General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders primary challenger appears to slur transgender people as 'lady boys'
Bernie Sanders primary challenger appears to slur transgender people as lady boys in unearthed Facebook post
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/bernie-sanders-primary-challenger-appears-to-slur-transgender-people-as-lady-boys-in-unearthed-facebook-post/
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has a primary challenger in Vermont and it looks like his past statements have already landed him in hot water.
Jon Svitavsky, a homeless shelter executive director, self-described Christian liberal and first-time political candidate, appeared to make transphobic comments on a post he made in a political Facebook group over a year ago.
So if a lady boy in high school, wants to shower with the girls, well just take his word for it?? Svitavksy wrote in the Chicago Style Politics Facebook group on May 13, 2016. The post was accompanied by a link to an article about President Barack Obamas administrations move to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that align with their gender identities in public schools.
.....
Raw Story reached out to both Svitavsky and the Vermont Democratic Party for comment, but neither has yet to reply.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)What the fuck is a "Christian liberal"?
He doesn't believe in vaccinations. He doesn't think there is mental illness.
This guy sounds just as loony as Alex Jones, only maybe a little more subdued.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . but I question whether this guy is one!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I guess Raw Story is in on the conspiracy and shady "internet smear campaign".
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)That doesn't look like any Raw Story page *I'm* familiar with!
Also, at sad trombone.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't know Rob, that link looks MIGHTY SUSPICIOUS to me.
Does the file contain any foreign language?
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)Where did all Svitavsky's defenders go?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I've been wondering the same thing.
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)along with at least one new one, blissfully unaware how defending this zero-chance crank is making thm look.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The people who said those slurs were Fake News!!1! will show up to admit they were wrong eventually, don't you think?
And I'm sure everyone agrees it's important to vet any potential candidates so that we all know what to expect during the race. It would be irresponsible to ignore a candidate's use of bigoted slurs on social media.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)One is a bigot and the other doesn't even live in Vermont.
Maybe Kid Rock can join them if that whole Michigan thing doesn't work out.
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)This is just one of many stupid things he has said and scrubbed.
elleng
(130,865 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...against a non-Democrat like Sanders, right???
Initech
(100,063 posts)To me, that's what being a liberal is. Calling trans people "lady boys" is the opposite of supporting progressive ideas.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Perfect
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)the other one is Folasade Adeluola, according to Wikipedia.
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)Yeah, he'll get really far.
mopinko
(70,083 posts)tells me all i need to know.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)I think some of his newest biggest fans don't realize what that bullshit is about.
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)Y'all can go off high alert, Bernie has nothing to worry about.
iMHO ya'll are wasting yr time excoriating a couple DU'ers and pretending they represent most of DU. Because they don't. Everybody knows this guy is an idiot.
ornotna
(10,799 posts)When you bust out the Y'alls.
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You can look at this thread and see more than one or two.
Along with the expressions of delight that someone is running against the most progressive member of the U.S. Senate, you'll find thinly veiled personal attacks on anyone who criticizes this Svitavsky character. The posts exposing Svitavsky's bigotry are "a bit of a hit job." It's deemed suspicious that "this stuff seems to roil up whenever Russia stuff breaks."
I don't think the Svitavsky cheerleading squad represents most of DU, but AFAIK no one asserted that.
I do agree with you that Bernie has nothing to worry about. If Bernie wanted to spend the legal minimum (a filing fee, photocopying petition pages for people to sign, whatever) and no more, while Svitavsky got contributions from around the country as indicated by the comments on his campaign Facebook page (gee, I wonder who's keen to help him), it wouldn't matter. Bernie, without campaign staff, without advertising, would still clean his clock.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That thread was quite an eye opener. But we did complete the quadfecta with references to Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who and Harry Potter!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Twilight fans aren't fit to be in the same galaxy as nerds. They belong in the teeny bopper romance section of the universe.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)So the result of this subthread is that I learned something about the "Twilight" series.
This development may be the most notable consequence of the Svitavsky campaign.
mopinko
(70,083 posts)hint: it is an insult.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)Freeper s didn't give a shit about Chicago untill 2009
My freeper sister in law used to love to come up to Chicago. Untill Obama was elected.
Then it was "Chicago machine politics" and "democrat run black on black crime"
One of my partner's cousins posted after The World Series he hoped they "burn that shithole to the ground". The other sister reminded him his cousin lives there and he just said "he needs to move"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The same kind who always bring up "black on black" crime whenever a cop gets caught beating the hell out of an unarmed minority.
Matthew28
(1,797 posts)Such people need to join the republican party! How is this jerk even within 50 points of sanders.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Rob H.
(5,351 posts)emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)Rob H.
(5,351 posts)On the list of things that determine what I post on the internet and when, your name doesn't appear anywhere!
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)Glad I could straighten out yr confusion.
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)It's still noydb when, what, why, or where I post. You don't want to read my posts because you think I'm wasting my time, put me on Ignore.
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)Response to emulatorloo (Reply #32)
Rob H. This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)Bernie will win.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)WoonTars
(694 posts)....but nice to see you want to include everyone in the 'big tent' going into 2018...very constructive...
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)They are always up for getting some goofy looking flunky to go after the left wing of the party.
Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes etc. etc.
I always remember what Al Franken said about the Alan Comes/Hannity dynamic - Hannity doing layups while Colmes gets a bucket of confetti in the face.
I'm sure being a homophobe and a racist won't preclude his on air appearances.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bernies many appearances on FNc
Voltaire2
(13,014 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)particularly lightweight left leaning pundits to show the weakness of arguments from the left.
QC
(26,371 posts)Like poor, ineffectual Alan Colmes, along with a few others.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I don't know why you are posting that here.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)from politicians, Senator Sanders is a boost to any of their shows. They get something different from left leaning pundits. The ones they get are lightweights who can't really defend themselves. It's one of the tricks Fox uses to discredit the liberal argument. The pundits always wind up looking pathetic.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And right out of the gate Bernie indicates he is happy to be there
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 15, 2017, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)
They generally like anyone from the left who attacks the Democratic Party.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)as if it was a bad thing.
ornotna
(10,799 posts)He's a first rate scumbag. He won't make it to the primary.
politicat
(9,808 posts)They are well aware of what they want in their representatives.
Any fool with the free time to stand outside a farmer's market and collect 500 valid registered voter signatures (so usually 1000 to be safe) can run for office in Vermont. It doesn't mean they'll get more than some fresh air, some exercise and a few earfuls from the disgruntled.
Hieronymus
(6,039 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)SixString
(1,057 posts)Response to SixString (Reply #51)
Post removed
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Not sure that it matters. No one is going to unseat a well funded career politician. That said, how quick the blow back has been when this topic comes up makes me think some are a bit worried. It will be interesting to see if there will be any other entrants. Would be nice to have a democrat in the seat.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)There isn't a politician in America who could beat Bernie in that seat. What's 'worrying' is that so many so called Democrats are so eager to try and unseat the most progressive and popular Senator in America because apparently our ideals matter less than gettting some kind of twisted revenge for hurt feelings.
He wants a better America for the most vulnerable in society. If someone has a problem with that, then they're no ally of mine.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Outside of the nervous laughter, it's hard to take such talk seriously. Comes off as nothing more than bluster which proves my point.
I do agree that it would be almost impossible. You don't just remove monied career politicians.
