https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171462

Published August 3, 2016 | By emptywheel

Virtually the entire political class has now united to defeat Donald Trump, with Morning Joe today staging a Michael Hayden appearance that served largely to allow Scarborough to tell the story of Trump asking three times in a foreign policy briefing why the US couldn’t use its nukes. As Dan Drezner pointed out on Twitter, Scarborough says the event happened months ago — when the primary was still going on — but has just now staged its telling.

Beating Donald Trump is important. He’s a racist who aims to win by promising white working class people they can resume persecuting people of color again, and he is dangerously inconsistent. That said, he does want to spend lots on infrastructure and protect workers from the ravages of globalization, something often forgotten in depictions of him as entirely policy free.

But the transpartisan obsession with beating Trump has largely applauded two developments that, for liberals, for democrats, for those who believe in peace, for progressives, should be a worry.

First, the Neocon establishment has come out in enthusiastic support for Clinton, with ideologue Eliot Cohen orchestrating serial efforts (one that even includes John Yoo!!) to oppose Trump. They point to Trump’s erratic nature and more recently the theories of Putin’s influence. They do so even in the face of a report that Paul Manafort, through whom any Putin influence would be managed, is checking out.

I exchanged messages Tuesday evening with a longtime ally of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, whom I asked about who was calling the shots in the campaign. The response indicated that Manafort, a veteran of Republican politics brought in this spring for the transition from primaries to the general election, has lost control over his candidate.

“Manafort not challenging (Trump) anymore,” Manafort’s ally wrote. “Mailing it in. Staff suicidal.”
I’m getting whiplash following the Manchurian Trump stories. Maybe the ones suggesting Bill Clinton was behind the Trump run are the true ones after all.

And even while the focus has been on Russia’s alleged influence with Trump, there has been no focus on Hillary’s unquestioning support of Saudi Arabia (the country that had ties to 9/11) and Israel. Or on Hillary’s equally troubling policy proposals, such as starting a No Fly Zone over Russian planes. As Will Bunch noted in a great column, Democrats have become the party that shuns people who chant No More War.
So now the only question is why is Trump allowing himself to be used as a puppet to get Clinton elected. There must be something in it for him. I’m sure there is if the Clintons regain power. Saudi Arabia has been allowed to fly under the radar since money matters more than lives, of course.

The delegates didn’t hear from an Andrew Bacevich or the equivalent of James Madison, but they did get Panetta, who — as noted in this excellent analysis —has supported expanded war powers for the White House, failed to push for real accountability on Bush-era torture, and once suggested that “a 30-year war” will be needed against terrorism. Was it really rude for some of the DNC delegates to chant “no more war!” during Panetta’s speech? Or were some citizens desperately trying to be heard with a different point of view, in a nation so eager to squelch any public debate?

It should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-old congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016. But we’re afraid of any frank discussion of that, or the recent admission by the Obama administration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we’re not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians. That’s a number that experts find ridiculously low, by the way, and doesn’t as include asmany as 85 Syrian civilians who were killed in late July by a U.S. airstrike — a story that was all but ignored in the media. Even if you strongly believe that such collateral damage is necessary to defeat international terrorism, chanting “USA! USA!” to support militarism is both jingoistic and crudely callous toward the dead.
Not only has Hillary gotten the support of the people who brought us into Iraq based on a lie (she told her own little stretchers to get us into Libya), but we’re now drowning out any voice for peace.

Then there’s the parade of heinous billionaires Hillary has rolled out, with Mark Cuban, Mike Bloomberg, and now Meg Whitman. NYT’s coverage of Whitman’s announcement emphasizes that Hillary has been courting Republican billionaires since before she finalized the nomination and that Hillary’s pick of the pro-TPP pro-Wall Street Tim Kaine is what sealed the deal for Whitman.
The ironic thing is that the Democrats and Republicans really are two sides of the same coin (literally)- since they gravitate towards the same donors. The Clintons have taken rather large donations from the people who went after Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas debacle too.

Whitman, who said she would remain a Republican, brings with her a considerable network of contributors, some of whom she said were open to giving to Mrs. Clinton. She said she was willing to campaign for Mrs. Clinton, said she would do her best to gather checks for her campaign and indicated she would personally give to both Mrs. Clinton and her affiliated “super PACs.” An aide to Ms. Whitman said she would personally give at least an amount in the “mid-six figures” to the Clinton effort.

While Democrats openly appealed at their convention last week to Republicans uneasy with Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her top supporters have been making a similar cross-party pitch in private since before the Democratic nomination fight even came to its conclusion.

[snip]

She said she had told Mrs. Clinton that she wanted to see the two parties’ conventions and assess the running mates that each nominee chose before making her decision. When Mrs. Clinton selected Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a consensus-oriented figure, “that was a positive for me,” Ms. Whitman said.
Whitman’s nod to Kaine is of particular concern to me, as Democrats downplayed his anti-choice and pro-business policies, at least in public, until after the convention. Now, if anything happens to Hillary (who has some dangerously unhinged enemies), we’ll basically have a moderate Republican running the country.

It’s not just that Hillary has secretly been courting oligarchs since before she cemented the nomination. It’s that her post-convention politicking has focused on it, as if the approval of oligarchs is what it will take to win in midwest swing states.

The guy who will likely become Majority Leader is even more aggressively pursuing typical Republican voters (though this view — admittedly filtered through the potentially inaccurate National Review — has some huge logical contradictions, not to mention an odd idea of what it would take for Democrats to continue to win Illinois).
The funny thing is one of the criticisms Clinton used against Putin was that he jails oligarchs. Not that Putin is anything good, but that particular “criticism” should be considered a compliment.

“No guarantees, there never are, but the odds are more like than not that we will take back the Senate,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a forum sponsored by the Washington Post Thursday afternoon. Schumer will be the next majority or minority leader of the Senate Democrats, depending upon how November unfolds. He suggested that the electorate’s sense of economic gloom was actually working to his party’s advantage: “The electorate is moving in a more Democratic direction. When middle class incomes decline, people tend to move in a more progressive direction.”

Schumer’s optimism is driven more by national demographics than by the specific traits of his candidates. He contends that Millennials, or voters aged 18 to 35, will be the largest age group voting in this year’s electorate, even if they don’t turn out in massive numbers.

“The number one factor in whether we retake the Senate is whether Hillary Clinton does well, and I think she’s going to do really well,” Schumer says of his former fellow New York senator. He notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Senate Republicans in difficult races to localize their elections, rather than get too tied to Trump’s positions and comments and scoffs, “Sorry, Mitch, this is a national election if there ever was one.”

At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party’s dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Democrats, it appears, want to become the party of the Republican soccer mom, which may work well with the bellicose warmongering, but which seems to view economic malaise as an opportunity rather than a problem.

So yeah, by all means, let’s beat the orange crazy man.

But let’s also be cognizant of the more politically palatable craziness that gets embraced in the process. ”

Will have later a look at your link, short in time hope you are doing well.

Greating from the old world.
As stated previously, the neocons and neolibs should both burn in the same section of Hell since they both worship the false idol of money.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171462

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal

Leaked emails show officials tried to obscure fact that Clinton allowed states to keep only a tiny fraction of proceeds from joint fundraising.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and ISAAC ARNSDORF 07/26/16 06:32 AM EDT

lede__hillary_clinton_10_gty_1160.jpg

The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. | Getty

Facebook

Twitter

Google +

Email

Comment

Print

MOST READ

The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics

Be afraid: The Clinton-Trump general election begins

Chuck Schumer’s audacious prediction

Trump team launches post-convention assault against Clinton

How Clinton quelled an insurgency

Hillary’s Acceptance Speech Was True To Her—And That’s the Bad News

5 takeaways from Clinton’s biggest speech yet

Grim economy report plays into Trump’s hands

Trump pushes video of Bill Clinton dozing during wife’s speech

Insiders: Hillary’s speech was a winner

POLITICO MAGAZINE

Rudy Giuliani Cory Booker

The Two Speeches That Explain American Politics Right Now

By MICHAEL GRUNWALD

160729_ioffe_dncrussians_getty.jpg

The Russians at the DNC

By JULIA IOFFE

160728-mag-hillary-clinton-msm-1160.jpg

Hillary’s Acceptance Speech Was True To Her—And That’s the Bad News

By JEFF GREENFIELD

Glass ceiling hillary

How Cracked Is That Glass Ceiling, Really?

By JUDITH WARNER

PHILADELPHIA — Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.

But during the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.

The arrangement, called the Hillary Victory Fund, allowed the Clinton campaign to seek contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John. That’s resulted in criticism for Clinton, who has made opposition to big money in politics a key plank in her campaign platform.

Clinton’s allies have responded publicly by arguing that the fund is raising big money to boost down-ballot Democratic candidates by helping the 40 state parties that are now participating in the fund.

But privately, officials at the DNC and on Clinton’s campaign worked to parry questions raised by reporters, as well as Sanders’ since-aborted campaign, about the distribution of the money, according to a cache of hacked emails made public late last week by WikiLeaks.

The emails, released the day before the opening of the Democratic National Convention here, exposed DNC staffers seemingly undermining Sanders’ insurgent campaign against Clinton. The leak hampered the convention’s mission of uniting the party by convincing fervent Sanders supporters to get behind Clinton. And the controversy forced the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a close Clinton ally accused by Sanders backers of using the party apparatus to undermine them.

160725_bernie_lede_ap_1160.jpg

2016

Democrats pull convention back from the brink

By KYLE CHENEY

The emails show the officials agreeing to withhold information from reporters about the Hillary Victory Fund’s allocation formula, working to align their stories about when — or if — the DNC had begun funding coordinated campaign committees with the states. They also show one official blaming Sanders for putting the DNC between “a real rock vs hard place” by forcing “a fight in the media with the party bosses over big money fundraising.”

The DNC’s deputy communications director Eric Walker in late April emailed a group of top officials asserting that the party shouldn’t “discuss funding allocations in the press for the RNC to see what we’re doing.” His boss Luis Miranda responded “There’s been no coverage that we’ve found, which is what we wanted.”

Miranda argued in the emails that the committee should try to shape any coverage by claiming that “while the funds are going to the DNC right now to build tools and capacity for the general election, there will be a point when the funds stay in the states to fund coordinated campaigns that are now beginning to get organized.” But in a subsequent email in early May he admitted he wasn’t sure if the coordinated campaigns with the state parties were already getting started “or does it start later in the summer?”

