RandomNumbers
RandomNumbers's JournalJoe Biden gets backing of key Latina activist Dolores Huerta
Great news!
During the primary, however, Huerta endorsed California Sen. Kamala Harris and criticized Biden for his comments during a primary debate on immigration, accusing him of “speaking just like the Republicans” when he expressed opposition to the idea of decriminalizing border crossings during a Democratic primary debate.
But she told the AP on Friday that she trusts Biden to prioritize the challenges confronting Latinos and noted that immigration reform “is something the president can’t do,” noting big reforms require congressional action.
“I don’t think we’ll have to pressure him” on immigration reform, she said. “I think he realizes what the issues are.”
It’s a notable shift for a key voice in the Latino community ...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/joe-biden-backing-key-latina-activist-dolores-huerta-70448328
Why you vote for the Dem nominee in the GE, even if you have serious differences with him or her
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016248195
My reply:
because they didn't vote for that awful Hillary.
(hopefully I didn't need a sarcasm tag on that)
Warren almost even with Sanders in UI mock caucus Friday
Sorry if this was already posted, and yes I changed the headline. I think it is notable that the students were almost evenly divided between Warren and Sanders. Because a lot has been made of the enthusiasm of younger voters for Sanders .. but in my real life experience with young Democratic activists, my sense is the lean this year is to Warren.
We'll see how well they turn out for the real caucus. Go Liz! 
https://dailyiowan.com/2020/01/31/bernie-sanders-narrowly-wins-ui-mock-caucus-over-elizabeth-warren-and-andrew-yang/
Emphasis added.
...
Both the Sanders and the Warren campaigns drew large groups of potential first-time caucusgoers, gathering in opposite corners of the room.
The Sanders campaign narrowly won out in the end, with a final total of 74 likely caucusgoers to Warren’s 70. Andrew Yang came in third place with 52 caucusgoers, leaving the three candidates viable after the first alignment.
...
Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg were all unviable after the first alignment.
UI fourth-year Jacob Gordon caucused undecided on the first round, but was swayed by the Warren campaign. He said the experience of caucusing was overwhelming, but he feels more prepared for Monday evening after having made a decision on which candidate to support.
“I really wanted to hear people’s personal reasons for why they chose a certain candidate and I wanted to feel the passion that they would have for [a candidate], and that’s how I ended up choosing Warren,” Gordon said.
...
Changing my preference to Warren.
Truthfully, I like both Joe and Liz, but I can only pick one here. I could go back to "undecided", but since I am down to two that I feel strongly in favor of, and we are close to the first primaries, I felt I had to pick one.
I was backing Steyer here for a while. I think he has a lot to offer, but it's been clear for some time that he is going nowhere in the prez primary. So again, with first primaries upon us, it is time to make a real choice.
Why Warren, not Joe? I think, all other factors being equal, Joe is inherently stronger against Trump in the GE. But all other factors aren't equal. I don't have actual numbers but sense from my experience with people IRL, Warren would be a far preferable choice for Sanders supporters than Biden. We need that energy in the campaign, and keeping those folks in the fold helps build the party for the next generation. (I don't agree with their assessment of Biden, by the way, but I'm a big fan of reality-based decision-making.)
Also, the "first choice Warren" voters I've met IRL are almost universally respectful and supportive of Biden as a solid choice, recognizing the need to beat Trump is absolutely the essential goal here. Policy platforms are good for knowing the candidate's governing philosophy, but get real, without the Presidency AND the Senate, it will be tough even to get good judges on the bench let alone pass progressive legislation. Someone with Warren's persona (and Biden's too) has a better shot to unite the country behind moving forward on some goals, even if only a little compared with where we want to go. Moving forward a little, is massively better than going backwards at light-speed, as we do under continued reign of Trumpism. So, the flexible and congenial nature of her supporters, combined with very progressive legislative philosophy, helps me make this selection. (Again, reflecting just my personal experience, I don't count DU for judgments like this so I am not speaking of DU members)
Either way, of course in the General Election I will vote for the nominee. I hope and do believe it will be either Joe or Liz.
Time to revisit: Joe Biden and VAWA
A reply on another thread suggested that there was some similarity between Biden, Sanders, and their common generation's attitude toward women.
I have to call BULLSHIT in the strongest way I can.
There's some old stuff on Sanders that illuminates his attitudes towards women, I'm not going to dredge that up here. (Though others probably will if someone begs hard enough, by claiming they have no idea what I'm talking about.)
Biden, on the other hand, pushed VAWA through. (the landmark Violence Against Women Act, in case anyone is not familiar.
https://time.com/5675029/violence-against-women-act-history-biden/
(emphasis added)
...
In Nourse’s opinion, then-Senator Biden was motivated to push for the bill because of his empathy for women who had approached him about the idea, and those who testified in the hearings in the House and Senate.
...
In terms of the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, Nourse says Biden’s empathy was an asset.
“He’s criticized for his emotion and his empathy. But it also means he has grit; when it gets in that he’s got to do something, he’s not taking no for an answer,” Nourse says. “That bill could only have been passed because of Joe Biden.”