Revenge? Not here. I don't get that.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)On one hand we have a career politician who has a transparent and consistent record of being on the right side of history and fighting for Democratic ideals, and on the other we have a certain subsection of the Democratic Party (who didn't have a single bad word to say about him until he ran) who suddenly want him to lose his seat (and thus his ability to fight for positive change in society).
You don't need to be a political professional to decode that 'mystery' and no amount of obfuscation on anyone's part is going to disguise the quite unpleasant motives behind it.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)One wouldn't take the time to respond if that were the case.
Seem to be very personal. I'd rather not get into that as you have.
Have a great weekend.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)You started the rudeness. Have a nice day though.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I didn't realize I was guilty of something.
I really hope you have a great weekend. <- That's an absolute statement.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)then why do you want Sanders unseated so badly?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He is more often than not a vote for our side. Far more often than not. I'm good with him in his seat. I would also like to see a Democrat hold the seat. I so badly wish Clinton were President.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Vermont's nuclear waste in one of the poorest places in America, Sierra Blanca? Talk about vulnerable! they are poor Hispanics, mostly Spanish speaking, and without any power. Easy, easy target.
Senator Paul Wellstone came in defense of the most vulnerable in society:
" This issue I want to address tonight has variously been called
``environmental discrimination,'' ``environmental equity,''
``environmental justice,'' or ``environmental racism.'' These terms are
used interchangeably to describe the well-documented tendency for
pollution and waste dumps to be sited in poor and minority communities
who lack the political power to keep them out."
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-06-15/html/CREC-1998-06-15-pt1-PgS6349.htm
So GMAB. I will never buy that Sanders is some hero of the most vulnerable.
It is a tragedy that Senator Wellstone is not with us anymore. He was a real champion of the poor.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)My version is rather different, but hey.
I couldn't agree more about Wellstone though.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)Sometimes legislators get stuck dealing with problems that, if they had their way, wouldn't exist.
You can listen to what he said at the time:
"Let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, who opposes the construction of power plants and, if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could.
One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. Neither the industry nor the Government, in my view, did the right thing by allowing the construction of the plants and not figuring out how we get rid of the waste.
But the issue we are debating here today is not that issue. The reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We cannot wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is here.
No reputable scientist or environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that groundwater will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment.
There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas, some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface, is a far better location for this waste.
This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality. Furthermore, even if this compact is not approved, it is likely that Texas, which has a great deal of low-level radioactive waste, and we should make the point that 80 percent of the waste is coming from Texas, 10 percent from Vermont, 10 percent from Maine, the reality is that Texas will go forward with or without this compact in building a facility to dispose of their low-level radioactive waste."
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Didn't Bill Clinton sign that piece of legislation?
On edit, yes he did:
"Clinton Signs Nuclear-waste-site Legislation
U.S. President Bill Clinton, the weekend of September 19, approved a bill that allows Maine and Vermont to send low-level radioactive waste to a proposed site in Texas near the border with Mexico.
According to the bill, Texas would accept radioactive waste from Vermont and Maine, receiving U.S.$25 million from each. The proposed site also will store nuclear waste from Texas.
The bill signed by the president omitted amendments originally passed by Congress, which would have allowed Texas to exclude additional states from joining the compact.
The Texas/Maine/Vermont Radioactive Waste Dump Compact sanctions Texas officials to start construction procedures. The Texas legislature will vote in January on funding construction.
The site of construction is the town of Sierra Blanc, 30 kilometers from the U.S./Mexico border.
https://www.solidwaste.com/doc/clinton-signs-nuclear-waste-site-legislation-0001
***
Does anyone here really think President Clinton wanted to kill brown people?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)You guys never cease to amaze me. You always manage to bring Clinton up, no matter what. Please, stay on subject. This is about St. Bernard of Vermont, superhero of the poor, so don't change the subject. If you want to talk about Clinton, start your own thread.
When someone is accused of something, and their best defense is to say "oh, well, so- and so did the same" It means they are completely lost.
You like peaky facts? let me give you some
===============================
n 1998, then Representative Bernie Sanders cosponsored and actively ushered a bill through Congress that would allow Vermont and Maine to dump their nuclear waste in the poor disadvantaged Hispanic community of Sierra Blanca, Texas.
Three West Texan protestors went to Vermont to plead with then Representative Sanders that the dump site shouldn't be located in this poor minority community, Mr. Sanders told the three activists, "My position is unchanged and youre not going to like it. When asked if he would at least visit the proposed site in Sierra Blanca, he said: Absolutely not. I'm gonna to be running for re-election in the state of Vermont."
He didn't listen, Curry said. He had his mind made up."
============================================
::
Reading this article, I had a real sense that Mr. Sanders just didn't care about their concerns or the plight of this poor Hispanic community. It wasn't his community to care about. If history tells us anything about minority communities they seemingly always get the short end of the stick. Flint, MI is one such community that comes to mind. In this case, the community of Sierra Blanca didn't have any real political clout and they were reaching out to Mr. Sanders for help.
Mr. Sanders could have stood behind this very poor Hispanic community, but as his response to the protestors revealed, he chose the political expedient route. In this case, he didn't stand up for the less fortunate in Sierra Blanca.
Paul Wellstone would later call this injustice against the people of Sierra Blanca a case of "environmental racism.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/8/1481494/-Sierra-Blanca-Bernie-Sanders-Paul-Wellstone-a-Poor-Minority-Community-and-a-Nuclear-Waste-Dump
===========================
In 1994, the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont entered a compact allowing the disposal of low-level nuclear waste at a proposed Texas site. This creates the tenth such compact in the United States since 1980, when a Federal law was passed requiring states take responsibility for their low-level nuclear waste, urging cooperation. This compact demands both Maine and Vermont to pay Texas $25 million to build a disposal facility. Prior to becoming law, the compact first needed to gain Congressional approval. Following its approval on September 20, 1998, the compact then required the state of Texas to license the project before moving forward. October 22, 1998, Texas officials voted to deny the compact's proposed site located just outside of Sierra Blanca.
Sierra Blanca, a small West Texas town over two-thirds Hispanic, already hosts Merco Joint Venture. This company is the town's largest employer shipping over 400,000 tons of New York City sludge daily to a nearby ranch. Furthermore, Sierra Blanca is located only sixteen miles from the Mexico border, on top of an aquifer, and in an active Earthquake area. Residents, environmentalists, and community groups have made numerous cries of "environmental racism", even filing a suit under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The groups have faced an uphill battle defending the town from becoming a nuclear disposal site. However, while the fight was won in Sierra Blanca, the compact is law and these states will seek an alternative site.
http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/blanca.html
===================================
A factoid one should note here was that at this time, the governor for whom the TLLRWDA was working was none other than George W. Bush. So, despite all that has happened to select the nuclear waste site, what was the course of action taken by Bernie Sanders? He feigned ignorance. Instead of acknowledging the environmental injustice that was going on, he washed his hands clean of any responsibility for that.
But that is not the most egregious and inexcusable aspect of the Sierra Blanca scandal. Rather, its what Bernie did after progressive hero Paul Wellstone inserted language into the Senate bill giving the community legal rights to oppose the dump.
Bernie strongly supported stripping out Wellstones provisions and returning to the original bill that he co-sponsored (and aggressively promoted) which gave the Sierra Blanca community no rights to fight back.