Wasserman Schultz responded: “It starts now.”

But a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that very little money from the victory fund went to the states after that point.

Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.

Officials from the DNC and the Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about why so little of the cash raised by the fund has gone to — and remained with — the participating state parties. But they have previously argued that, even when state parties aren’t receiving cash transfers, they are benefiting from the political infrastructure paid for by money raised by the fund.

The fund represents one of the most ambitious hard-dollar fundraising efforts in modern presidential politics. It was made possible by a 2014 Supreme Court decision in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that struck down aggregate limits on total giving to federal campaigns. They had capped donations to joint fundraising committees to $123,200 per person per year.

new_sanders_Main_gty.jpg

Sanders: ‘Clinton must become the next president’

By KATIE GLUECK

Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committee, theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 — based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton’s campaign.

Clinton’s GOP rival Donald Trump started a joint committee called Trump Victory with the Republican National Committee and 11 state parties. By including various sub-funds within the RNC, it can accept donations as large as $449,400. But Trump has not shown an ability to raise big checks, and Trump Victory and another Trump joint committee had raised only $32.4 million combined through the end of last month, FEC filings show.

The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. Typically, though, national parties steer disproportionate resources to the handful of states that are legitimately competitive in presidential years, often leaving the party committees in other states grumbling.

But what happens to the cash in the Hillary Victory Fund after its initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign’s chief operating officer, Beth Jones, who serves as the treasurer of the victory fund.

FEC filings show that, since the inception of the Hillary Victory Fund, participating state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash — $6.9 million — was transferred to the DNC.

The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn’t pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement. But those deposits were token by comparison: each state received $10,000, compared with transfers that were passed on to the DNC as large as $300,000, FEC records show.

Beyond the transfers, much of the fund’s $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.

The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for “salary and overhead expenses” to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive — both of which also serve the Clinton campaign — for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.

Campaign finance watchdogs and the Sanders campaign had argued that the arrangement represented a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on skewing the process to help Clinton defeat Sanders, and then win the White House.

And some participating state party officials and their allies grumble privately that Clinton is merely using the state parties to subsidize her own operation, contending that her allies overstate the fund’s support for their parties.

The fund is a bad deal for state parties, said one operative who works with state party committees. State party officials have been buzzing about the WikiLeak emails, said the operative, arguing they show that “the extent to which the game has been rigged goes much deeper at the DNC than what many of us expected.”

In April, when POLITICO began asking state parties about why they weren’t keeping the money being transferred to them from the fund, officials looped the DNC and urged the states to stonewall, according to the leaked emails.

“There is no reason to share that level of strategic information with a reporter,” wrote Ohio Democratic Party communications director Kirstin Alvanitakis.

Michelle Obama praises Clinton for not getting ‘angry’ when she lost in 2008

Michelle Obama: ‘This right now is the greatest country on Earth’

By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL

But the emails show that officials and lawyers at the DNC and the Clinton campaign became frantic after POLITICO’s May 2 story, which led to substantial follow-up coverage that put the Clinton campaign and the DNC on the defensive. It led the Sanders campaign to accuse the Clinton campaign of “money laundering” and prompted Politifact to downgrade its rating — from “mostly true” to “half true” — of the claim that the bulk of the money collected by the victory fund would go to down-ballot Democrats.

“The DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful to the Democratic party,” Marc Elias, an attorney who advises the DNC and the Clinton campaign, wrote in an email to DNC officials.

CEO Amy Dacey responded “I do think there is too much of this narrative out there — I also worry since they are emailing to their list (which has overlap with ours!)”

In another email, Miranda, the communications director, suggested that the campaign tell other journalists seeking to follow POLITICO’s story that “Politico got it wrong.” But the rest of his email failed to indicate any errors in POLITICO’s story, nor did the DNC or the Clinton campaign seek a correction.

Miranda did not respond to a request for comment.
I bet Putin has something to do with it, we should ask CNN for more information…

Look at the topics here in the offtopic, the brainwashing part of the US msm has worked perfectly.
Yes- hence why I usually show up here only once a week!

What was this that you mentioned in the other thread about freedom fries- never heard that one before. It does seem bizarre!
Was sometimes infront of the Iraqinvasion, the world was split into the willings and the enemy and the big mediaoutlets of the land of the free played well trained the drums of war. Majority of citizens were frightened and held meetings to sing the national anthem and to feel strong together in patriotism supported with Foxnews newest stinking mushroomcloud. But it took BushII more time then expected to get into the Iraq, so there was the real menace that the fearlevel would fall. One magician came up with the idea of the freedom fries, which seemed perfect to use in that context. So the medialords and their lemmings inspired the folk to feel deep anger against those French people, inclusive French wine. Maybe there was even an “Freedom fries” official talkingpointlist for the msm, like in the case of Snowden or advanced interrogation technics or maybe soon spoiler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

For me that is dangerous “journalism “ and using the word freedom fries in that context was bizarre, like it feels bizarre to respond to “No more wars” with “USA””USA”
Thanks. I see that Assange was on CNN of all places and talking about the leaks coming from within the Democratic Party- not from Russia. He also talked about a new set of leaks- do you know what this is about? Curiously enough, the guy who was accused of giving the leaks from within the party was mysteriously murdered two weeks ago.
No haven´t heard what is coming next.
I think it might be what I wrote about earlier tonight, that the Clinton Foundation has been taking money from people on the no-fly list.
The no fly list is an big and dangerous joke, I am sure you have heard from Senator Kennedy who was also on that list for a while. The system is rigged and ClintonII is part of the problem and no solution. Let´s see how the corporate media will cover up the next leak, will it be again the communist under the bed?
The big problem was the person in question who contributed to the Clinton Fund was a Nigerian thug who committed widespread crimes in that country, but as soon as it was learned he contributed to the Clinton Fund he was allowed to go wherever he wanted- a “normal” person on that list would have gone through some hellish treatment, whether they deserved to be on that list or not.
Wonder if Senator Kennedy also had to pay ClintonII to get from the no fly list?

Speaking of communism I think you would really like Greenwald’s article in the Intercept where he talked about how there is a long history for blaming Russia for leaks.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/

A FREQUENT WEAPON FOR DEMOCRATS in the 2016 election is to publicly malign those they regard as critics and adversaries as Russia sympathizers, Putin stooges, or outright agents of the Kremlin. To put it mildly, this is not a new tactic in U.S. political discourse, and it’s worth placing it in historical context. That’s particularly true given how many people have now been targeted with this attack.

Strongly insinuating that the GOP nominee, Donald Trump, has nefarious, possibly treasonous allegiances to Moscow has migrated from Clinton-loyal pundits into the principal theme of the Clinton campaign itself. “The depth of Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin is revealing itself by the day,” her website announced yesterday, and vital “questions” must be answered “about Trump’s cozy relationship with Russia.” The Clinton campaign this weekend released a 1-minute video that, over and over, insinuates Trump’s disloyalty in the form of “questions” – complete with menacing pictures of Red Square. Democrats cheered wildly, and really have not stopped cheering, ever since the ex-Acting CIA Director (who, undisclosed by the NYT, now works for a Clinton operative) went to The New York Times to claim “that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
Yes have read it, Greenwald is spot on and it´s absurd that big parts of the US public are still falling for the same old boring fearmongering. You remember that we spoke about “No more wars” vs “USA, USA”, emptywheel had also a shorty about it worth to read I think. https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/08/03/what-price-victory/
It won’t let me see the story I am getting this error:

ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCHA secure connection cannot be established because this site uses an unsupported protocol.
Hm, I have no problem with the link? However:

Published August 3, 2016 | By emptywheel

Virtually the entire political class has now united to defeat Donald Trump, with Morning Joe today staging a Michael Hayden appearance that served largely to allow Scarborough to tell the story of Trump asking three times in a foreign policy briefing why the US couldn’t use its nukes. As Dan Drezner pointed out on Twitter, Scarborough says the event happened months ago — when the primary was still going on — but has just now staged its telling.

Beating Donald Trump is important. He’s a racist who aims to win by promising white working class people they can resume persecuting people of color again, and he is dangerously inconsistent. That said, he does want to spend lots on infrastructure and protect workers from the ravages of globalization, something often forgotten in depictions of him as entirely policy free.

But the transpartisan obsession with beating Trump has largely applauded two developments that, for liberals, for democrats, for those who believe in peace, for progressives, should be a worry.

First, the Neocon establishment has come out in enthusiastic support for Clinton, with ideologue Eliot Cohen orchestrating serial efforts (one that even includes John Yoo!!) to oppose Trump. They point to Trump’s erratic nature and more recently the theories of Putin’s influence. They do so even in the face of a report that Paul Manafort, through whom any Putin influence would be managed, is checking out.

I exchanged messages Tuesday evening with a longtime ally of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, whom I asked about who was calling the shots in the campaign. The response indicated that Manafort, a veteran of Republican politics brought in this spring for the transition from primaries to the general election, has lost control over his candidate.

“Manafort not challenging (Trump) anymore,” Manafort’s ally wrote. “Mailing it in. Staff suicidal.”
I’m getting whiplash following the Manchurian Trump stories. Maybe the ones suggesting Bill Clinton was behind the Trump run are the true ones after all.

And even while the focus has been on Russia’s alleged influence with Trump, there has been no focus on Hillary’s unquestioning support of Saudi Arabia (the country that had ties to 9/11) and Israel. Or on Hillary’s equally troubling policy proposals, such as starting a No Fly Zone over Russian planes. As Will Bunch noted in a great column, Democrats have become the party that shuns people who chant No More War.
So now the only question is why is Trump allowing himself to be used as a puppet to get Clinton elected. There must be something in it for him. I’m sure there is if the Clintons regain power. Saudi Arabia has been allowed to fly under the radar since money matters more than lives, of course.

The delegates didn’t hear from an Andrew Bacevich or the equivalent of James Madison, but they did get Panetta, who — as noted in this excellent analysis —has supported expanded war powers for the White House, failed to push for real accountability on Bush-era torture, and once suggested that “a 30-year war” will be needed against terrorism. Was it really rude for some of the DNC delegates to chant “no more war!” during Panetta’s speech? Or were some citizens desperately trying to be heard with a different point of view, in a nation so eager to squelch any public debate?

