Democratic establishment seeks to boot Bernie Sanders in 2018

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

While the Democratic Party attempts to rebuild and unite, bitter Hillary Clinton supporters are plotting the political destruction of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who remains a threat to their influence. Clinton’s allies have been working nonstop to unseat Sanders and diminish his relevance among the millennial voting bloc.

Sanders, who won 71 percent of the vote in his 2012 re-election campaign for Senate and 86 percent of the vote in Vermont during the 2016 presidential primaries, is considered a major threat to the Democratic establishment.

Leading the charge is Vermont resident and avid Clinton supporter Jon Svitavsky, a homeless shelter director, who announced on July 5 that he will be challenging Sanders in 2018.

Svitavsky and his supporters feel that Sanders is bad news for the Democratic Party, and they will stop at nothing to end his career.

“I think Sanders has hurt our country very badly with what he’s done,” Svitavsky told NPR. “So not only did Bernie divide the Democratic Party and what not, but he continues to bash them, even on the unity tour, saying that Democrats and Republicans are the same, and they’re not.”

While Sanders has remained a critic of the DNC, he didn’t bash Democrats during the DNC unity tour and one would be hard pressed to find such a comparison quote from the socialist.

Full article: Democratic establishment seeks to boot Bernie Sanders in 2018 – Red Alert Politics

Democrats want to stay establishment. Period.

Look, I don’t like Bernie. I don’t want to see this country become a socialist nation, I don’t think it is good for anyone, especially the USA. But the bottom line is… Bernie did challenge the status quo. He offered the left something different than the same old thing, while continuing to offer them an old white man, something they rail against while still fully demanding.

Donald Trump offered the same on the right, but was, obviously, more successful at it. Both Donald and Bernie offered the American people a taste of actual change. People looked at both of them and saw that there was an option other than voting for the same candidate with a different name. Something we all complain about at every election. “There’s no one to vote for.” “Same sh–, different election.”

But both Donald and Bernie offered the people someone they could relate to. Donald is a businessman. He grew his empire. Yes, he was wealthy, but he worked. He didn’t spend his entire life being groomed for politics the way Hillary Clinton was. Everything about Hillary’s life was her being groomed for president. She married Bill for power. She stayed with him through the affairs for the same. They had one child to show the family values that were so important at one time, and now that child is being groomed for politics, too. Donald was out getting married and divorced, having kids, running businesses, etc. That is more relatable.

Bernie was out protesting. He was being dragged off by the police and there was photographic evidence. The people who support him are doing the same thing and can relate to that. He, again, wasn’t being groomed. He offered something different, something they saw as relatable. And when he stood up to talk, he wasn’t promising the same things they’d heard a million times with different wording. He was offering something they wanted, something they saw as attainable (even if the rest of us didn’t see it as attainable or affordable). And he at least appeared to believe in what he was saying instead of saying what he thought his base wanted to hear. I’m not saying Bernie was honest, and I’m not saying he wasn’t out for himself, because he clearly is (what’s he up to now, three homes? While preaching about income inequality). But he was believable and different.

The Democrat establishment wants him gone. The same as the Republican establishment wants Trump gone. They don’t want change or relatability. They want power and their agenda. It isn’t about us. It never was.

Advertisements

The Ongoing Frustration of Trump’s Conservative Critics

Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images

LIMBAUGH: The Ongoing Frustration of Trump’s Conservative Critics | Daily Wire

I wanted to share the above article because I personally thought it was a good read.

Trump is frustrating a lot of his nay-sayers on both sides of the isle. Look, I’ve said it before. Trump wasn’t my first choice. He wasn’t my second or third choice, either. He had run before without anyone even paying him any mind, and I really didn’t even think he was serious, let alone would actually become president. I didn’t vote for him in the primaries (let me add an addendum here: I voted on the Libertarian primary ballot, so I didn’t vote for a Republican candidate at all. I am officially registered in my state as a Libertarian).

I liked Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, if we’re going to be straight here. However, I don’t think Ben Carson would have held up against Hillary Clinton. So yeah, I was mostly a Cruz supporter on the Republican side. On the Dem side I liked Webb, but he didn’t last long. I don’t even know if most people remember he was running! And… I didn’t vote for Gary Johnson in the primaries, and after listening to him and his God awful choice for his running mate, I couldn’t support him, either.