Thats not a progressive revolution.
That's not even progressive
===============================
2016 presidential candidate U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been a proponent, cosponsor and yea voter on Sierra Blanca legislation, H.R. 558, 1995 and H.R.629, 1998.
Sanders wanted all protective amendments stripped from the final bill. These amendments offered protections to the compact by limiting nuclear waste shipments to Texas from Vermont and Maine compact members only (the Doggett amendment) and (Wellstone amendments) for the people of Sierra Blanca which created environmental safeguards and litigation rights, setting a precedent of protections for future cases of toxic and nuclear waste storage in or near communities across America.
The Sierra Blanca waste dump, WCS, was owned by powerful Texas tycoon and corporate raider, Harold Simmons, a GOP mega-donor. Another Simmons company was responsible for the lead poisoning of Cadillac Heights, TX, a low-income black community and other toxic sites costing U.S. tax payers $4.4 billion in multiple Superfund sites. The Man Behind Sierra Blancas Woes
Jane OMeara Sanders, wife of Senator Bernie Sanders, is a commissioner for the nuclear waste waste compact. She is also a commissioner for the Vermont Economic Development Authority.
https://sandersguideblog.wordpress.com/tag/paul-wellstone/
=================================
As Wellstone explained, the fight against the facility was about protecting poor, minority communities across the country from playing host to the toxic waste of more affluent neighbors. At the time that Sierra Blanca was selected for this project, it was one of the poorest towns in Texas: The average income was less than $8,000, and 39 percent of residents lived below the poverty line. The largely Hispanic community was already home to one of the largest sewage treatment facilities in the world, each day bringing a new load of 250 tons of sewage from New York City. Moreover, the town was far from ideal as a storage site: Sierra Blanca sits on a flood plain and is located approximately 30 miles from an earthquake fault line. For good or ill, we bear moral responsibility for what happens to the people of Sierra Blanca, Wellstone said at the time. And yet, even as the senator was becoming something of a folk idol to those fighting the project, Wellstone was marked an extremist by his colleagues in Congress.
When the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission bowed down to the tremendous popular opposition that had formed around the compact, and voted unanimously in October 1998 to deny the licensing application, Wellstone proclaimed, Sound science, at least for now, has prevailed over politics of the lowest common denominator. We should remain vigilant to guard against future efforts to site dumps in areas like Sierra Blanca, areas chosen through the path of least political resistance.
It was a statement that the overwhelming majority of American politicians, however much in agreement, would never have had the courage to utter.
https://middleburycampus.com/2339/opinions/wellstone-and-the-nuclear-question/
=======================================
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is also an obvious concern about
the unsuitability of Sierra Blanca's geology--the exclusionary
criterion from the 1985 Dames & Moore report. Sierra Blanca is situated
right in the middle of the state's only earthquake zone. Its 1993
license application stated that this is ``the most tectonically active
area within the state of Texas.'' In April 1995 there was a 5.6
earthquake 100 miles away, in Alpine, Texas. And there have been two
tremors in the area in the last four years.
Radioactive Waste Management Associates (RWMA) of New York has
conducted an independent investigation of the dump site and found its
geology unsuitable for disposal of radioactive waste. RWMA notes that
research by the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Authority has found that [there is] a fault in the bedrock
buried beneath the Sierra Blanca site. Groups of earth
fissures up to seven feet deep occur nearby.
RWMA concludes that
some important natural features of the site--its seismic
hazard, its buried fault, and nearby earth fissures--are not
suited to radioactive waste isolation. In our professional
opinion, these are fatal flaws which mean that the proposed
Sierra Blanca site cannot provide a high degree of assurance
of waste containment.
I ask unanimous consent to enter the letter from RWMA into the
Record.
The concern about the environmental impact of this dump extends well
beyond the border. The Mexican equivalent of the EPA announced its
opposition on March 5 on grounds that the Sierra Blanca dump poses an
environmental risk to the border region. On February 11, the Mexican
Congress, represented by its Permanent Commission, declared
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-06-15/html/CREC-1998-06-15-pt1-PgS6349.htm
=============================
And how did they come to a decision to pick that town? Fighting the passage of bill H.R. 629 in the senate, Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) spoke on the matter in great length and detail. In short, it was a case of environmental injustice. Despite the findings of the consultants that Sierra Blanca was not a good site due to its complex geology and also a history of earthquakes in the past due to tectonic faults in El Paso and Hudspeth counties, the Waste Authority still went ahead and picked the site because the people living there would be least likely to resist or make a fuss about it, since the majority of the residents are Spanish-speaking and poor. They had tried to pick other locations for the site, but was met with either lawsuit or fierce opposition. So, finally, the Waste Authority just gave up and chose the path of least resistance, procedures and recommendations be damned. Texas legislature also gave a helping hand by passing the Box Law and stripped the rights of the residents in Sierra Blanca from suing. The only recourse they could take was to obtain an injunction from the state Supreme Court, which means they would have to make the 500-mile trip to Austin just to be heard.
A factoid one should note here was that at this time, the governor for whom the TLLRWDA was working was none other than George W. Bush. Oh, and Jane Sanders, Bernie's wife, sits on the Board of this wonderful Texas authority.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/2/17/when-brown-lives-did-not-matter-to-bernie
===========================
Enough facts for you? Sierra Blanca is on an active earthquake line, for heaven's sake!
Don't you think that what Sen. Wellstone did was heroic?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The bill had 23 cosponsors including Sheila Jackson, Bill Clinton also signed it into law and afaic none of those people is an environmental racist.
Toxic waste has to go somewhere and politicians have to make tough calls. Do I think Sheila, Bernie and Bill wanted to harm poor people? Absolutely not. That's absurd.
Sierra Blanca was used as a dump for toxic sewage sludge for years but I never hear anyone talk about that. I wonder why that is?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And Bernie's statement on the house floor:
https://www.c-span.org/congress/bills/billAction/?print/1410681/596810699
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If you're referring to Hassin Bin Sober's post I'm fairly certain house speeches aren't copyrighted.
I could be wrong of course.
If you're referring to my excerpt from the solid waste doc in another post and it really bothers you just pretend that last sentence isn't there.
Oh and you're welcome!
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Respect copyrights
Excerpts from copyrighted sources must be no more than four paragraphs and include a link to the source. See our DMCA Copyright Policy for more information.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Respect copyrights
Excerpts from copyrighted sources must be no more than four paragraphs and include a link to the source. See our DMCA Copyright Policy for more information.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 77 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6349-S6356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE TEXAS-MAINE-VERMONT COMPACT
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to speak out this evening
about an enormously important issue that has seldom, if ever, been
addressed on the floor of the United States Senate. I understand my
colleague needs to leave at 7, and I am going to try to figure out a
way to accommodate him if at all possible. My understanding is, I will
also have a chance to speak more about this in morning business.
This issue I want to address tonight has variously been called
``environmental discrimination,'' ``environmental equity,''
``environmental justice,'' or ``environmental racism.'' These terms are
used interchangeably to describe the well-documented tendency for
pollution and waste dumps to be sited in poor and minority communities
who lack the political power to keep them out.
Environmental justice has been at the center of the debate over H.R.