It should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-old congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016. But we’re afraid of any frank discussion of that, or the recent admission by the Obama administration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we’re not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians. That’s a number that experts find ridiculously low, by the way, and doesn’t as include asmany as 85 Syrian civilians who were killed in late July by a U.S. airstrike — a story that was all but ignored in the media. Even if you strongly believe that such collateral damage is necessary to defeat international terrorism, chanting “USA! USA!” to support militarism is both jingoistic and crudely callous toward the dead.
Not only has Hillary gotten the support of the people who brought us into Iraq based on a lie (she told her own little stretchers to get us into Libya), but we’re now drowning out any voice for peace.

Then there’s the parade of heinous billionaires Hillary has rolled out, with Mark Cuban, Mike Bloomberg, and now Meg Whitman. NYT’s coverage of Whitman’s announcement emphasizes that Hillary has been courting Republican billionaires since before she finalized the nomination and that Hillary’s pick of the pro-TPP pro-Wall Street Tim Kaine is what sealed the deal for Whitman.
The ironic thing is that the Democrats and Republicans really are two sides of the same coin (literally)- since they gravitate towards the same donors. The Clintons have taken rather large donations from the people who went after Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas debacle too.

Whitman, who said she would remain a Republican, brings with her a considerable network of contributors, some of whom she said were open to giving to Mrs. Clinton. She said she was willing to campaign for Mrs. Clinton, said she would do her best to gather checks for her campaign and indicated she would personally give to both Mrs. Clinton and her affiliated “super PACs.” An aide to Ms. Whitman said she would personally give at least an amount in the “mid-six figures” to the Clinton effort.

While Democrats openly appealed at their convention last week to Republicans uneasy with Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her top supporters have been making a similar cross-party pitch in private since before the Democratic nomination fight even came to its conclusion.

[snip]

She said she had told Mrs. Clinton that she wanted to see the two parties’ conventions and assess the running mates that each nominee chose before making her decision. When Mrs. Clinton selected Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a consensus-oriented figure, “that was a positive for me,” Ms. Whitman said.
Whitman’s nod to Kaine is of particular concern to me, as Democrats downplayed his anti-choice and pro-business policies, at least in public, until after the convention. Now, if anything happens to Hillary (who has some dangerously unhinged enemies), we’ll basically have a moderate Republican running the country.

It’s not just that Hillary has secretly been courting oligarchs since before she cemented the nomination. It’s that her post-convention politicking has focused on it, as if the approval of oligarchs is what it will take to win in midwest swing states.

The guy who will likely become Majority Leader is even more aggressively pursuing typical Republican voters (though this view — admittedly filtered through the potentially inaccurate National Review — has some huge logical contradictions, not to mention an odd idea of what it would take for Democrats to continue to win Illinois).
The funny thing is one of the criticisms Clinton used against Putin was that he jails oligarchs. Not that Putin is anything good, but that particular “criticism” should be considered a compliment.

“No guarantees, there never are, but the odds are more like than not that we will take back the Senate,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a forum sponsored by the Washington Post Thursday afternoon. Schumer will be the next majority or minority leader of the Senate Democrats, depending upon how November unfolds. He suggested that the electorate’s sense of economic gloom was actually working to his party’s advantage: “The electorate is moving in a more Democratic direction. When middle class incomes decline, people tend to move in a more progressive direction.”

Schumer’s optimism is driven more by national demographics than by the specific traits of his candidates. He contends that Millennials, or voters aged 18 to 35, will be the largest age group voting in this year’s electorate, even if they don’t turn out in massive numbers.

“The number one factor in whether we retake the Senate is whether Hillary Clinton does well, and I think she’s going to do really well,” Schumer says of his former fellow New York senator. He notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Senate Republicans in difficult races to localize their elections, rather than get too tied to Trump’s positions and comments and scoffs, “Sorry, Mitch, this is a national election if there ever was one.”

At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party’s dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Democrats, it appears, want to become the party of the Republican soccer mom, which may work well with the bellicose warmongering, but which seems to view economic malaise as an opportunity rather than a problem.

So yeah, by all means, let’s beat the orange crazy man.

But let’s also be cognizant of the more politically palatable craziness that gets embraced in the process. ”

Will have later a look at your link, short in time hope you are doing well.

Greating from the old world.
As stated previously, the neocons and neolibs should both burn in the same section of Hell since they both worship the false idol of money. It’s way too easy to beat the Orange Agent, I would rather pull on his strings to find out who the puppeteers that control him are

Greetings from the crazy “new” world!

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Werderano wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal

Leaked emails show officials tried to obscure fact that Clinton allowed states to keep only a tiny fraction of proceeds from joint fundraising.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and ISAAC ARNSDORF 07/26/16 06:32 AM EDT

lede__hillary_clinton_10_gty_1160.jpg

The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. | Getty

Facebook

Twitter

Google +

Email

Comment

Print

MOST READ

The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics

Be afraid: The Clinton-Trump general election begins

Chuck Schumer’s audacious prediction

Trump team launches post-convention assault against Clinton

How Clinton quelled an insurgency

Hillary’s Acceptance Speech Was True To Her—And That’s the Bad News

5 takeaways from Clinton’s biggest speech yet

Grim economy report plays into Trump’s hands

Trump pushes video of Bill Clinton dozing during wife’s speech

Insiders: Hillary’s speech was a winner

POLITICO MAGAZINE

Rudy Giuliani Cory Booker

The Two Speeches That Explain American Politics Right Now

By MICHAEL GRUNWALD

160729_ioffe_dncrussians_getty.jpg

The Russians at the DNC

By JULIA IOFFE

160728-mag-hillary-clinton-msm-1160.jpg

Hillary’s Acceptance Speech Was True To Her—And That’s the Bad News

By JEFF GREENFIELD

Glass ceiling hillary

How Cracked Is That Glass Ceiling, Really?

By JUDITH WARNER

PHILADELPHIA — Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.

But during the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.

The arrangement, called the Hillary Victory Fund, allowed the Clinton campaign to seek contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John. That’s resulted in criticism for Clinton, who has made opposition to big money in politics a key plank in her campaign platform.

Clinton’s allies have responded publicly by arguing that the fund is raising big money to boost down-ballot Democratic candidates by helping the 40 state parties that are now participating in the fund.

But privately, officials at the DNC and on Clinton’s campaign worked to parry questions raised by reporters, as well as Sanders’ since-aborted campaign, about the distribution of the money, according to a cache of hacked emails made public late last week by WikiLeaks.

The emails, released the day before the opening of the Democratic National Convention here, exposed DNC staffers seemingly undermining Sanders’ insurgent campaign against Clinton. The leak hampered the convention’s mission of uniting the party by convincing fervent Sanders supporters to get behind Clinton. And the controversy forced the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a close Clinton ally accused by Sanders backers of using the party apparatus to undermine them.

160725_bernie_lede_ap_1160.jpg

2016

Democrats pull convention back from the brink

By KYLE CHENEY

The emails show the officials agreeing to withhold information from reporters about the Hillary Victory Fund’s allocation formula, working to align their stories about when — or if — the DNC had begun funding coordinated campaign committees with the states. They also show one official blaming Sanders for putting the DNC between “a real rock vs hard place” by forcing “a fight in the media with the party bosses over big money fundraising.”

The DNC’s deputy communications director Eric Walker in late April emailed a group of top officials asserting that the party shouldn’t “discuss funding allocations in the press for the RNC to see what we’re doing.” His boss Luis Miranda responded “There’s been no coverage that we’ve found, which is what we wanted.”

Miranda argued in the emails that the committee should try to shape any coverage by claiming that “while the funds are going to the DNC right now to build tools and capacity for the general election, there will be a point when the funds stay in the states to fund coordinated campaigns that are now beginning to get organized.” But in a subsequent email in early May he admitted he wasn’t sure if the coordinated campaigns with the state parties were already getting started “or does it start later in the summer?”

Wasserman Schultz responded: “It starts now.”

But a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that very little money from the victory fund went to the states after that point.

Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.

Officials from the DNC and the Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about why so little of the cash raised by the fund has gone to — and remained with — the participating state parties. But they have previously argued that, even when state parties aren’t receiving cash transfers, they are benefiting from the political infrastructure paid for by money raised by the fund.

The fund represents one of the most ambitious hard-dollar fundraising efforts in modern presidential politics. It was made possible by a 2014 Supreme Court decision in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that struck down aggregate limits on total giving to federal campaigns. They had capped donations to joint fundraising committees to $123,200 per person per year.

new_sanders_Main_gty.jpg

Sanders: ‘Clinton must become the next president’

By KATIE GLUECK

Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committee, theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 — based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton’s campaign.

Clinton’s GOP rival Donald Trump started a joint committee called Trump Victory with the Republican National Committee and 11 state parties. By including various sub-funds within the RNC, it can accept donations as large as $449,400. But Trump has not shown an ability to raise big checks, and Trump Victory and another Trump joint committee had raised only $32.4 million combined through the end of last month, FEC filings show.

The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. Typically, though, national parties steer disproportionate resources to the handful of states that are legitimately competitive in presidential years, often leaving the party committees in other states grumbling.

But what happens to the cash in the Hillary Victory Fund after its initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign’s chief operating officer, Beth Jones, who serves as the treasurer of the victory fund.

FEC filings show that, since the inception of the Hillary Victory Fund, participating state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash — $6.9 million — was transferred to the DNC.

The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn’t pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement. But those deposits were token by comparison: each state received $10,000, compared with transfers that were passed on to the DNC as large as $300,000, FEC records show.

Beyond the transfers, much of the fund’s $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.

The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for “salary and overhead expenses” to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive — both of which also serve the Clinton campaign — for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.

Campaign finance watchdogs and the Sanders campaign had argued that the arrangement represented a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on skewing the process to help Clinton defeat Sanders, and then win the White House.

And some participating state party officials and their allies grumble privately that Clinton is merely using the state parties to subsidize her own operation, contending that her allies overstate the fund’s support for their parties.

The fund is a bad deal for state parties, said one operative who works with state party committees. State party officials have been buzzing about the WikiLeak emails, said the operative, arguing they show that “the extent to which the game has been rigged goes much deeper at the DNC than what many of us expected.”

