.
“Since the last debate, just anecdotally, I’ve had five or six people ask me: ‘Is there anybody else?’” said Leah Daughtry, a longtime Democrat who has run two of the party’s recent conventions.
With doubts rising about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s ability to finance a multistate primary campaign, persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election and skepticism that Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, Ind., can broaden his appeal beyond white voters, Democratic leaders are engaging in a familiar rite: fretting about who is in the race and longing for a white knight to enter the contest at the last minute.
It is a regular, if not quite quadrennial, tradition for a party that can be fatalistic about its prospects and recalls similar Maalox moments Democrats endured in 1992, 2004 and in the last primary, when it was Mr. Biden who nearly entered the race in October.
But the mood of alarm is even more intense because of the party’s hunger to defeat President Trump and — with just over three months to go before voting starts in Iowa — their impatience with finding Mr. or Mrs. Right among the current crop of candidates.
“There’s more anxiety than ever,” said Connie Schultz, a journalist who is married to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another Democrat who some in the party would like to see join the race.
“We’re both getting the calls."
"I’ve been surprised by some who’ve called me.”
“I can see it, I can feel it, I can hear it,” Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor, said of the unease within the party.
He said he thinks Mr. Biden is best positioned to defeat Mr. Trump but called the former vice president’s fund-raising “a real concern.”
Mr. Biden’s lackluster debate performances and alarmingly low cash flow — he has less than $9 million on hand, not even half of some of his rivals — has fueled the Democratic disquiet.
But if the causes of the concern are plain to see, what exactly can be done about it is less clear.
And even some of those being wooed acknowledge that it can be hard to discern between people just being nice and those who genuinely want them in the race.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win, they would consider entering the primary — but that they were skeptical there would be an opening, according to Democrats who have spoken with them.
Former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who associates say has wondered aloud about whether he should have run and has found it hard to watch Mr. Biden’s missteps, has also been urged to get in.
But he still thinks the former vice president, who was once his longtime Senate colleague, is the party’s best nominee.
Another Obama administration official who weighed a campaign at the start of the year, former Attorney General Eric Holder, is considering a last-minute entry but has conceded it may be too late, according to a Democrat familiar with his thinking.
Mr. Brown, who nearly entered the race earlier this year, said the pressure on him to reconsider from labor leaders, Democratic officials and donors has “become more frequent.”
And Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor, who also weighed a campaign run before deciding not to, said he too has been nudged by friends to reconsider.
“It’s nice to be rumored about,” he said, before notably refusing to rule out a last-minute entry.
“Don’t ask me that question,” he said.
But Mr. Patrick suggested an 11th-hour bid was highly unlikely and had a message for increasingly angst-ridden Democrats: “Everybody needs to calm down, it’s early."
"It’s so early.”
The chances that another major contender decides to run are remote: While Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both been encouraged to enter the race, Democrats close to them believe the only scenario under which they’d consider running is if Mr. Biden drops out or is badly weakened.
Neither is likely to take place before the end of this calendar year, at which point the filing deadline to be on the primary ballot in large Super Tuesday states like California and Texas will have passed.
But that’s not stopping the speculation, which has only grown of late thanks in part to the 2016 Democratic nominee’s public comments.
Mrs. Clinton, after largely staying in the background of the Democratic primary, has been more vocal this month, promoting a book she wrote with her daughter and taunting Mr. Trump on Twitter.
She also opened a feud with Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii by claiming the long-shot candidate was being supported by the Russians, as a potential third-party spoiler in the general election.
Democrats who have recently spoken with Mrs. Clinton say she shares the same concerns other party elites have about the field — worried about Mr. Biden’s durability, Ms. Warren’s liberal politics and unsure of who else can emerge to take on Mr. Trump.
But these people, who spoke anonymously to discuss private conversations, say she enjoys the freedom that comes with not being on the ballot.
Mr. Bloomberg is said to be more eager to find a way into the race — and chatter about his potential candidacy has only grown among Democrats who work on Wall Street and are concerned about Ms. Warren’s rise.
He raised some eyebrows recently by putting off a fund-raising request from one third-party Democratic group until he knew about his own intentions, according to two Democrats familiar with the conversation.
But the former New York mayor has flirted with presidential runs before, only to pull back.
Friends say he recognizes his long odds at this stage of the race and his advisers suggest he will play a significant financial role in the 2020 race without his name on the ballot.
Still, it’s unlikely that the what-if musing, particularly among the party’s class of donors, elected officials and strategists, will quiet down as long as Mr. Biden is struggling and Ms. Warren, the Massachusetts senator, is surging.
“With Trump looming, there is genuine concern that the horse many have bet on may be pulling up lame and the horse who has sprinted out front may not be able to win,” said David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama.
While much of the daydreaming about a last-minute entry comes from pro-business Democrats, it is not confined to the wealthy.
Mr. Brown and Ms. Schultz noted that they were hearing from a broad range of people but declined to offer any names.
He said he was staying out of the race and had no regrets.
The Ohio senator said he was confident Democrats would eventually rally behind their nominee, but he warned the party not to embrace a single-payer health care plan that eliminates private insurance.
“I think it’ll be a hard sell to the public if we go into the general election for ‘Medicare for all,’” said Mr. Brown, citing the risk of alienating union workers who would lose their negotiated plans.
One longtime Democrat who originally sought to entice Mr. Brown into the race, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, could not help letting out a loud “oy!” when asked about the possibility of another candidate joining the sprawling field.
“For as long as I have been in politics, I’ve heard Democrats fretting about their presidential contenders,” said Ms. Weingarten.
Indeed, for some Democrats, the grass is always greener outside their field.
There were multiple stages of the 1992 primary when Bill Clinton’s candidacy was seen as doomed, either because of his own vulnerabilities or because of the third-party threat of H. Ross Perot, the wealthy Reform Party candidate.
Would-be Democratic saviors that year included Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, former Senators Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, Sam Nunn of Georgia and Al Gore of Tennessee, and Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
In the 2004 race, Mr. Gore was again sought after as a potential candidate.
That race evolved along similar lines to the current primary, with Democrats desperate to oust an incumbent Republican (George W. Bush) but nervous that their front-runner into the fall (Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont) would prove unelectable as the nominee.
That time, a candidate did come in relatively late in the race, Wesley K. Clark, a retired general, but he gained little traction and Mr. Kerry ultimately won the nomination.
At this time four years ago, it was Mr. Biden who some Democrats were hoping would join the race to offer the party another option besides Mrs. Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Mr. Biden, of course, decided not to run.
But now it’s his own candidacy that’s prompting a familiar call for the cavalry, or at least one horse-bound white knight.
“If Biden were surging, I doubt you would be hearing this,” said Harold Ickes, a longtime Democratic consultant.
“This shows a restlessness among a lot of people.”
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
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
"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
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
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
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
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
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
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
Re: ELIZABETH WARREN
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
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