629, legislation granting congressional consent to the so-called Texas
Compact. If passed unamended by this Congress, the Texas Compact would
result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste from nuclear
reactors in Texas, Maine, and Vermont--and potentially from nuclear
reactors all over the country--in the poor and majority-Latino town of
Sierra Blanca in West Texas.
Environmental justice is an issue that demands the full attention of
the Senate. If we pass this legislation unamended, we can no loner
pretend to be innocent bystanders as one poor, minority community after
another is victimized by political powerlessness--and, in some cases,
by overt racism. We can no longer pretend that a remedy for this basic
violation of civil rights is beyond our reach. That is the ultimate
significance of this legislation--and of this debate.
The moral responsibility of the Senate is unavoidable and undeniable.
If we approve H.R. 629 without conditions, the Compact dump will be
built within a few miles of Sierra Blanca. There's really very little
doubt about that. And if that happens, this poor Hispanic community
could become the premier national repository for so-called ``low-
level'' radioactive waste.
If we reject this Compact, on the other hand, the Sierra Blanca dump
will not be built at all. The Texas Governor has said so publicly--more
than once. It's as simple as that. The fate of Sierra Blanca rests in
our hands.
Compact supporters would prefer that we consider the Compact without
any reference to the actual location of the dump. But that simply
cannot be done. It's true that H.R. 629 says nothing about Sierra
Blanca. But we know very well where this waste will be dumped. In that
respect, the Texas Compact is different from other compacts the Senate
has considered.
The Texas legislature in 1991 already identified the area where the
dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site
near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. License
proceedings are now in their final stages and should be completed by
summer. Nobody doubts that the Texas authorities will soon issue that
license.
There's only one reason why this dump might not get built--and that's
if Congress rejects the Texas Compact. In an April 1998 interview,
Texas Gov. George Bush said, ``If that does not happen,'' meaning
congressional passage of the Compact, ``then all bets are off.'' In the
El Paso Times of May 28, Gov. Bush said, ``If there's not a Compact in
place, we will not move forward.''
For these reasons, we cannot fairly consider H.R. 629 without also
considering the dump site that Texas has selected. Sierra Blanca is a
small town in one of poorest parts of Texas, an area with one of the
highest percentages of Latino residents. The average income of people
who live there is less than $8,000. Thirty-nine percent live below the
poverty line. Over 66 percent are Latino, and many of them speak only
Spanish.
It is a town that has already been saddled with one of the largest
sewage sludge projects in the world. Every week Sierra Blanca receives
250 tons of partially treated sewage sludge from across the country.
Depending on what action Congress decides to take, this small town with
minimal political clout may also become the national repository for
low-level radioactive waste. And I understand plans for building even
more dump sites are also in the works.
Supporters of the Compact would have us believe that the designation
of Sierra Blanca had nothing to do with the income or ethnic
characteristics of its residents. That it had nothing to do with the
high percentage of Latinos in Sierra Blanca and the surrounding
Hudspeth County--at least 2.6 times higher than the State average. That
the percentage of people living in poverty--at least 2.1 times higher
than the State average--was completely irrelevant.
They would have us believe that Sierra Blanca was simply the
unfortunate finalist in a rigorous and deliberate screening process
that fairly considered potential sites from all over the State. That
the outcome was based on science and objective criteria. I don't
believe any of this is true.
I am not saying science played no role whatsoever in the process. It
did. Indeed, based on the initial criteria coupled with the scientific
findings, Sierra Blanca was disqualified as a potential dump site. It
wasn't until politics entered the picture that Sierra Blanca was even
considered.
I think it is worth taking a moment to review how we got to where we
are today. The selection criteria for the dump were established in
1981, and the Texas Waste Authority hired engineering consultants to
screen the entire state for suitable sites.
In March 1985, consultants Dames & Moore delivered their report to
the Authority. Using ``exclusionary'' criteria established by the
Authority, Dames & Moore ruled out Sierra Blanca and the surrounding
area, due primarily to its complex geology.
Let me quote from that report. Features ``applied as exclusionary as
related to the Authority's Siting Criteria'' included ``the clearly
exclusionary features of: complex geology; tectonic fault zones,'' et
cetera. ``The application of exclusionary geological criteria has had a
substantial impact'' in screening potential sites, the report observed.
In its final composite, the report explained, ``Complex geology and
mountainous areas in West, West-Central, and the Panhandle of Texas
were excluded,'' including the Sierra Blanca dump site.
The report also fund, ``Many tectonic faults occur in West Texas
within massive blocks of mountain ranges. This area includes El Paso
[and] Hudspeth'' counties ``and has undergone several phases or
episodes of tectonic disturbance.''
Finally, it went on to observe that, ``Although not excluded, the
remainder of Hudspeth Country does not appear to offer good siting
potential.''
So much for the science. Repeatedly since the early 1980s, the Waste
Authority has come back again and again to this politically powerless
area. It has designated four potential sites in all, and--with one
revealing exception--all of them were in Hudspeth County. There are
only three communities in the entire County, all of them poor and
heavily Latino, and all of them targeted by the Authority.
A 1984 public opinion survey commissioned by the Texas Waste
Authority provides some useful context for the Authority's site
selection process. The report, called ``An Analysis of Public Opinion
on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal in Selected Areas,'' noted the
benefits of keeping Latinos uninformed.
The report states, ``One population that may benefit from [a public
information] campaign is Hispanics, particularly those with little
formal education and low-incomes. The Authority should be aware,
however, that increasing the level of knowledge of Hispanics may simply
increase opposition to the [radioactive dump] site, inasmuch as we have
discovered a strong relationship in the total sample between increased
perceived knowledge and increased opposition.''
The first site to be targeted was Dell City in Hudspeth County. The
El Paso Herald-Post of March 6, 1984 recounts the controversy over that
site selection. ``The [Texas Waste] Authority has set up certain
criteria as guidelines for choosing a disposal site. It appears
[[Page S6350]]
to be ignoring its own rules.'' ``The Authority, instead of abiding by
its written criteria, has set up an unspoken, alternate rule for
locating the site. That is, `The site shall be located where there are
the fewest possible number of registered voters to protest.''' A
disproportionately high number of Latinos in Hudspeth County are not
registered to vote.
The Herald-Post goes on to describe some of the political maneuvering
behind the initial selection of Hudspeth County. ``The plot thickens.
The University of Texas system owns 500,000 acres of land around Dell
City. Mrs. Dolph Briscoe, wife of the former governor, sits on the
system's Board of Regents. Briscoe has extensive land holdings close to
the other proposed site. So at a public meeting on October 25, 1983, in
Dimmit County, Briscoe said he was encouraging the Authority to locate
the site `on state lands in Hudspeth County.' '' The editorialists at
the Herald-Post conclude, ``We haven't exactly got any heavyweights
defending our interests in this matter.''
The one exception to the Authority's pattern of targeting the poor
Latino communities in Hudspeth County was in 1985, after completion of
the engineering consultants' report. Dames & Moore concluded that the
``best'' sites were in McMullen and Dimmit Counties, and the Waste
Authority settled on a site in McMullen County. But this decision met
with fierce opposition from politically powerful individuals. So the
Authority decided once again to move the dump back to Hudspeth County.