In April, when POLITICO began asking state parties about why they weren’t keeping the money being transferred to them from the fund, officials looped the DNC and urged the states to stonewall, according to the leaked emails.

“There is no reason to share that level of strategic information with a reporter,” wrote Ohio Democratic Party communications director Kirstin Alvanitakis.

Michelle Obama praises Clinton for not getting ‘angry’ when she lost in 2008

Michelle Obama: ‘This right now is the greatest country on Earth’

By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL

But the emails show that officials and lawyers at the DNC and the Clinton campaign became frantic after POLITICO’s May 2 story, which led to substantial follow-up coverage that put the Clinton campaign and the DNC on the defensive. It led the Sanders campaign to accuse the Clinton campaign of “money laundering” and prompted Politifact to downgrade its rating — from “mostly true” to “half true” — of the claim that the bulk of the money collected by the victory fund would go to down-ballot Democrats.

“The DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful to the Democratic party,” Marc Elias, an attorney who advises the DNC and the Clinton campaign, wrote in an email to DNC officials.

CEO Amy Dacey responded “I do think there is too much of this narrative out there — I also worry since they are emailing to their list (which has overlap with ours!)”

In another email, Miranda, the communications director, suggested that the campaign tell other journalists seeking to follow POLITICO’s story that “Politico got it wrong.” But the rest of his email failed to indicate any errors in POLITICO’s story, nor did the DNC or the Clinton campaign seek a correction.

Miranda did not respond to a request for comment.
I bet Putin has something to do with it, we should ask CNN for more information…

Look at the topics here in the offtopic, the brainwashing part of the US msm has worked perfectly.
Yes- hence why I usually show up here only once a week!

What was this that you mentioned in the other thread about freedom fries- never heard that one before. It does seem bizarre!
Was sometimes infront of the Iraqinvasion, the world was split into the willings and the enemy and the big mediaoutlets of the land of the free played well trained the drums of war. Majority of citizens were frightened and held meetings to sing the national anthem and to feel strong together in patriotism supported with Foxnews newest stinking mushroomcloud. But it took BushII more time then expected to get into the Iraq, so there was the real menace that the fearlevel would fall. One magician came up with the idea of the freedom fries, which seemed perfect to use in that context. So the medialords and their lemmings inspired the folk to feel deep anger against those French people, inclusive French wine. Maybe there was even an “Freedom fries” official talkingpointlist for the msm, like in the case of Snowden or advanced interrogation technics or maybe soon spoiler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

For me that is dangerous “journalism “ and using the word freedom fries in that context was bizarre, like it feels bizarre to respond to “No more wars” with “USA””USA”
Thanks. I see that Assange was on CNN of all places and talking about the leaks coming from within the Democratic Party- not from Russia. He also talked about a new set of leaks- do you know what this is about? Curiously enough, the guy who was accused of giving the leaks from within the party was mysteriously murdered two weeks ago.
No haven´t heard what is coming next.
I think it might be what I wrote about earlier tonight, that the Clinton Foundation has been taking money from people on the no-fly list.
The no fly list is an big and dangerous joke, I am sure you have heard from Senator Kennedy who was also on that list for a while. The system is rigged and ClintonII is part of the problem and no solution. Let´s see how the corporate media will cover up the next leak, will it be again the communist under the bed?
The big problem was the person in question who contributed to the Clinton Fund was a Nigerian thug who committed widespread crimes in that country, but as soon as it was learned he contributed to the Clinton Fund he was allowed to go wherever he wanted- a “normal” person on that list would have gone through some hellish treatment, whether they deserved to be on that list or not.
Wonder if Senator Kennedy also had to pay ClintonII to get from the no fly list?

Speaking of communism I think you would really like Greenwald’s article in the Intercept where he talked about how there is a long history for blaming Russia for leaks.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/

A FREQUENT WEAPON FOR DEMOCRATS in the 2016 election is to publicly malign those they regard as critics and adversaries as Russia sympathizers, Putin stooges, or outright agents of the Kremlin. To put it mildly, this is not a new tactic in U.S. political discourse, and it’s worth placing it in historical context. That’s particularly true given how many people have now been targeted with this attack.

Strongly insinuating that the GOP nominee, Donald Trump, has nefarious, possibly treasonous allegiances to Moscow has migrated from Clinton-loyal pundits into the principal theme of the Clinton campaign itself. “The depth of Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin is revealing itself by the day,” her website announced yesterday, and vital “questions” must be answered “about Trump’s cozy relationship with Russia.” The Clinton campaign this weekend released a 1-minute video that, over and over, insinuates Trump’s disloyalty in the form of “questions” – complete with menacing pictures of Red Square. Democrats cheered wildly, and really have not stopped cheering, ever since the ex-Acting CIA Director (who, undisclosed by the NYT, now works for a Clinton operative) went to The New York Times to claim “that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
Yes have read it, Greenwald is spot on and it´s absurd that big parts of the US public are still falling for the same old boring fearmongering. You remember that we spoke about “No more wars” vs “USA, USA”, emptywheel had also a shorty about it worth to read I think. https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/08/03/what-price-victory/
It won’t let me see the story I am getting this error:

ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCHA secure connection cannot be established because this site uses an unsupported protocol.
Hm, I have no problem with the link? However:

Published August 3, 2016 | By emptywheel

Virtually the entire political class has now united to defeat Donald Trump, with Morning Joe today staging a Michael Hayden appearance that served largely to allow Scarborough to tell the story of Trump asking three times in a foreign policy briefing why the US couldn’t use its nukes. As Dan Drezner pointed out on Twitter, Scarborough says the event happened months ago — when the primary was still going on — but has just now staged its telling.

Beating Donald Trump is important. He’s a racist who aims to win by promising white working class people they can resume persecuting people of color again, and he is dangerously inconsistent. That said, he does want to spend lots on infrastructure and protect workers from the ravages of globalization, something often forgotten in depictions of him as entirely policy free.

But the transpartisan obsession with beating Trump has largely applauded two developments that, for liberals, for democrats, for those who believe in peace, for progressives, should be a worry.

First, the Neocon establishment has come out in enthusiastic support for Clinton, with ideologue Eliot Cohen orchestrating serial efforts (one that even includes John Yoo!!) to oppose Trump. They point to Trump’s erratic nature and more recently the theories of Putin’s influence. They do so even in the face of a report that Paul Manafort, through whom any Putin influence would be managed, is checking out.

I exchanged messages Tuesday evening with a longtime ally of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, whom I asked about who was calling the shots in the campaign. The response indicated that Manafort, a veteran of Republican politics brought in this spring for the transition from primaries to the general election, has lost control over his candidate.

“Manafort not challenging (Trump) anymore,” Manafort’s ally wrote. “Mailing it in. Staff suicidal.”
I’m getting whiplash following the Manchurian Trump stories. Maybe the ones suggesting Bill Clinton was behind the Trump run are the true ones after all.

And even while the focus has been on Russia’s alleged influence with Trump, there has been no focus on Hillary’s unquestioning support of Saudi Arabia (the country that had ties to 9/11) and Israel. Or on Hillary’s equally troubling policy proposals, such as starting a No Fly Zone over Russian planes. As Will Bunch noted in a great column, Democrats have become the party that shuns people who chant No More War.
So now the only question is why is Trump allowing himself to be used as a puppet to get Clinton elected. There must be something in it for him. I’m sure there is if the Clintons regain power. Saudi Arabia has been allowed to fly under the radar since money matters more than lives, of course.

The delegates didn’t hear from an Andrew Bacevich or the equivalent of James Madison, but they did get Panetta, who — as noted in this excellent analysis —has supported expanded war powers for the White House, failed to push for real accountability on Bush-era torture, and once suggested that “a 30-year war” will be needed against terrorism. Was it really rude for some of the DNC delegates to chant “no more war!” during Panetta’s speech? Or were some citizens desperately trying to be heard with a different point of view, in a nation so eager to squelch any public debate?

It should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-old congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016. But we’re afraid of any frank discussion of that, or the recent admission by the Obama administration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we’re not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians. That’s a number that experts find ridiculously low, by the way, and doesn’t as include asmany as 85 Syrian civilians who were killed in late July by a U.S. airstrike — a story that was all but ignored in the media. Even if you strongly believe that such collateral damage is necessary to defeat international terrorism, chanting “USA! USA!” to support militarism is both jingoistic and crudely callous toward the dead.
Not only has Hillary gotten the support of the people who brought us into Iraq based on a lie (she told her own little stretchers to get us into Libya), but we’re now drowning out any voice for peace.

Then there’s the parade of heinous billionaires Hillary has rolled out, with Mark Cuban, Mike Bloomberg, and now Meg Whitman. NYT’s coverage of Whitman’s announcement emphasizes that Hillary has been courting Republican billionaires since before she finalized the nomination and that Hillary’s pick of the pro-TPP pro-Wall Street Tim Kaine is what sealed the deal for Whitman.
The ironic thing is that the Democrats and Republicans really are two sides of the same coin (literally)- since they gravitate towards the same donors. The Clintons have taken rather large donations from the people who went after Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas debacle too.

Whitman, who said she would remain a Republican, brings with her a considerable network of contributors, some of whom she said were open to giving to Mrs. Clinton. She said she was willing to campaign for Mrs. Clinton, said she would do her best to gather checks for her campaign and indicated she would personally give to both Mrs. Clinton and her affiliated “super PACs.” An aide to Ms. Whitman said she would personally give at least an amount in the “mid-six figures” to the Clinton effort.

While Democrats openly appealed at their convention last week to Republicans uneasy with Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her top supporters have been making a similar cross-party pitch in private since before the Democratic nomination fight even came to its conclusion.

[snip]

She said she had told Mrs. Clinton that she wanted to see the two parties’ conventions and assess the running mates that each nominee chose before making her decision. When Mrs. Clinton selected Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a consensus-oriented figure, “that was a positive for me,” Ms. Whitman said.
Whitman’s nod to Kaine is of particular concern to me, as Democrats downplayed his anti-choice and pro-business policies, at least in public, until after the convention. Now, if anything happens to Hillary (who has some dangerously unhinged enemies), we’ll basically have a moderate Republican running the country.

