Cheese SandwichCheese Sandwich's Journal
Since then shes held fast on that position, weathering a primary fight that was anything but expected from the populist, self-described Democratic socialist Sanders, who has repeatedly railed against the TPP. At the same time, a review of the hardback edition of her memoir as secretary of state, Hard Choices, compared to the paperback first noted by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) finds that segments of the book where Clinton describes an effort to convince American countries to join the TPP negotiations have been left out.
We encouraged all open-market democracies driving toward a more prosperous future to join negotiations with Asian nations on TPP, the trans-Pacific trade agreement, the original version of the book reads in a two-page segment discussing a 2009 conference in El Salvador. Those two pages have been cut from the paperback version of the book, according to CEPR.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement among 12 Pacific Rim countries that was signed earlier this year in New Zealand.
That isnt the only portion of the memoir where Clinton discusses TPP, an International Business Times review found. Earlier in the book when describing her work with China, Clinton noted that there were several potential upsides to negotiating the TPP. In the segment, which does not appear to have been omitted from the paperback versions of the book, she also says that, because the negotiations were ongoing, it made sense to reserve judgment.
In the first alternative, we asked about Clinton, Trump, Gary Johnson (the Libertarian) and Jill Stein (the Green Party candidate) as explicit options with their party affiliation. The results from this question among registered voters show Trump at 40 percent, Clinton at 39 percent, Johnson at 9 percent and Stein at 4 percent; 8 percent did not answer the question.
The other alternative vote choice question we asked gave the option of choosing Clinton, Trump or another candidate with an option to specify the candidate name in an open-ended format. In this version of the question, among registered voters, Trumps beats Clinton by 3 percentage points 39 percent to 36 percent with responses for "other" pulling in a very large 22 percent.
Anybody know what Hillary pays for a haircut?
The $12000 jacket story today reminded me of this.
She fights real dirty.
The Clinton campaign coordinated with their newly declared delegates to make their announcement to the press at the exact best moment to stomp on turnout for the California primary.
Most of Hillary's voters in California have already voted by mail
Bernie's voters are the last minute people who may or may not show up depending on how they feel.
Recent polling has shown that Hillary wins California easily in a low turnout situation, but Bernie ties or even wins in a very high turnout situation. Internal campaign polling may have shown even more of the same.
The timing of this announcement was clearly designed to suppress turnout, which is horrible for many different reasons.
But now, New Yorks Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo (above, in 2016 Celebrate Israel Parade) has significantly escalated this free speech attack on U.S. soil, aimed at U.S. citizens. The prince of the New York political dynasty yesterday issued an executive order directing all agencies under his control to terminate any and all business with companies or organizations that support a boycott of Israel. It ensures that citizens who hold and express a particular view are punished through the denial of benefits which other citizens enjoy: a classic free speech violation (imagine if Cuomo issued an order stating that anyone who expresses conservative viewpoints shall have all state benefits immediately terminated).
Even more disturbing, Cuomos Executive Order requires that one of his Commissioners compile a list of institutions and companies which either directly or through a parent or subsidiary support a boycott. That government list is then posted publicly, and the burden falls on them to prove to the state that they do not, in fact, support such a boycott. Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told The Intercept: Whenever the government creates a blacklist based on political views it raises serious First Amendment concerns and this is no exception. Reasons Robby Soave denounced it today as brazenly autocratic.
To read the relevant provisions of Cuomos order is to confront the mentality of petty censoring tyranny, flavored with McCarthyite public shaming, in its purest form. See for yourself:
East Hamptons Housing Authority bought the 4.67-acre property for $3.415 million with bonds backed by the town, and some wealthy residents showed up last month to a public meeting about the project to complain about paving paradise, while hundreds have signed a petition calling for the project to be abandoned.
Most opponents would prefer the people who mow their lawns, cook their food and babysit their children live elsewhere, said Catherine Casey, the director of the East Hampton Housing Authority.
The areas Latino population jumped 166 percent between 2000 and 2010, the newspaper reported but the Housing Authority director insisted wealthy critics had no racial motivation for opposing the project.
Its not that they dont want Latinos, Casey said. Its that they dont want poor people.
Liberal Democrats run the local governments in most of the big cities but there are homeless people all over the place constantly being harassed by the police. They hang around the library all day or sit around fast food places. A lot of people are just totally unemployable on the capitalist labor market. How come these people aren't helped or given something meaningful to work on when the cities are obviously crumbling and it's clear there is enormous unmet human need and environmental need. Why can't liberals put it together?
Her foreign policy record was actually pretty horrible, especially by the standards of voters in the Democratic primaries.
Yesterday Party leaders blamed budget cuts for closing P.R. polling places. Today they blame Bernie:
Now, further austerity cuts have slashed polling stations to fewer than one-third of the 1,115 sites originally announced last month, sparking accusations from supporters of Bernie Sanders of voter suppression.
The frustration is understandable given that Puerto Ricos 67 delegates, 60 of them uncommitted, are crucial to Sanders fast-dwindling hopes of catching Hillary Clinton and becoming the Democratic nominee for Novembers general election.
But party leaders in the US territory insist the decision to reduce polling stations to 432 was a simple matter of resources, based on the island electoral commissions inability to fund and handle the extra workload of simultaneous local elections at so many sites.