At this point all pretense of objectivity was abandoned. The
selection criteria were changed in 1985 so as to rule out the two
``best'' sites identified by Dames & Moore. The new criteria gave
preference to sites located on state-owned land. This change had the
effect of virtually guaranteeing selection of a site somewhere in
Hudspeth County, large portions of which are owned by the state of
Texas.
So the Waste Authority proceeded to designate, based on an informal
and cursory process, five sites in Hudspeth County. Its clear choice,
however, was Fort Hancock, one of the County's three poor Latino
communities.
Unfortunately for the Authority, the more politically powerful city
of El Paso next door decided to fight back. Together with Hudspeth
County, El Paso filed suit against the site selection. They argued that
the Hancock site was located in an area of complex geology--much like
Sierra Blanca, incidentally--and lay on a 100-year flood plain. The
amazing thing is that they won. In 1991 U.S. District Court Judge Moody
ruled in their favor and ordered no dump could be built in Fort
Hancock, Hudspeth County.
But the county's court victory was short-lived. The Waste Authority
was clearly not about to give up. The Authority went back to the state
legislature to get around Judge Moody's decision by once again changing
the rules. A legislator from Houston, far to the East where the big
utilities are based, proposed a bill that ignored all previous
selection criteria and designated Fort Hancock once and for all.
Interestingly enough, this maneuver aroused a great deal of public
indignation, precisely because of the Authority's perceived
discriminatory practice of dumping on Latino communities.
There was an impressive show of force against discrimination, but the
outcome was not exactly what Hudspeth County had in mind. After Judge
Moody's remarkable decision, lawyers for El Paso and the Waste
Authority worked out a compromise. Fort Hancock would be saved, but a
400 square mile area further north in Hudspeth County would take its
place. This oblong rectangle imposed on the map--an area that included
Sierra Blanca--was subsequently dubbed ``The Box.'' The Texas
legislature passed the so-called ``Box Law'' by voice vote only days
before the end of session in May 1991.
Once again, the previous site selection procedures were stripped
away. The Box Law repealed the requirement that the dump had to be on
public land, the very requirement that has pointed the Authority
towards Hudspeth County in the first place. This was necessary because,
at that time, the Sierra Blanca site was not public land at all.
Most importantly, to prevent another troublesome lawsuit like the
Fort Hancock debacle, the Box Law essentially stripped local citizens
of the right to sue. It denied them all judicial relief other than an
injunction by the Texas Supreme Court itself, and for this unlikely
prospect citizens would be required to drive 500 miles to Austin.
This story is depressingly familiar. A similar scenario unfolds over
and over again in different parts of the country, with different names
and faces in every situation. Sometimes there is no intention by anyone
to discriminate. But pervasive inequalities of race, income, and access
to the levers of political power exercise a controlling influence over
the siting of undesirable waste dumps.
The people who make these decisions sometimes are only following the
path of least resistance, but in far too many instances the result is a
targeting of poor, politically marginalized minority communities who
lack the political muscle to do anything about it.
The remarkable thing about this story is that some people in Hudspeth
County did fight back. Dell City fought back and won in the early
1980s. Fort Hancock fought back and won their court case in 1991. And
make no mistake, the people of Sierra Blanca are fighting back, too.
Many of them have been here on the Hill. Father Ralph Solis, the
parish priest for Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County, was here in
February, and visited many Senate offices. These people know that the
odds are stacked against them, but they are persevering just the same.
One of the amendments I included in this bill is intended to give
them a fighting chance. It gives them their day in court--the right to
challenge this site selection on grounds of environmental justice. It
says that the Compact cannot be implemented in any way--and that would
include the siting process, the licensing process, or the shipment of
waste to that site--that discriminates against communities because of
their race, national origin, or income level.
If local residents can prove discrimination in court, then they can
stop the Compact Commission from operating the dump. They don't have to
prove intent, by the way, although that certainly would be sufficient.
All they have to show is disparate treatment or disparate impact.
I believe very strongly that the Compact raises important and
troubling issues of ``environmental justice.'' And a diverse array of
civic organizations agree with me about this.
The Leadership Council on Civil Rights, the Texas NAACP, the Sierra
Club, the League of United Latin American Citizens (or ``LULAC''),
Greenpeace, the Bishop and the Catholic Diocese of El Paso, the House
Hispanic Caucus, the United Methodist Church General Board of Church
and Society, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic
Justice, and the National Audubon Society, to name just a few, agree
with me. I ask unanimous consent that a letter signed by these and
other organizations be printed in the Record at the end of my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues don't
believe issues of environmental justice are implicated here. Or they
may think this is not a question for the Senate to decide. I believe
this amendment meets those concerns. All my amendment does is give
local residents the right to make their case in court. There is no
guarantee they will win. After all, it is extremely difficult to prove
environmental discrimination. I don't see how anyone would want to deny
these people a chance to make their case.
Short of defeating the bill outright, I believe passing this
amendment is the only way for us to do right by the people of Sierra
Blanca.
Yet, as amazing as it sounds, Compact proponents also claim to have
the best interests of Sierra Blanca at heart. They claim the Compact
will protect local residents because it keeps out waste from states
other than Maine and Vermont. They have used this argument again and
again, in Sierra Blanca, in the Texas legislature,
[[Page S6351]]
in the House of Representatives, and they're using it again in the
United States Senate.
Supporters of the Compact are trying to have it both ways. When
challenged about the environmental justice of targeting Sierra Blanca,
they respond that no site has been selected, and environmental justice
can only be addressed if and when that ever happens.
Then in the same breath they insist that the dump in Sierra Blanca is
definitely going forward and the Compact is therefore necessary to
protect local residents from outside waste. So which is it? Either the
Sierra Blanca dump is a done deal or it's not.
The truth is, the most likely scenario is that the dump will be built
in Sierra Blanca if Congress approves this Compact, subject to any
legal challenges, but the project will not go forward if Congress
rejects the Compact.
The claim that the Compact will protect Sierra Blanca makes no sense
on its face. The dump is unlikely to be built without congressional
consent to this Compact; it does not need to be built; and the Compact
would not protect Sierra Blanca in any event.
The simple fact of the matter is that the dump will most likely not
be if the Compact fails. Governor Bush has made it very clear that the
dump will not be built if Congress rejects the Compact. So the argument
that Sierra Blanca needs the Compact for protection against outside
waste is nonsensical. If Texas does not build a dump in Sierra Blanca,
local citizens do not need to be protected from anything. Far from
protecting Sierra Blanca, the Compact only ensures that a dump will be
built in their community.
An article from the Texas Observer of last March explains why the
Compact is necessary for the dump to go forward. ``Texas generates
nowhere near enough waste on its own to fill a three million cubic feet
dump, and by its own projections [the Texas Waste Authority] could not
survive without Maine and Vermont's waste.''
Moreover, the Texas legislature has indicated it will not appropriate
funding to build the dump if Congress rejects this Compact. Texas
lawmakers refused the Waste Authority's request for $37 million for
construction money in FY 1998 and FY 1999. In fact, the Texas House
initially zeroed out all funding for the Authority, but funding for
licensing was later restored in conference committee. My understanding
is that construction funding was made contingent on passage of the
Compact, whereupon Maine and Vermont will each be required to pay Texas
over $25 million.
In fact, the Sierra Blanca dump does not really need to be built. You
might have seen the headline in the New York Times on December 7 of
last year: ``Warning of Excess Capacity in Nation's Nuclear Dumps--New
Technology and Recycling Sharply Reduce the Volume of Nuclear Waste.''