However, I never embraced the Never Trump group, either.

The people decided they wanted Trump as their candidate. I wasn’t happy about it. But I decided to give him a chance and got behind him. Can’t say I trusted him – still don’t – but you’ll never catch me trusting any politician, so that isn’t news. I also will not pledge undying allegiance to any politician, either. I’m as critical about any politician as you can be. Heck, I’ve even got posts about Reagan here and why he wasn’t the shining beacon people make him out to be. At the end of the day, these people are politicians. And yes, Trump is a politician now, like it or not.

I stand behind Trump right now, but am not blinded by him (and yes, I did cast my ballot for him in the general election). I’m not a rabid fan, but I’m not a Never Trumper. I refuse to take my eye off of him just because he was chosen by the people. The people chose Obama, Bush, and Clinton, too. Yes, I laugh at most of his tweets, but I don’t think some of those tweets are helping him, either.

Trump’s not perfect. No politician ever will be. He’s our president now, whether you like him or you don’t. He’s done good, and he’s done bad, just like all those before him. I certainly don’t want to see him fail, because if he fails, our country fails. I hope he succeeds. I hope he makes America great again. And at this point… we’re several months in to his presidency. He isn’t going anywhere. You don’t have to be a super fan of his, but it might be time to sit back and realize this is who the people wanted, he won the election, and now he’s the president. Don’t stop fighting for what you want to see in this country, but how about we let the man do his job? How about we give him the benefit of the doubt – while keeping our eye on him – and see what he can accomplish? Maybe it’s time for the dems to stop trying to block him at every turn and wasting precious time to get him removed from office. And maybe it’s time for the Never Trumpers to do the same. If you don’t like him, vote for someone else in 2020. That’s how we do things in this country. But right now… let the man do his job.

 

Trump Team Met With Lawyer Linked to Kremlin During Campaign

Two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination last year, his eldest son arranged a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin, according to confidential government records described to The New York Times.

The previously unreported meeting was also attended by Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, as well as the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to interviews and the documents, which were outlined by people familiar with them.

While President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and Russians, this episode at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, is the first confirmed private meeting between a Russian national and members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle during the campaign. It is also the first time that his son Donald Trump Jr. is known to have been involved in such a meeting.

Representatives of Donald Trump Jr. and Mr. Kushner confirmed the meeting after The Times approached them with information about it. In a statement, Donald Jr. described the meeting as primarily about an adoption program. The statement did not address whether the presidential campaign was discussed.

NYC Mayor De Blasio Flies To Germany — To Join Anti-Capitalist Protesters!

Getty Images

A police officer gets brutally executed in the Bronx as she sits in her squad car. A train carrying 150 people derails in Manhattan’s Penn Station. And those crazy costumed characters in Times Square are still running wild.

But where’s the city’s mayor? Not there. He flew to Hamburg, Germany, to “join leftist protesters at the G-20 summit in Germany,” the New York Post reports.

Mayor Bill de Blasio on Thursday skipped an NYPD swearing-in ceremony made somber by this week’s assassination of a cop — then hours later revealed he was busy preparing to jet off on a surprise trip to join leftist protesters at the G-20 summit in Germany.

Hizzoner’s overseas jaunt was kept under wraps until just 90 minutes before he took off from Newark Airport. A last-minute announcement said he “will attend several events surrounding the G-20 Summit, including Saturday’s Hamburg Zeigt Haltung rally.”

De Blasio will be the keynote speaker, organizers of the demonstration — Hamburg Shows Attitude — tweeted.

The mayor also made sure the free trip will include a visit with his son, Dante, a Yale University student who’s spending the summer on an internship in Berlin, a City Hall spokesman said.

Full article: NYC Mayor De Blasio Flies To Germany — To Join Anti-Capitalist Protesters! | Daily Wire

This POS should never hold elected office ever again! I mean, not even city dog catcher! He should be asking if you want fries with your food order. There isn’t even a curse word or insult strong enough to cover this right now. Someone needs to invent one. Knock yourselves out.

No, Paul Ryan Did Not Implement A Restrictive Dress Code For Congress

The piece had several anecdotes of female reporters who were prohibited from the speaker’s lobby due to their lack of sleeves, and asserted that this was brand new policy.