It’s not just that Hillary has secretly been courting oligarchs since before she cemented the nomination. It’s that her post-convention politicking has focused on it, as if the approval of oligarchs is what it will take to win in midwest swing states.

The guy who will likely become Majority Leader is even more aggressively pursuing typical Republican voters (though this view — admittedly filtered through the potentially inaccurate National Review — has some huge logical contradictions, not to mention an odd idea of what it would take for Democrats to continue to win Illinois).
The funny thing is one of the criticisms Clinton used against Putin was that he jails oligarchs. Not that Putin is anything good, but that particular “criticism” should be considered a compliment.

“No guarantees, there never are, but the odds are more like than not that we will take back the Senate,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a forum sponsored by the Washington Post Thursday afternoon. Schumer will be the next majority or minority leader of the Senate Democrats, depending upon how November unfolds. He suggested that the electorate’s sense of economic gloom was actually working to his party’s advantage: “The electorate is moving in a more Democratic direction. When middle class incomes decline, people tend to move in a more progressive direction.”

Schumer’s optimism is driven more by national demographics than by the specific traits of his candidates. He contends that Millennials, or voters aged 18 to 35, will be the largest age group voting in this year’s electorate, even if they don’t turn out in massive numbers.

“The number one factor in whether we retake the Senate is whether Hillary Clinton does well, and I think she’s going to do really well,” Schumer says of his former fellow New York senator. He notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Senate Republicans in difficult races to localize their elections, rather than get too tied to Trump’s positions and comments and scoffs, “Sorry, Mitch, this is a national election if there ever was one.”

At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party’s dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Democrats, it appears, want to become the party of the Republican soccer mom, which may work well with the bellicose warmongering, but which seems to view economic malaise as an opportunity rather than a problem.

So yeah, by all means, let’s beat the orange crazy man.

But let’s also be cognizant of the more politically palatable craziness that gets embraced in the process. ”

Will have later a look at your link, short in time hope you are doing well.

Greating from the old world.
As stated previously, the neocons and neolibs should both burn in the same section of Hell since they both worship the false idol of money. It’s way too easy to beat the Orange Agent, I would rather pull on his strings to find out who the puppeteers that control him are

Greetings from the crazy “new” world!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

Watch Delegates Chant ‘No More War’ During Leon Panetta’s Speech

Watch Delegates Chant ‘No More War’ During Leon Panetta’s Speech

https://t.co/adk5tNrlWZ

https://t.co/adk5tNrlWZ

https://thinkprogress.org/protesters-explain-why-they-chanted-no-more-war-at-former-cia-director-ed5b4982e15d#.r1nh3ki75

Protesters Explain Why They Chanted ‘No More War’ At Former CIA Director

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks during the third day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. CREDIT: AP PHOTO/J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE
Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to the Democratic National Convention Wednesday night, warning against the danger of putting Republican nominee Donald Trump in the position of commander-in-chief facing a dangerous world. But he was quickly drowned out by protesters chanting “No more wars!” and “Lies!”
Panetta, who has previously suggested that the fight against Islamic extremists will require a “30-year war,” was forced to pause repeatedly and wait for the chants to subside.
“We cannot afford an erratic finger on our nuclear weapons,” he said amid the chants. “This is no time to roll the dice and to gamble with America’s national security or with the American Dream.”

The former security official was part of the opening line-up for President Barack Obama, who Panetta has blamed in his memoir for the rise of ISIS and the wars in Syria and Iraq.
Panetta has come under criticism in the past for his defense of broad executive war powers that were vastly expanded after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, allowing the president to bypass Congress when deciding to go to war.
He also conducted a secret internal investigation of the CIA’s torture regimes, but argued against the declassification of torture documents in his memoir. “It seemed wrong to me to ask a public servant to take a risk for his country and assure him that it was both legal and approved, then, years later, to suggest that he had done something wrong,” he wrote. He’s more recently called for Congress to beef up counter-terrorism and surveillance efforts.
Protesters said they targeted Panetta because of his position as the former leader of the military.
“Why do we need to be in perpetual warfare?” Micheal Baca, a 24-year-old Marine Corps veteran from Colorado, asked ThinkProgress.
California delegate Alesa Byers said she chanted because she was put off by Panetta’s message of inevitable war. But, she said, other delegates around her were hostile toward her and the other protesters. “I don’t understand how being pro-peace is anti-Hillary,” she said. “They’re just pissed off that we’re saying something.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), who has repeatedly introduced legislation to end post-9/11 authorizations for more war powers, told ThinkProgress she supported the protesters in her delegation.
“We’ve got to repeal the authorizations that have kept us in perpetual war,” she said, arguing that Congress should have the final say over whether or not to go to war.
“The military option is always on the table, that’s a given,” she said. “We have to look at development, diplomacy. But I think Hillary Clinton really understands we have to have a comprehensive strategy to ensure global peace and security.”
“Everyone has the first amendment right to say what you want to say,” she added. “I’m the one who says ‘no more war.’”

https://thinkprogress.org/@jessicagolds?source=post_header_lockup

View story at Medium.com

https://thinkprogress.org/not-all-heroes-wear-capes-db25e613bf6#.qah5jvtae
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/09/researchers-find-unsafe-levels-of-industrial-chemicals-in-drinking-water-of-6-million-americans/?utm_term=.b58acd969f35

Researchers find unsafe levels of industrial chemicals in drinking water of 6 million Americans
By Brady Dennis August 9

A drinking water well structure at Versluis Park in Plainfield Township, Mich. Utilities serving the area recently reported elevated levels of two potentially toxic industrial chemicals in both raw and treated water. (Garret Ellison/The Grand Rapids Press via AP)
Drinking water supplies serving more than six million Americans contain unsafe levels of a widely used class of industrial chemicals linked to potentially serious health problems, according to a new study from Harvard University researchers.

The chemicals — known as polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs — have been used for decades in a range of industrial and commercial products, including non-stick coatings on pans, food wrappers, water-repellent clothing and firefighting foam. Long-term exposure has been linked to increased risks of kidney cancer, thyroid problems, high cholesterol and hormone disruption, among other issues.

“Virtually all Americans are exposed to these compounds,” said Xindi Hu, the study’s lead author. “They never break down. Once they are released into the environment, they are there.”

As part of the study, which was published Tuesday in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, the researchers examined concentrations of six types of PFAS chemicals in drinking water supplies around the country. The data came from more than 36,000 samples collected by the Environmental Protection Agency between 2013 and 2015.

They also looked at sites where the chemicals are commonly found — industrial plants that use them in manufacturing, military bases and civilian airports where fire-fighting foam is used and wastewater treatment plants.
Using data from the EPA, researchers mapped areas of the country where high levels of polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) have surfaced in drinking water supplies. (Courtesy Xindi Hu)
What they found: 194 of 4,864 water supplies across nearly three dozen states had detectable levels of the chemicals. Sixty-six of those water supplies, serving about six million people, had at least one sample that exceeded the EPA’s recommended safety limit of 70 parts per trillion for two types of chemicals — perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

“It’s a big problem in a lot of communities,” said Richard Clapp, professor emeritus at Boston University’s school of public health. “It’s happening in a lot of places.”

From Decatur, Ala., to Merrimack, N.H., residents have been wrestling with high levels of the potentially harmful chemicals, and public officials have been scrambling to figure out how to prevent them from contaminating drinking water supplies.

The federal government does not currently regulate PFAS chemicals. But they are on the EPA’s list of “unregulated contaminants” that the agency monitors, with the goal of restricting those that most endanger public health. Partly because the rules that it must follow are complicated and contentious, officials have failed to successfully regulate any new contaminant in two decades.

Only once since the 1990s has the EPA come close to imposing a new standard — for perchlorate, a chemical that sometimes occurs naturally but also is found in explosives, road flares and rocket fuel. It has turned up in the drinking water of over 16 million people.

Joel Beauvais, who leads the EPA’s Office of Water, told the Post earlier this year that the system mandated by Congress demands the agency move deliberately. “It’s a rather intensive process to get one of these drinking-water regulations across the finish line,” he said.

Could your drinking water be contaminated? Play Video2:07
A chemical compound that the government classifies as “a likely human carcinogen” has been found in some drinking water in North Carolina and other states across the U.S. But can the EPA do anything about it? (Osman Malik, Whitney Shefte/The Washington Post)
There are reasons for that, Beauvais said at the time. A substance may occur in only a very small number of drinking-water systems or might occur only in extremely low levels. Before the EPA imposes new limitations on the nation’s water utilities, it has to prove that there is a meaningful opportunity to improve public health. “These are very consequential regulations,” Beauvais said. “They are consequential from a health perspective. They are consequential from an economic perspective.”

[In U.S. drinking water, many chemicals are regulated — but many aren’t]

One of the agency’s approaches is to issue health advisories that can prompt state and local officials to take action or at least notify residents about contaminants. In May, it issued advisories for PFOS and PFOA, urging utilities around the country to follow more stringent guidelines than the EPA previously had recommended.

Energy and Environment newsletter
The science and policy of environmental issues.
Sign up
In the wake of that advisory, at least one Alabama community declared its tap water unfit to drink and told residents to avoid it until officials could install a temporary, high-powered filter for the water supply. Some communities in New Hampshire received bottled water while authorities considered ways to address high levels of the contaminants in nearby groundwater. A company in upstate New York agreed to install carbon filters in private homes where high levels of the chemicals had been detected.

Clapp said that as evidence has mounted about the potential health risks posed by PFAS compounds and how ubiquitous they are, few people would argue that they should remain unregulated.

“We’re definitely overdue,” he said. “It’s not a question of whether, but rather at what level should they be regulated.”

Separately on Tuesday, another Harvard-led study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, examined the effect of PFAS exposure in about 600 adolescents from the Faroe Islands off the coast of Denmark. Individuals exposed to the substances at a young age displayed lower-than-expected levels of antibodies to tetanus and diphtheria after being immunized, raising the prospect that the chemical exposure could be reducing the effectiveness of childhood vaccines.

Read more:

One city’s solution to drinking water contamination? Get rid of every lead pipe.