The article discusses a study by Dr. Gregory Hayden, the Nebraska
Commissioner for the Central Interstate Compact Commission. Dr. Hayden
found that ``there is currently an excess capacity for low-level
radioactive waste disposal in the United States without any change to
current law or practice.''
He went on to explain, ``These disposal sites have had low
utilization due to falling volumes since 1980. Thus, a high capacity
remains for the future, without any change to the current configuration
of which states may ship to which disposal site.'' Let me repeat the
essential point: there is no compelling need for any new low-level
radioactive waste dumps in this country. And if no new dump is built,
nobody can argue that the Compact is needed to protect Sierra Blanca.
The most popular argument for building another dump involves disposal
of medical waste. I'm sure all of you have heard it. It's claimed that
waste from medical facilities and research labs is getting backed up--
that it has to go somewhere.
But let me emphasize one central and indisputable fact: over the last
few years, over 99 percent of the waste from Maine and Vermont has come
from nuclear reactors. Less than one percent has been from hospitals
and universities. And from all three states, 94 percent of the low-
level waste between 1991 and 1994 came from reactors. This dump is
being built--first and foremost--to dispose of radioactive waste from
nuclear reactors, not from hospitals.
So why are the nuclear utilities hiding behind hospitals and
universities? It's not very hard to figure out. In 1984 the Texas Waste
Authority hired a public relations firm to increase the popularity of
nuclear waste. The PR firm recommended, ``A more positive view of safe
disposal technologies should be engendered by the use of medical
doctors and university faculty scientists as public spokesmen for the
[Texas Waste] Authority.'' ``Whenever possible,'' the report said,
``the Authority should speak through these parties.''
Well, that advice has been followed to the letter. We all have
sympathies for hospital work and university research. I know I do. But
that's beside the point. This controversy is really about waste from
nuclear reactors.
If a dump is built nevertheless, the Compact offers little protection
for local residents. The Compact Commission would be able to accept
low-level radioactive waste from any person, state, regional body, or
group of states. All it would take is a majority vote of the
Commissioners, who are appointed by the Compact state governors.
Why should the people of Sierra Blanca expect unelected commissioners
to keep waste out of their community? Is there anything in their recent
experience that would justify such faith?
The fact is, the state will have every economic incentive to bring in
more waste. The November 1997 report by Dr. Hayden concluded that ``the
small volume of waste available for any new site would not allow the
facility to take advantage of economies of scale. Thus, it would not
even be able to operate at the low-cost portion of its own cost
functions.''
The new dump will need high volume to stay profitable. The Texas
Observer reports, ``A 1994 analysis by the Houston Business Journal
suggests that the Authority would open the facility to other states to
keep it viable.''
We have here the potential for establishing a new national repository
for low-level nuclear waste. Not only will Texas have an incentive to
bring in as much waste as possible, but the same will be true of
nuclear utilities. The more waste goes to Sierra Blanca, the less they
will be charged for disposal.
Rick Jacobi, General Manager of the Texas Waste Authority, told the
Houston Business Journal: ``The site is designed for 100,000 cubic feet
per year, which would be about $160 per cubic foot. But if only 60,000
cubic feet per year of waste arrives, the price would be $250 per cubic
foot.'' That's a big difference.
As Molly Ivins says, ``That sure would drive up costs for Houston
Lighting and Power and Texas Utilities.'' And the going rate at one
existing dump is a whopping $450 per cubic foot. In the end, it will be
in the economic interest of everyone--from the nuclear utilities to the
Waste Authority--to ship as much waste to Sierra Blanca as they can.
My second amendment addresses this problem. Throughout the process of
approving the Compact, supporters claimed the waste would be limited to
three states. I want to hold them to that promise. My amendment puts
that promise in writing.
I doubt anyone would disagree that this understanding was shared by
everyone who participated in the Compact debate. If Compact supporters
truly plan to limit waste to three states, which has been everyone's
understanding all along, they can have no objection to my amendment.
It's nothing but a protection clause. A nearly identical amendment--
called the Doggett Amendment--was attached to the bill passed by the
House.
There are other issues I was not able to address with amendments. I
think there is a fundamental concern about whether this kind of
disposal is safe at all. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) warns
that, despite the hazards involved, waste will be buried in
soil trenches destined to leak, as have nuclear dumps in Kentucky,
Illinois; and Nevada. LCV did score the House vote on final passage,
and has announced that it may score Senate votes as well. I ask
unanimous consent to place the LCV letter in the Record.
Much more at link: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-06-15/html/CREC-1998-06-15-pt1-PgS6349.htm
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)And don't ypu think that Sen Wellston actions were heroic? Did you read his speech?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts).... sucky problem that neither Sanders, The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee or President Bill Clinton were responsible for causing. But as some of, not all, the adults in the room, they were tasked with handling.
It's not deflecting. It's showing that good people with good intentions had a different opinion. Not to mention the science on their side.
If you want to get bent out of shape over some 20 year old piece of legislation, have at it.
No. I didn't read it. Tl;dr. Remember?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)This is relevant TODAY because Sanders portrays himself as an environmental champion, so reviewing his history on that is fair game.
Science on their side? Sierra Blanca is on an active earthquake line!
You should have read Sen Wellstone's case against dumping toxic waste i in Sierra Blanca. Maybe you can read this:
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is also an obvious concern about
the unsuitability of Sierra Blanca's geology--the exclusionary
criterion from the 1985 Dames & Moore report. Sierra Blanca is situated
right in the middle of the state's only earthquake zone. Its 1993
license application stated that this is ``the most tectonically active
area within the state of Texas.'' In April 1995 there was a 5.6
earthquake 100 miles away, in Alpine, Texas. And there have been two
tremors in the area in the last four years.
Radioactive Waste Management Associates (RWMA) of New York has
conducted an independent investigation of the dump site and found its
geology unsuitable for disposal of radioactive waste. RWMA notes that
research by the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Authority has found that [there is] a fault in the bedrock
buried beneath the Sierra Blanca site. Groups of earth
fissures up to seven feet deep occur nearby.
RWMA concludes that
some important natural features of the site--its seismic
hazard, its buried fault, and nearby earth fissures--are not
suited to radioactive waste isolation. In our professional
opinion, these are fatal flaws which mean that the proposed
Sierra Blanca site cannot provide a high degree of assurance
of waste containment.
I ask unanimous consent to enter the letter from RWMA into the
Record.
The concern about the environmental impact of this dump extends well
beyond the border. The Mexican equivalent of the EPA announced its
opposition on March 5 on grounds that the Sierra Blanca dump poses an
environmental risk to the border region. On February 11, the Mexican
Congress, represented by its Permanent Commission, declared that the project
in Sierra Blanca in Texas, and all such
dumping projects along the border with Mexico, constitute an
aggression against national dignity.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-06-15/html/CREC-1998-06-15-pt1-PgS6349.htm
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)Nothing.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)"Radioactive Waste Management Associates (RWMA) of New York has
conducted an independent investigation of the dump site and found its
geology unsuitable for disposal of radioactive waste. RWMA notes that
research by the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Authority has found that a fault in the bedrock
buried beneath the Sierra Blanca site. Groups of earth
fissures up to seven feet deep occur nearby.