Other outlets ran with this information, and wrote similar pieces about the supposed new sexist dress code. Jezebel eventually updated its post to clarify that this policy is not new, but as the saying goes–a lie goes halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

There’s just one issue, that is more than a little bit relevant to the whole thing: This is not a new dress code and it is not a new policy under Paul Ryan and it is not suddenly being enforced for the first time in a while. The dress code has existed for well over a century.

Full article: No, Paul Ryan Did Not Implement A Restrictive Dress Code For Congress – Christine Rousselle

Wow. OK. As the article states, no, this isn’t new dress code and Paul Ryan didn’t create it.

But something else popped out at me. How is this dress code “sexist?”

I had this same complaint when the entire “air conditioning is sexist” talking point was a thing, and I think it might still be a thing to a small group of feminists.

The guys are in there in suits. Year round. That means long pants, dress shirt, tie, suit coat, socks, shoes. When it gets hot, women can wear a dress, which is even more wonderful now that very few women wear pantyhose anymore (guilty. I haven’t worn hose since I was in grade school). They can also, in many cases, go sleeveless or wear short sleeves. Men don’t have this option. Men are dressed down from neck to toes all the damn time. So yes, the air conditioner is set to be cooler because they are sweating their asses off because they are required to. The female dress code is a lot more summer heat friendly.

In this situation, being asked to cover your shoulders isn’t exactly sexist! The men can’t do it, either. They’re still in there in the nasty D.C. heat dressed down from neck to toes. You can still wear a short sleeved shirt or dress while they can’t.

So please explain to me how being asked to not go sleeveless is sexist.

18 States Sue Betsy DeVos And Education Dept. Over Delay Of Borrower Defense Rule

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is accused of unlawfully delaying a federal rule stemming from the Obama administration. Win McNamee/Getty Images

Attorneys general from Massachusetts, New York and 16 other states filed suit against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her department Thursday, accusing DeVos of breaking federal law and giving free rein to for-profit colleges by rescinding the Borrower Defense Rule.

The filing by 18 states and Washington, D.C., asks a U.S. District Court to declare the Education Department’s delay of the rule unlawful and to order the agency to implement it. The states say they have pursued “numerous costly and time-intensive investigations and enforcement actions against proprietary and for-profit schools” that violated consumer protection laws.

The Borrower Defense Rule was adopted by the Obama administration last November and had been set to take effect this month. It was created to make it “simpler for students at colleges found to be fraudulent to get their loans forgiven,” as NPR’s Ed team has reported.

Complaint-Massachusetts-Et-Al-v-DeVos

Full article: 18 States Sue Betsy DeVos And Education Dept. Over Delay Of Borrower Defense Rule : The Two-Way : NPR

Voter fraud commission may have violated law

TheHill.com

President Trump’s voter fraud commission may have violated the law by ignoring federal requirements governing requests for information from states, several experts on the regulatory process told The Hill.

Experts say the failure to submit the request to states through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) violates a 1980 law known as the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). They also say the failure could be significant, since states could argue it means they are under no obligation to respond.

“If the commission gets heavy-handed with them, it seems to me that the states are within their right to say, ‘No, we don’t have to respond because you didn’t go through [OIRA],’” said Susan Dudley, a former OIRA administrator who is now director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University.

After an initial version of this story was published online, the White House in an email argued that the election commission is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires federal agencies to take specific steps before making requests for public information. The reason is simple, according to a spokesman: The commission is not an agency.

“The Paperwork Reduction Act only applies to information collections by agencies,” Marc Lotter, spokesman for Vice President Pence, said in an email. “The Commission is an entity that ‘serve[s] solely to advise and assist the President,’ and is not, therefore, an agency subject to PRA.”

Experts interviewed by The Hill said they believed that the commission did fall under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 1980 law that requires federal agencies to seek public input, including through a comment period, before making a request for information. A 1995 amendment extended OIRA’s authority to include not only requests for information for the government, but also requests for information to the public.

There are some exemptions from the Paperwork Act’s requirements, but Richard Belzer, a former OIRA economist, said in an email to The Hill that he didn’t recall Trump’s executive order including any provision that would exempt the commission from following the requirements.

Belzer said it would not be unprecedented for OIRA to wave through an approval or issue an exemption at the request of the White House, but he argued this would be “legally dubious” in this case.

Full article: Voter fraud commission may have violated law | TheHill