Biden has his strengths and weaknesses as a candidate, and in his history in the Senate. But he's gotten shit done that mattered to women's rights. So anyone trying to equate him with Sanders in that area ... no. Just no.
Steyer made the debate.
Heard it on Rachel. Here's an article.
I don't have much to say other than, maybe he's a better politician than I had been giving him credit for.
I have him as my "choice" here because he talks about the right things in the right way, and I think it would be great for him to have a larger audience. I have no delusion that he has any chance to win, among lifelong politicians. (Not sure I would want him to, either. Maybe we need someone who knows how the sausage grinder works.)
In the actual primary, if he is still there, I may or may not vote for him. But either way, I'll be glad he had a chance to be heard. Yes, he can buy that chance, and he has been ... not just now that he's running for Prez. I'm not one who assumes anyone who has money is necessarily a complete asshole. At least he's been putting his $$$ behind good causes for a while now. I respect that. And I think he's a good addition to the debate.
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/10/21060196/steyer-democratic-debate-polling-qualifier
Steyer’s debate qualification came in one fell swoop Thursday night, when Fox News released new polls for the Nevada caucuses, which will take place February 22, and for the South Carolina primary on February 29. Though Biden still leads the field in both states, Steyer came in third in Nevada — tied with Warren — and was catapulted to a narrow second place in South Carolina, just slightly ahead of Sanders.
In Nevada, Steyer claimed 12 percent of caucus-goers, albeit with a 4 percent margin of error. He did even better in South Carolina, earning 15 percent support with a 3.5 percent margin of error, representing an 11-point jump since October 2019. Both polls were conducted earlier this week, from January 5 through January 8.
Call them what they are: woman killers.
Subject line is my takeaway from this excellent article.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a10033320/pro-life-abortion/
The article words it a little differently, but it comes down to that, and I agree:
At the very least, they are people who will stand by cheerfully, smugly, while they enact a system that leads to 14-year-old girls drinking rat poison.
That is unconscionable.
I wonder, if every time we see an unhinged comment on social media that blares about "baby killers", we responded with a blare back about "woman killers", would that at least start to get some attention to the side effects of these policies?
I've noted elsewhere that I think the people driving the chattelization of women, are in it for the increased control they get from creating increased dependency. Nothing will get through to THEM. But THEY aren't the majority, they are just the instigators. Convince the majority that the "cure" (banning abortions) is actually worse than the "disease" (some women having abortions). Then maybe we turn this tide.
The article has much more and is well worth the read. I've chosen a couple paragraphs below, but you really should go to the link and read the whole article.
The Federalist makes an argument that women should not be dressing up to protest restrictions on abortion in Ohio because, “To compare restrictions on abortion… to the abuses many women still suffer around the world today is both intellectually insulting and downright dishonest… In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive, wear makeup, or clothes that 'show off their beauty.'”
Pretending that women should remain quiet on the topic of their rights because women have it worse in other countries is absurd. We do not live in other countries. This argument should carry all the weight of a C student, who, when told to do better by their parents, replies by shouting, “I could be getting Fs! I could be shooting heroin into my eyeballs!” Which is to say, it should carry no weight at all.
Politifact: Was Joe Biden a climate change pioneer in Congress? History says yes
This article fact-checks a statement Biden is making on the campaign trail. But it's also an interesting (and sad) look back at how badly we as a nation have whiffed on the climate change issue; when people like Biden and Gore, and Jimmy Carter with the solar panels on the White House, have been raising the alarm for literally DECADES.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/08/joe-biden/was-joe-biden-climate-change-pioneer-congress-hist/
Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate staff member who is now a strategic advisor at the Progressive Policy Institute, told us Biden deserves his due.
"Without question, Biden was among the earliest supporters of climate change action in Congress," Bledsoe said. "His 1987 bill was focused on forcing the Reagan Administration to establish a wide-ranging White House Task Force on Climate Change, a critical action that in fact was not taken until the Clinton Administration, so it was both prescient and influential on long-term policy."
Our ruling
Biden said, "I’m one of the first guys to introduce a climate change bill, way, way back in ‘87."
There had been some high-profile hearings about climate change on the Hill, as well as a non-binding resolution prior to Biden’s proposal. But he is credited with introducing the first climate change bill.
We rate this True.
Please go to the link to read the entire article.
Disclaimer: I truly am undecided and will support the Democratic nominee in the General Election.
Found a beautiful Easter egg today. Enjoy. (The Boss with Sting, performing The River)
Look how freakin' young these guys are! And the clothes!
(and is that a young Max Weinberg on drums? Was he with Bruce at that point or is that someone else?)
#GOPTreason , #RepublicanTreason
Seem like the most appropriate hashtags for tweeters these days. Just sayin'.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/republicantreason
https://twitter.com/hashtag/GOPTreason
After digesting the essence of the Mueller report, I don't know how it can be called any less than treason.
Whether it can be effectively prosecuted, is another matter. But it won't be prosecuted unless people realize the enormity of it.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHome country: US
Member since: Sat Jun 4, 2005, 09:56 AM
Number of posts: 17,600