RWMA concludes that
some important natural features of the site--its seismic
hazard, its buried fault, and nearby earth fissures--are not
suited to radioactive waste isolation. In our professional
opinion, these are fatal flaws which mean that the proposed
Sierra Blanca site cannot provide a high degree of assurance
of waste containment."
====================
See? Also Sierra Blenca is prone to flooding.
But really, the fact that the PEOPLE of Sierra Blanca didn't want tho have Vermont's nuclear dump on their land should have been enough.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Heroes and villains?
What's that about?
Are we discussing a super hero movie or Congress?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He was passionate but so are all of our progressive firebrands.
The president signed the bill anyway and I don't fault him, or the others who cosponsored it, or the 27 Democratic senators and 107 congressmen who voted for it. It was a tough decision for all involved so I'm not going to rake anyone over the coals over it. I accept the reasoning given by those who supported the bill.
It seems silly to try to place the blame on one politician and declare another a 'hero' when so many of their colleagues sided with the former. Are all of the Democrats who voted for it villains too or is it just one man who's solely responsible for the bill?
Congress isnt made up of heroes and villains - at least on our side of the aisle, that's a little too simplistic for me.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)this is about sanders. You are just trying to sidetrack here
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I'm asking for the link about the contest of the post.
Where did I mention sponsors or anything of the kind? You got that out of thin air
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Those were two separate things: HBS' post included a fact (Sheila was a cosponsor) and a speech (from Bernie), but you only asked for *A* link. How was I supposed to know which one you wanted to independently verify, the cosponsor or the speech?
If you were specifically requesting a link for only ONE part of the post you should have said so, I was unsure which of the two you were unable to find on your own so I was nice enough to oblige you by providing links to BOTH the cosponsors and the speech.
It can't "go without saying" if you're not specific, if you wanted it to "go without saying" you should have been clearer which part you were questioning.
Now we're done quibbling over how I was supposed to know which link you wanted when you didn't specify.
And again, you're welcome.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Let's try to simplify it a bit.
Poster A (HBS) posted:
Item 1 : a fact about cosponsors
Item 2: an excerpt from a speech
Poster B (you) asked for a "link" (singular)
Poster C (me) - not knowing whether Poster B (you) wanted a link to Item 1 or Item 2 helpfully posted links to verify both.
There were two separate things that could have required links to verify, you didn't specify which one you needed so I gave you both. If you had said "link to Bernie's speech?" I would have known that's the only one you wanted.
Does that help clear things up? If not I'm at a loss how to explain it. But I'm happy to keep kicking this thread about Svitavsky's use of bigoted slurs since I think it's important to vet potential candidates.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Sierra Blanca
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 16, 2017, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)
If Clinton signed it, why are you still going after Bernie over it? It's not as though Bernie could ever have stopped it.
And Bernie won't run again in 2020, so there is no good reason to still be in all-out hostility mode towards the guy.
(Edited to reflect that I was mistaken as to who signed the bill. Thanks to Hassan Bin Sober for giving me the heads-up on that.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Global warming? Thanks, Bernie!
Lincoln getting shot?
Bernie again.
If the barista makes my latte wrong tomorrow morning?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That answers SO many questions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Kahn learned how to be an evil mastermind by studying Bernie, without that inspiration Kahn never would have been able to persevere for as long as he did.
I'm just making stuff up now, it seems to be in vogue and it's fun to create alternate reality.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)voted to strip out the Wellstone amendment. The Wellstone amendment would have given legal recourse to this poor Latino community to fight the placement of the waste dump if they could prove environmental racism. The compact was passed, with vigorous help from Sanders. So he was completely for it.
And Ken, I disagree with you on that Sanders is not planning to run again. I see the writing on the wall. He may even be thinking about running as an independent, and that's why he keeps trashing Democrats. And the hostility will continue as long as he keeps trashing Dems
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I'm all in favor of having as many Democrats in the Senate as possible.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Of a robust primary process. And upset is the correct word. Many are resorting to personal attacks.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)You can read the article for yourself and see proof that this man is a racist and homophobic bigot yet many DUers seem to support him. It's disgusting and support for such people deserves nothing, but scorn.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You say you are upset at seeing duers cheering an open bigot. I have done no such thing nor do I see many duers cheering an open bigot.
Additionally, some might not want to get to upset as the person they cheer for may have delved into one or more of the "ism's" in his past.
At no point did I cheer this guy.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I can't tell if its blind party loyalty or sour grapes over Sanders running against Clinton.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And when we criticized this racist homophobe last week we were called bigots and liars, accused of having trouble with reading comprehension, of misrepresenting his posts by "editing, truncating and taking them deliberately out of context" and also waging an "internet smear campaign" against a good Democrat.
The only people personally attacked were the ones who told the truth about Svitavsky.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)One of the biggest reasons some people are opposed to Sanders is because they don't think he places enough emphasis on issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia. As a gay man, I'll admit that I think Sanders could do better in those areas and if that is one of the reasons people supported Clinton then I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem is, is seeing DUers cheer this man who is an open bigot. It's becoming clear that their opposition to Sanders has less to do with his support for the rights of minorities(which in my view is an issue of communication) and more to do with the letter beside his name.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I knew this article wouldn't change their minds about Svitavsky but at least it vindicated those of us who told the truth about him last week.
I agree with everything else you wrote, especially the part about communication.
Heaven Sent
(39 posts)When you simply supplied the proof.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are some people on this forum who would support Genghis Khan in this seat so long as he made sure there was a D next to his name. I can't believe there are self-professed liberals and progressives supporting someone who is an open bigot, but I guess party does matter more than principles to some.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I'm a Democrat. I prefer Democrats. How can anyone object to that?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I'm a Democratic Socialist. I'd prefer the House and Senate be made up of Democratic Socialists. We don't have any of those so, for the most part, the Democratic Party will get my full support. But, I refuse to support an open bigot solely because he's a Democrat. I find it especially strange that so many people who are opposed to Sanders have no problem with Joe Manchin. After all, Sanders caucuses with the Democrats and votes with them about 20% more than Manchin.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)==========================
"84. The implications of your post were clear."
==========================
You can either take me at my word, or not. You're free to interpret my post in any way you wish... even if it's imaginative and incorrect.
Heaven Sent
(39 posts)Leave that garbage to the Republicans.
I'd rather vote on issues that are near and dear to my heart that I can agree with about 70% of the time.
When I took that match-me-with-President-candidate of my choice, it was like something around 84% Bernie, and 54% Clinton. I took a closer look, and found out that Bernie represents me better than Clinton would have. Even right now, people are pushing party over principles on the Democratic side. The Democrats hasn't even provided issues that we can be solid about, even if the platform was adopted.
I refuse to say anything bad about the Democrats, but it does make me wonder about the Democratic Party as whole. I'd rather vote on issues I care about that the candidate can fight about.
Even if it is a losing candidate.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)...and not his very consistent liberal/progressive political record?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I've never heard someone argue against the difficulty of unseating a career politician with deep pockets.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)in a primary. Not a prayer. He's not really worthy of anyone's notice, frankly.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Adeluola, doesn't seem to live here.
A lot of folks think a challenger is a great idea, but so far no one is really up to the task.
Another thread suggested Dean. I don't think that will happen.