Schools around the country find lead in water, with no easy answers

More than 5,300 U.S. water systems violated lead-testing rules last year

Flint’s water crisis reveals government failures at every level

All Comments
Newest First
Pause live updates
iamhe999
8/9/2016 9:44 PM EDT [Edited]
Hormone disrupters…. cause metabolic syndrome…. an epidemic affecting US males…

Corporate, good for profit chemicals, are making American men sick… Endocrine disrupters accumulate… older men eventually develop bloated belly, high blood pressure, diabetes… ED.
LikeReplyShare
Dennis Mudloff
8/9/2016 7:01 PM EDT
Nearly 1 in 10 Americans live within 10 miles of a contaminated military site; factor in the contamination created by the private sector and we are all in deep toxic waste.
#PoisonedAndLeftForDead
LikeReplyShare
Jim Wright
8/9/2016 4:24 PM EDT
6 million? The pressa cts like it is 300 million. China has the real problem!
LikeReplyShare
skramsv
8/9/2016 2:06 PM EDT
Until people start realizing how much polluted water is costing them, it is not likely that any steps will be made to fix our polluted drinking water. There is a basic assumption that our water is clean and safe. Most drinking water companies put out water quality reports at least on a yearly basis, yet I don’t think too many people read them.

I highly recommend that everyone read their water company report as often as it comes out. I would also suggest you talk with the water department as to how they filter/treat the water and where the water comes from. Then I would look at the watershed around the source. From there, I would talk to the community waste water treatment plant to find out how they treat the water, what gets filtered out, and what you can do to make the plant run better.

If you know about your water treatment plants, you will be able to make better decisions when it comes to plant fixes or upgrades. Information is power and can make you safer.
LikeReplyShare2
Terry Bigler
8/9/2016 1:28 PM EDT [Edited]
We are busy poisioning ourselves off for profit,,I say good riddance. Given paradise we preferred to turn it into a land fill…You get what you deserve. Well except for the wealthy who drink water out of plastic bottles

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/08/09/blame-plate-tectonics-for-the-disappearance-of-this-ancient-sea/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/06/28/more-than-5000-u-s-water-systems-violated-lead-testing-rules-last-year/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/schools-around-the-country-find-lead-in-water-with-no-easy-answers/2016/07/03/b44240fe-37c3-11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/one-citys-solution-to-drinking-water-contamination-get-rid-of-every-lead-pipe/2016/05/10/480cd842-0814-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/flints-water-crisis-reveals-government-failures-at-every-level/2016/01/23/03705f0c-c11e-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-us-drinking-water-many-chemicals-are-regulated–but-many-arent/2016/06/09/e48683bc-21b9-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303280.html

PITTSBORO, N.C. — For all the pathogens and chemicals monitored by the federal government to protect drinking water, a far broader universe of “emerging contaminants” is going unregulated.

The Environmental Protection Agency keeps tabs on scores of substances that have surfaced in water systems around the country, with the aim of restricting those that endanger public health. But partly because the rules that the agency must follow are complicated and contentious, officials have failed to successfully regulate any new contaminant in two decades.

Only once since the 1990s has the EPA come close to imposing a new standard — for perchlorate, a chemical found in explosives, road flares, rocket fuel and, it turns out, the drinking water of over 16 million people.

The years of inaction, critics say, have left many Americans at potential risk from substances that few even realize might be in their water in the first place.

[Flint’s water crisis reveals government failures at every level]
An N.C. State University researcher holds a river-water sample that will be tested for the “emerging contaminant” 1,4-dioxane. (Julie Williams Dixon)
“We live in a country where we’ve made a fundamental decision that chemicals are safe unless they’re proven to be bad,” said Jeffrey Griffiths, a public health professor at Tufts University School of Medicine who studies waterborne diseases. “We have this system which is biased toward the presumption of innocence.”

Here in North Carolina, one of the contaminants on the government’s watch list has been found in rivers and streams on which more than a million people depend.

Since 2013, Detlef Knappe and a team of researchers at N.C. State University have logged hundreds of miles as they gather samples along the Cape Fear River basin. From Greensboro in the heart of the state to the coastal city of Wilmington, they have identified troubling levels of 1,4-dioxane, a byproduct of plastics manufacturing that can be found in paint strippers, varnishes, detergents, shampoos and cosmetics. The EPA has deemed it a “likely human carcinogen,” although limited data exist on the cancer risks it poses for people.

“1,4-dioxane really has no business being in the water,” said Knappe, an environmental engineering professor who has worked with state regulators and the National Science Foundation to dig deeper into the issue. “This has probably been going on for decades, but no one has really looked at it. . . We only find what we look for.”

The EPA keeps a list of about 100 unregulated contaminants that have made their way into water supplies from industrial sites and other sources. Every five years, the agency updates a shorter lineup of chemicals that it thinks should be tracked and studied and requires utilities to do testing. The current inventory includes two viruses and 28 chemicals, including 1,4-dioxane. The goal is to eventually regulate those that pose the greatest risk to public health.

But critics say that regulators should be moving far more assertively, even as scientists continue researching the short- and long-term health impacts. They blame both the system set up by Congress as well as the agency’s glacial pace.

“For an agency to be unable to adopt a single new standard in 20 years is inexcusable,” said Erik Olson, health and environment program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s a combination of a bad law and very bad implementation.”
Researchers sample water from North Carolina’s Haw River to check for 1,4-dioxane. High levels have been detected in rivers and streams that supply water to a major part of the state. (Julie Williams Dixon)
In the wake of the lead crisis in Flint, Mich., and other problems in communities elsewhere, many people are increasingly wary of what flows from the faucets of their homes and schools — and whether the federal government is doing enough to safeguard drinking water. In April, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that more than 60 percent of Americans rate the government’s efforts as just fair or poor.

In 1974, the newly enacted Safe Drinking Water Act gave the EPA broad authority to monitor and regulate the nation’s public drinking-water supplies. The agency adopted existing standards covering nearly two dozen microbial and inorganic chemical contaminants. When regulators took too long to expand that number, Congress made clear in 1986 that it wanted faster action.

A bipartisan majority passed additional legislation requiring the agency to establish drinking-water limits for scores of contaminants — including bacteria such as legionella and chemical compounds including acrylamide and xylene. Lawmakers also directed the agency to set up a system for monitoring still-unregulated contaminants.

The result over the next decade was health-based thresholds for more than 85 substances, including a range of disinfection byproducts and chemicals known to increase the risks of kidney damage, high blood pressure and cancer, among other conditions.

Those efforts prompted complaints from some local water officials about the increased costs and time needed to comply with the wave of new regulations. Utilities faced testing and treatment requirements for a growing list of contaminants — some that appeared only in certain parts of the country and some that scientists were still studying to determine their public health implications.

In 1996, Congress intervened again. This time, lawmakers directed the EPA to do detailed cost-benefit analyses on additional contaminants that it sought to restrict. The agency also had to ensure that sufficient science existed to establish the public health risks of a particular substance before attempting to regulate it.

“It created this Herculean set of tasks that EPA had to go through before they could adopt any new standards,” Olson said.

In the 20 years since, the EPA has come close to successfully regulating only one new chemical contaminant in drinking water. In 2011, reversing a Bush administration decision, the agency announced its intention to set a federal standard for perchlorate. Exposure to the chemicalcan disrupt thyroid function in humans.

Yet the agency still has not put any limits in place. The Natural Resources Defense Council recently sued, saying the EPA’s inaction could be exposing children and pregnant women to harm.

[One city’s solution to drinking water contamination? Get rid of every lead pipe.]

Joel Beauvais, who leads the EPA’s Office of Water, acknowledged that the agency’s pace in regulating new chemicals had slowed, in part because of the system mandated by Congress. “It’s a rather intensive process to get one of these drinking-water regulations across the finish line,” he said.

The law demands that the agency move deliberately — and there are reasons for that, he said. A substance may occur in only a very small number of drinking-water systems, for instance, or it may not have been detected at levels of concern. Before the EPA imposes new burdens on thousands of water systems, it must prove that there is a meaningful opportunity to improve public health.

“These are very consequential regulations,” he said. “They are consequential from a health perspective. They are consequential from an economic perspective.”

Beauvais noted that the EPA has updated standards for certain contaminants as well as revised other rules, such as those for treating wastewater, in ways that help contain the number of contaminants in drinking water. Officials also have said that they are exploring new approaches and could begin regulating entire groups of substances rather than targeting one at a time.

The agency has issued numerous health advisories — most recently for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a potentially toxic compound that has turned up in many water systems — that can prompt state and local officials to take action or at least notify residents about contaminants. Ultimately, though, the advisories are unenforceable.

The American Water Works Association says the EPA should winnow its list to focus on a handful of chemicals that pose the biggest public health concerns.

“In a resource-constrained world, it’s hard to make progress spreading your resources broadly,” said Steve Via, the association’s director of federal relations. “The way the current process is running, with large numbers of contaminants on the list, you don’t get enough focus to achieve progress. When you don’t achieve progress, folks ask if the process is working.”

Congress on Tuesday passed a sweeping revision of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which covers thousands of chemicals in products as diverse as sippy cups, paint thinners and permanent-press clothing. The overhaul will give the EPA the power to require health and safety data for untested chemicals and to prevent substances from reaching the market — and, ultimately, drinking-water sources — if they have not been determined to be safe. Implementation will take years, however.

“Prevention is an in­cred­ibly important issue for the country over time,” Beauvais said. “If we regulate more on the front end, we’re less likely to have contamination from chemicals with adverse health effects on the back end.”

In North Carolina, environmental officials published a report earlier this year detailing a year’s worth of sampling for 1,4-dioxane within the Cape Fear River basin. It highlighted “hot spots” for the contaminant located immediately downstream of wastewater facilities, suggesting that manufacturers or other industrial operators were sending it into municipal sewers. Current water treatments do not effectively remove the chemical.

“People are understandably concerned,” said Steve Drew, Greensboro’s director of water resources. “[But] in the absence of enforceable limits, what is a water system to do?”

His department and other downstream communities responded by launching a sort of detective operation. They tested hundreds of miles of sewer lines and met with business owners to track down the possible sources of 1,4-dioxane.

“We got it down to about a half-dozen or so businesses — a couple that had very high levels of 1,4-dioxane discharged into our system,” Drew said. “These companies are not even thinking about it because they aren’t regulated on it.”

He said the companies have been “very diligent” in trying to alter supply chains and remove the chemical voluntarily from their manufacturing processes. There are early signs that those efforts are slowly beginning to lower 1,4-dioxane levels in the river basin.