George II
(67,782 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)But if he did say that, it would have been despicable.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)From the article
So if a lady boy in high school, wants to shower with the girls, well just take his word for it?? Svitavksy wrote in the Chicago Style Politics Facebook group on May 13, 2016. The post was accompanied by a link to an article about President Barack Obamas administrations move to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that align with their gender identities in public schools."
Here's the link again in case you forgot:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/163484380439467?view=permalink&id=948275568627007
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)and trying to claim he never posted things that he clearly posted. They're *still* supporting a racist transphobe. smh
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)There's only one Jon Svitavsky on Facebook, he's had the account for years, his account profile matches the info on the 'Svitavsky for U.S. Senate' account and his friend list includes the candidate's wife and other relatives, he's also posted in the group 'Chicago Style Politics' for years and his posts can easily be found using Facebook's simple search feature.
But his supporters want us to believe the post shown in Raw Story's article and others like it are the work of some nefarious imposter? How would that even be possible?
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)They have been identified as Martin Seamus "Marty" McFly (above, right) and Dr. Emmett Lathrop "Doc" Brown (left).
McFly was born June 12, 1968, but can appear much younger due to temporal displacement. Other known aliases for McFly include "Clint Eastwood," "Calvin Klein," and "Darth Vader, an extraterrestrial from the Planet Vulcan."
Not much is known of reclusive inventor, Dr. Brown. He is also suspected of receiving plutonium from Libyan terrorists in 1985; the whereabouts of the stolen material is currently unknown.
Anyone who encounters either suspect is advised to call the dedicated FBI hotline at 1-888-HELLO-MCFLY immediately.
###
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)OMG it's so OBVIOUS!
Alex Jones predicted this but I naively dismissed him as another paranoid conspiracist trying to defend a fellow crank.
I should have believed them when they said Jon was framed, when will I ever learn to trust the right people on the internet ?
Bad me!
George II
(67,782 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Everyone can click on the link and see for themselves. You seem to be the only person who doubts that's the real Jon Svitavsky for some strange reason.
Did Satan or a homophobic alien take over Jon's body at the time and post that on facebook using his account? Well that would certainly back up your suspicions but what are the chances of that actually being the case? I don't know any homophobic aliens and I've never seen any evidence that Satan exists.
Did a Bernie supporter or Bernie himself steal the Tardis, travel back in time and make that post from Jon's computer when Jon wasn't looking? Of course nothing is impossible and that would definitely let your candidate off the hook.
But if either of those things happened why hasn't Jon accused the perpetrator? He's been asked about the post several times and he's not denying it's his.
If I were running for Senate and someone traveled back in time, took over my account and posted bigoted statements on social media I would explain what happened to the press when asked about it.
So unless Jon says he was framed we have to logically conclude those posts were not the work of an imposter and were made by Jon Svitavsky.
QC
(26,371 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Autumn
(45,056 posts)We come not in peace but to dox homophobes
George II
(67,782 posts)...and asked about this and other things that he presumably said, I'll withhold judgement.
Interesting that it didn't take long for Mr. Svitavsky to be doxxed, isn't it?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Very impressive.
Maybe the Trump family and their cabal can use that as an excuse too.
BREAKING: LAWYERS SAY THEY WERE FRAMED! IT WAS TIME TRAVELING HACKERS HIRED BY DEMOCRATS!
George II
(67,782 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)What if they have some sort of animatronic replicant, running around saying stupid stuff and ascribing it to him?
Those fiendish berniebros, you can't be too careful.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Who knows what they're capable of? I might not even be me...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'd like to request the Summer Glau edition.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It's typing in a (very public, in this case) name and scrolling through their timeline, which wasn't even set to private. Do you have some information that casts doubt on the account in question? If so you should share it, Raw Story and others would probably be greatful for that information.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Less than most employers do!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Only someone new to politics or extremely naive would think looking at a candidate's posts on social media is "digging" and that reposting them is a smear campaign. No one even mischaracterized his posts, we just called them what they are: bigoted slurs.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Does not look good. Thankfully a lazy weekend of browsing facebook is all that was needed, not like we had to drive an hour and a half each way for months for this.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He was asked about them but he just ignores reporters and blocks people from his page when they bring it up.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)If he was concerned he would have scrubbed his page long ago.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Has suddenly evaporated.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I wish I had said that, it certainly is funny, isn't it?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Facebook is such a nebulous and unknown quantity, we may never know how it truly works.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WARNING: This is Insane Clown Posse - obviously NSFW
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)We may never know...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)These damned kids and their new fangled internets.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Back in my day we hand crafted wholsome, organic, free-range memes.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I know that movie was panned but I enjoyed it anyway.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)My kid just watched "They Live" for the first time (speaking of John Carpenter) and I was having this conversation with him; look, you can't judge it by the standards of cinema today, or even take it seriously as a "movie-movie".. I mean, some of the dialogue is so obviously intentionally bad as to be hilariously campy. But ....it can be appreciated for what it is.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Personally I love campy and They Live is in a class by itself.
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Are you playing a semantics game?
Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)ANY (D) over ANY (I).
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Just as long as someone has your teams shirt on. Maybe you should watch football instead?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Rob H.
(5,351 posts)That some people would support an anti-science, anti-vaxx, racist transphobe running for office just to have Senator Anyone-but-Sanders is disgusting, to say the least.
Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)that refused to vote (D) for president in 2016 or even worse, went for Stein or Trump!
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Yet now you're cheerleading for a bigot with a D after his name over a guy with impecable progressive credentials. Think about that for a minute.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Seriously? You would take a Zell Miller over Sanders? George Wallace of 1964 over Sanders? Jefferson Davis?
Party comes second to philosophy. Sanders is pro-lgbtq and this guy isn't. Supporting a bigot like this over Sanders makes one no better than the bigots and bigot enablers of the current Republican Party.
Fuck party, support for civil rights comes first!
Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)dflprincess
(28,075 posts)Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)Any (I) = meaningless bullshit with zero principles or morals because you cannot have principles or morals without party.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Wow. It's really hard to believe anyone would write that.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #155)
Post removed
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Thanks for reminding me why I put principles over party.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Anyone who starts out to the right of the person they replaced(especially if they replaced that person in a primary)will stay to the right of that person forever.
The only people to blame for the November result(other than Comey and the Russians)were the people who ran Hillary's fall campaign. Bernie bears no responsibility for that and it serves no purpose to be at war with not only Bern but his supporters AND with everything his campaign stood for.
No progressive good could ever come of crushing the entire Sanders movement and leaving the party with nothing to the left of HRC and her views at all.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Bernie doesn't run in the Democratic primary.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)He runs as an independent and has declined the Democratic party nomination when offered.
There was no Democrat on the ballot during either of his Senate runs.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Larry Drown, Peter Moss, and Louis Thabault in 2006.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Him not accepting the nomination afterwards is a different matter.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Why waste time paying attention to him?
It's like pretending the rent is too high guy was a credible candidate.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)Expecting Rain
(811 posts)N/t
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)because Sanders apparently needs to be punished for his sins, or something.
QC
(26,371 posts)and he must be punished.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Initech
(100,063 posts)What the GOP did to him is unacceptable and unforgivable.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If Svitavsky's serious about running and not just doing this to get attention this'll be fun.
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)Who knows how much more crackpottery will come to light once people go beyond just barely scratching the surface?