But if companies balk, Drew has no way to force them to cooperate.

“Right now,” he said, “it’s completely dependent on good relationships, and ‘please’ and ‘thank you.’ ”

All Comments
Newest First
Pause live updates
Sedge2
6/12/2016 6:30 AM EDT
Can’t let a little thing like human health and welfare get in the way of corporate profits. Of course ideology can trump education and science. Right? Lamar Smith.
LikeShare2
Craig Monk
6/11/2016 7:37 PM EDT
For the ignorant please rad EPA’s Office of Inspector General Report No. 14-P-0363
LikeShare
Craig Monk
6/11/2016 7:36 PM EDT
For the ignorant read the EPA Office of Inspector General Report No, 14-P-0363
LikeShare
kimmsr
6/11/2016 5:56 PM EDT
This goes back to the Reagan era when the thought was that if the “government” got out of the way of business business would do the right thing .
LikeShare2
HokieDoke
6/13/2016 10:37 AM EDT
Since Reagan there has been a couple of Bushs, and 16 years of Clinton + Obama. What have any of them done?
Like1
Clarkque
6/14/2016 8:18 PM EDT
Both Presidents Clinton and Obama made several attempts to enforce Clean Water Act and expand their applications. But Republican governors at behest of the Koch Bros through ALEC have sued these administrations repeatedly. Republican Congressmen have also repeatedly blocked any effective enforcement through reducing funds for EPA and all public land agencies. Until the GOP decides that humans are America’s most valuable resource we will continue to see ramifications of poor environmental controls. For all those feigning pro-life stances, they need to learn that water is life. Poisoning water, land and air is anti-life. Let’s start calling people by their real names: environmentalists = health advocates, pro-life = fetal obsessed fundamentalists that are willing to destroy Earth and all its inhabitants to hasten their fantasy of paradise somewhere else
Like1
stadelmaier
6/11/2016 4:13 PM EDT
Pharmaceutical advertising has corrupted the media in the same way that tobacco advertising did in the past.
No mention of a very dangerous contaminent – the drugs from upstream cities in recycled downstream drinking water.
LikeShare1
Sedge2
6/12/2016 6:18 AM EDT [Edited]
And make sure you go tell your doctor what to prescribe based on what you saw of TV. Next time you are in the doctor’s office make sure you note what the drug pushers, I mean sales persons, look like. Big Phrma stocks their sales staff with hot chicks and hunks. For some unknown reason you won’t see older more experienced sales persons. I think we saw something similar with years ago with the airlines.
Like
Seabreezes1
6/11/2016 1:21 PM EDT [Edited]
The AWWA suggests the EPA “winnow” its list of contaminants to only focus on the worst ones?!***!

Does that mean rank a list of 10 disease causing chemicals and give a pass to the bottom 8 so you can celebrate reducing the lowered measurements of for the top two chemicals in water?
– What comfort does that afford the families of children dying from cancer?
– What satisfaction does that give YOU when you get a diagnosis of cancer?
– Does a self awarded EPA “gold star” help you sleep better at night when your kidneys are aching and rash is itching from your exposure to irritating chemicals in your water?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/08/09/daily-202-why-some-republican-politicians-are-really-coming-out-against-trump/57a94085cd249a7e29d0cf87/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/28/she-thought-her-server-was-great-then-she-saw-her-racist-snapchat-post/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/ECO/DioxaneReport_Yr1Final-20160127.pdf

http://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-issues-new-health-advisories-for-chemical-from-some-plastics-plants-1463687484

https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants

https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/science_nation/capefearwatershed.jsp

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/Sorry-but-those-jerks-chanting-No-more-war-had-a-point.html
Over the last seven years, I’ve learned the easiest way to find out if your opinion on an important issue is a) so provocative that some people are offended by it b) obnoxious c) just plain stupid d) some combination of a), b), and c). Just throw it out there on Twitter — the less time wasted thinking about the consequences, the better! — and watch your number of followers precipitously plunge.

I achieved this blessed state on Thursday night — the last night of the Democratic National Convention. I lost about 10, maybe 12 followers right after I used my 1st Amendment right to express my unpopular opinion: That, at least morally, I was 100 percent behind the dissidents — mostly pro-Bernie Sanders delegates — loudly chanting “No more war!” during speeches by folks associated with the military, especially Leon Panetta, the former Defense secretary under President Obama, and retired Gen. John Allen, who showed up to give Hillary Clinton a very loud endorsement.

I was quickly accused (mostly by liberals, I’m pretty sure) of being either unpatriotic or maybe a hapless dupe who wanted to see neo-fascist Donald Trump become our next president, by associating the Democrats with being “against the troops.” The critics did have one strong point, that anyone who interrupted actual veterans or military parents — the folks who make the sacrifices, not the decisions — was out of line. Without a doubt. But I think the Leon Panettas of the world are more than fair game for protest chants, even rude ones.

With four days to reconsider, I’m more behind the “no more war” protests than ever. In fact, I’m doubling down.

I was thinking about this even before the news today that the U.S. has embarked on yet another round of military adventurism in the Middle East — launching a bombing campaign (a “precision” bombing campaign, the Pentagon and its chosen mouthpiece Barbara Starr of CNN assure us) against ISIS terrorists in Libya. You’ll recall that ISIS flourished in Libya only after the last bombing campaign in Libya by the United States and its allies created a power vacuum to be filled largely by bad guys.

You may also recall that the legal justification for waging war in Libya is flimsy, at best. Pentagon officials say the new air strikes are sanctioned under the AUMF — Authorization for Use of Military Force — passed by Congress in 2001 after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. No matter that Libya, for all its faults, had nothing to do with 9/11. Or that ISIS, the target of the attacks, didn’t exist until a decade after the World Trade Center fell. We stopped asking such questions about America’s Forever War™ a long, long time ago.

Or, as the mostly pro-Hillary Democrats inside the Wells Fargo Center would put it, “USA! USA!”

Watching the Democratic and Republican conventions the last two weeks, you’d almost get the impression that there’s no alternative vision to the idea that the country with the world’s largest military, by far, should treat every international problem the way that a hammer treats every problem as a nail. In fact, there is a powerful homegrown critique of the overuse of the American military; some of its strongest proponents are people with extensive experience with the Armed Forces. I’m thinking of critics such as Andrew Bacevich, a retired colonel and Vietnam veteran who lost his own son in the Iraq War, who wrote:

“America will surely share the fate of all those who in ages past have looked to war and military power to fulfill their destiny. We will rob future generations of their rightful inheritance. We will wreak havoc abroad. We will endanger our security at home. We will risk the forfeiture of all that we prize.”

Bacevich also noted that, “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Those weren’t his words, but a quote from Founding Father James Madison. I wonder what would have happened if the fourth president had been reanimated and uttered those words at the DNC. Would the pro-Hillary delegates would be getting texts from Clinton floor whips to chant “USA! USA!” to drown out Madison’s politically risky words, just as they were instructed to shout down the Sanders delegates? And yet — speaking of “preserve its freedom” — isn’t it the zeitgest of the Forever War™ that motivates the “security zones” with their 10-foot high fences, or the FBI’s obscene intimidation campaign of visiting activists’ family members before the confabs in Cleveland and Philadelphia?

The delegates didn’t hear from an Andrew Bacevich or the equivalent of James Madison, but they did get Panetta, who — as noted in this excellent analysis — has supported expanded war powers for the White House, failed to push for real accountability on Bush-era torture, and once suggested that “a 30-year war” will be needed against terrorism. Was it really rude for some of the DNC delegates to chant “no more war!” during Panetta’s speech? Or were some citizens desperately trying to be heard with a different point of view, in a nation so eager to squelch any public debate?

It should be a scandal that the United States drops bombs from flying death robots or our obscenely expensive military jets over countries like Libya, swaths of Africa, or Syria based only on a 15-year-old congressional resolution passed after an attack carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians loyal to a terrorist group that barely exists in 2016. But we’re afraid of any frank discussion of that, or the recent admission by the Obama administration that U.S. military actions in nations with which we’re not technically at war have killed 116 innocent civilians. That’s a number that experts find ridiculously low, by the way, and doesn’t as include as many as 85 Syrian civilians who were killed in late July by a U.S. airstrike — a story that was all but ignored in the media. Even if you strongly believe that such collateral damage is necessary to defeat international terrorism, chanting “USA! USA!” to support militarism is both jingoistic and crudely callous toward the dead.

But this isn’t exactly new. During my recent Conventionapalooza, I took an hour break to watch a PBS documentary on the most notorious modern convention of them all, the 1968 DNC in Chicago. As we now know, what happened outside the halls — the respect shown protesters in Philly compared with Mayor Daley’s head-bashing “police riot” 48 years ago — changed radically over time. But inside the hall, Democrats worked tirelessly to stifle dissidents in ’68 much as they would in ’16. In Chicago, delegates who supported Eugene McCarthy or other anti-Vietnam War candidates were harassed over credentials and other petty stuff, similar to complaints from Sanders delegates here. An anti-Vietnam plank was pushed out of prime time by the party bosses; when the defeated faction burst into “We Shall Overcome,” Daley and the pro-Hubert Humphrey forces tried to drown them out with a band blaring “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Exactly like “USA!” chants drowning out “No more war!” in our modern times.

Same as it ever was.

It’s a shame that it went down this way, because a lot of the DNC was hugely successful in redefining what patriotism and truly loving America means in the 21st century — embracing our remarkable ethnic, racial and religious diversity, and showing that “freedom” isn’t just about making money but also who you love, or the rights of the disabled and others who’ve been marginalized. I just don’t think that also embracing everything in the Pentagon’s $600 billion budget or the notion of U.S. carte blanche to use those weapons anywhere in the world that it wants to is what makes America great — nor is shouting down critics with jingoist chants.

One of the many, many, many reasons that Trump is such a disaster for American democracy is that you’re going to see a lot of serious policy discussions silenced these next three months, often in the name of defeating the threat of Trump. The failure to seriously dilute the military-industrial complex that then-President Eisenhower warned us about 55 years ago is maybe the most important.

So I’m sorry if I’m offending anyone by siding with those obnoxious jerks who had the temerity to wonder if and when America is ever going to give peace a chance, and to do so at politically incorrect moments. Now, excuse me while I go check how many more Twitter followers I’ve lost.

BourrasqueDeNeige • 9 days ago
Bless you for your honesty and willingness to state what should be the obvious. That can happen and it has happened many times in history, however, it is most noble when saying the right thing or taking the principled stand occurs when it is deeply unpopular and when your fellow citizens are literally aping See no evil”, “Hear No Evil”,. and especially “Speak no Evil”. There is wrong-headedness (I don’t like the word evil, sounds too simplistic like the mind of George W. Bush) in regard to foreign policy and not only are we not allowed to to vote for a candidate who opposes war, we will be shouted down if we espouse the idea of anti-war activism.

I liked it when we had an opposition party in the United States. If we were only going to have two, at least one should take opposite views on the issues. The same Military Industrial Complex that maintains perpetual war is the same entity that profits now from the surveillance state. Democracy cannot survive perpetual war. The founding fathers knew that.

When I was young, in the 1960s, commentators would drone on about the fall of the Roman Empire. Comparisons were made with the burgeoning American Empire (called the Free World then) and fears were spread that if liberalization spread, the resulting moral decay would send us spiraling into the ash heap of history. I have since lived and worked in Rome for a year and one-half and subsequently lived in another part of Western Europe for over 10 years. I’ve thought about that a lot and I’ve come to the conclusion that we missed the true fall by nearly 500 years.

The tragedy of Rome, the political culture that in many ways influenced our founders was not, in my opinion, the sacking of Rome in the 5th Century, but that fall of the Roman Republic in 44 BC. Empire and Republic could not coexist so it was henceforth ruled by dictators. The population was kept in check via harsh rule and Bread and Circuses. We are very close to that today. Perpetual war is the enemy of our freedom and people would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than participate in our broken system.
12 •Share ›
Avatar
BobSmith77 BourrasqueDeNeige • 8 days ago
The American military and politicians learned the lessons from Vietnam:

1. Shift to a voluntary-based armed services and do away with a draft especially if it impact upper-middle and upper class families

2. Never again allow news TV coverage on a nightly basis to cover the conflict and show its carnage

3. Suppress photos and implement policies which make it difficult to show American service personnel coffins and dead bodies

4. When necessary, show examples and footage repeatedly of how the ‘high-tech’ American military works including its ‘precision-ability’ to get only the ‘bad guys’

5. Whenever possible, being as vague as possible and refuse to get into any specifics regarding the actual enemy combatants instead using generic terms that are easily understand and grasped

6. Do not sack top-level senior leadership in the military command regardless of how incompetent or inept their strategies are and what results they actually produce.

7. Build the narrative of ‘support the troops’ wherever possible into American daily life including schools, professional sporting events, etc. If someone questions whether this is appropriate, immediately question their patriotism and values as ‘unAmerican.’
12 •Share ›
Avatar
BourrasqueDeNeige BobSmith77 • 8 days ago
Right on! Point seven is especially poignant in regard to Vietnam since the troops in the meat-grinder were used are tools by the government against those who wanted them back from that needless and illegal war. When many came back and discussed the awful crimes they saw, they were branded as crazy or drug-addicts. The nation was told that the war must go on and more should die in order to make sure those who had already given their lives in a worthless cause did not die in vain. Sick and criminal.
2 •Share ›
Avatar
Archimedes BourrasqueDeNeige • 8 days ago
This post from BourrasqueDeNeige is one of the best comments on one of Will’s columns that I have seen. Thanks. I just finished reading a terrific history of Rome and the loss of the Republic (which was losing ground for quite some time) was a major loss to civilization. The loss of our republic, which might happen if Trump wins, would be a second major loss.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Kenney-the-cops-and-exorcizing-Frank-Rizzos-ghost.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least-85-civilians-feared-dead-after-us-air-strike-mistake-1571600

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-drones-strikes-civilian-deaths

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/07/27/3802813/panetta-protests-dnc/

http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/06/fbi_police_visit_activists_hom.html

http://harpers.org/blog/2007/07/madison-on-the-dangers-of-war/

http://www.independent.org/publications/TIR/article.asp?a=569

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/the_forever_war_when_will_we_stop_using_a_september_2001_authorization_of.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/8-days-over-America-and-the-walls-that-divide-us.html

Watch Delegates Chant ‘No More War’ During Leon Panetta’s Speech

“No more war.”
A group of disgruntled delegates chanted “no more war” as former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke at the Democratic national convention Wednesday.

The former CIA director, who oversaw the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, was dismissing Republican nominee Donald Trump’s views on foreign policy when the chanting broke out.

Convention organizers shut off stage lights in the sections of the crowd where the chanting was taking place, making them less visible on television as Panetta struggled to maintain control.

“The American dream that we’ve all been a part of has been defended in every generation by the brave men and women willing to fight and die for America. They are our greatest national treasure,” Panetta said, having to restart his sentence multiple times because of the chanting.

Panetta previously served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and director of the Office of Management and Budget.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.

Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat.

The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.

The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.

Trump took the call from his office in Trump Tower in New York, according to the four allies, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The call came as Trump was making a final decision about whether to run, and he was candid about his political ambitions and his potential interest in seeking the White House during the talk, these allies said.

The 42nd president listened intently and then analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the GOP base, the Trump allies said.

The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.

One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation.

Clinton aides declined to speak on the record about the call, saying the conversation was personal.

“Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”

One Trump adviser said Clinton called Trump, but the adviser did not provide specifics about how the call came about.

People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.

At the time, Trump was touting a “foolproof” but undisclosed plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists and ramping up his presence on the airwaves, including interviews where he was asked about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. He entered the race June 16.

Neither side would provide an exact date for the call, but both Bill Clinton’s office and a person close to Trump described it as “late May.”

Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, declined to comment. The campaign of Hillary Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump is a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005. Since Trump entered the presidential race, however, he and Hillary Clinton have increasingly traded barbs.

She has condemned Trump’s racially charged remarks about Mexican immigrants and tut-tutted about his remark that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not a war hero.

“Donald Trump. Finally, a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine,” Clinton joked at a Democratic dinner in Arkansas in July. “But there’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and families, and now the insults he has directed at a genuine war hero, Sen. John McCain.”

That was a rare instance in which Clinton mentioned Trump by name. Also in July, before a largely Hispanic audience, Clinton had this to say:

“I have just one word for Mr. Trump. Basta!”

In June, she criticized Trump, without using his name, over his references to Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals during his June campaign launch speech.

“A recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable,” Clinton said in an interview with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston.

Clinton demurred when asked to specify to whom she was referring. Instead, she has frequently sought to tie Trump’s views to the broader GOP field.

“I think he is emblematic,” she said. “I want people to understand it’s not about him — it’s about everybody.”

Clinton has reserved her sharpest attacks for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates she has called out by name for their policies on immigration, abortion and other issues.

For his part, Trump said little about Clinton until recent weeks.

“Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina,” Trump wrote in a post on Instagram, following that interview. “This is why politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble.”

Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
And on Wednesday, Trump wrote in a Twitter message: “Do you notice that Hillary spews out Jeb’s name as often as possible in order to give him status? She knows Trump is her worst nightmare.”

That’s a long way from the cordial, even cozy, relationship between the two when Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York and Trump was a constituent and supporter.

At Trump’s 2005 wedding, Hillary Clinton sat in the front row for the ceremony, and Bill Clinton joined her for festivities later. The Clintons were photographed laughing chummily with Trump and new wife Melania Knauss at the reception, with Bill Clinton clasping Trump’s shoulder.

Trump has also donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.
Annika Kolasa
8/12/2015 6:11 PM EDT
What if Trump is just doing this to make money and pay off his debts?
LikeShare3
manonthestreet
8/10/2015 7:20 AM EDT
What viable candidate would need the other side sabotaged this badly? Instead of an issues and character based election cycle this has been nothing more than a side show slap down so far. If US voters are this gullible we fully deserve what comes next.
LikeShare3
Skip Lee
8/9/2015 12:29 PM EDT
Trump Is no doubt dividing the threat to Hillary ..he was in long intimate conversations with Bill Clinton two weeks before he announced his presidency….when Trump was married the Clinton s were there in the service …..he is in constant contact with Bill….Trump loves to be a spoiler and he now is possibly playing a spoilers dream by dividing Hillary’s threat and giving payback for past favors from Bill….he absolutely loves the fact he can act presidential but never have to own up to the offices responsibility…..game player of the highest level… the spoiler….every Casino has one….If you think Hillary isn’t smart enough to employee this then you don’t know Hillary..
LikeShare3
Daisytoo
8/8/2015 7:23 PM EDT
Trump is a malignantly opportunistic and crude oaf. He’s a Democrat and as incompetent as Obama to be POTUS.
LikeShare
Jolie Mcmillian
8/8/2015 9:28 AM EDT
The Republicans are being played like a fiddle. He is purposely disrupting the party, and creating a circus like atmosphere.
LikeShare5
WilliamDog61
8/7/2015 1:05 PM EDT
The Donald probably encouraged Hillary to run to block their old enemy. What would happen if he got the Republican nomination and brought Hillary in after she deops out like she did last time? She’s not doing much to campaign and the party will not have much control over him. No matter, this will be the best election in our country ever.
LikeShare
You_Really_Believe_That
8/7/2015 10:34 AM EDT
I expect Trump to run as a third party candidate ensuring the election of Hillary.
LikeShare6
Jennifer14th
8/7/2015 10:43 AM EDT
I would prefer he run as a third party candidate, ensuring the election of Bernie.
Like3
Sara Hill
8/8/2015 5:31 PM EDT
Which is why Bill Clinton encouraged him to run, even if he denied it.
Like3
centsable
8/7/2015 9:22 AM EDT
LOL…tRump paling around with Bill? Say it aint so!!!
LikeShare1
centsable
8/7/2015 9:18 AM EDT
Good for the Donald, crossing party lines, something teacons hate.
LikeShare
centsable
8/7/2015 9:18 AM EDT
Good for the Donald, crossing party lines, something teacons hate.
LikeShare
jafeigen
8/6/2015 8:18 PM EDT
Why is this a surprise? I doubt Trump is the only candidate in the GOP field that has had a phone call with Bill Clinton in the past year.

Advertisements