Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
January 12, 2022
https://www.thedailybeast.com/stock-trade-ban-gains-steam-despite-nancy-pelosis-mind-boggling-resistance
In the trenches of TikTok, users are tracking more than just the latest memes or trends. They’re watching the stock trades of members of Congress and their families, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi being a fan favorite. The STOCK Act requires members to publicly disclose their and their spouses stock transactions, which has allowed accounts like CEOWatchlist to use that information to monitor Pelosi’s husband’s trades for more than 1 million followers, calling her the stock market’s biggest “whale” and ending videos with credos like “shout out to Nancy for the stock tips.”
If Pelosi has her way, those trades will continue, telling reporters last month that members should have the right to participate in the “free-market economy” like everyone else. But after a series of scandals and ethically problematic trades, a growing coalition of lawmakers on the left and the right want to ban the practice to prevent the perception, if not actual abuse of their positions. The most recent calls for change came from Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who told Punchbowl News in an interview published Tuesday he’d consider banning trades if Republicans took over the House next year. While House Democratic leadership dismissed McCarthy as insincere at best, the idea is gaining steam.
Virginia Democrat Rep. Abigail Spanberger has twice sponsored legislation with Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) that would bar members of Congress from trading stocks and equities while in office. She doesn’t believe there’s rampant insider trading among her fellow members of Congress, but she does believe there’s a “perception” among Americans that members would do so.
To her, that’s a problem. “We may believe as members that everyone is doing the right thing and everyone is behaving admirably,” Spanberger said. “But I think it is important that we go a step beyond that, which is [to] demonstrate to the American people that we’re not even going to give the illusion of doing something inappropriate.” “I think she’s wrong on this. I think she is out of step with public opinion,” Spanberger (D-VA) told The Daily Beast, when asked about Pelosi’s position. Roy told The Daily Beast he thinks Pelosi’s position is “mind-boggling.”
snip
Congress Warms to Stock-Trading Ban, Leaving Pelosi in Cold
“I think she’s wrong on this. I think she is out of step with public opinion,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) said.https://www.thedailybeast.com/stock-trade-ban-gains-steam-despite-nancy-pelosis-mind-boggling-resistance
In the trenches of TikTok, users are tracking more than just the latest memes or trends. They’re watching the stock trades of members of Congress and their families, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi being a fan favorite. The STOCK Act requires members to publicly disclose their and their spouses stock transactions, which has allowed accounts like CEOWatchlist to use that information to monitor Pelosi’s husband’s trades for more than 1 million followers, calling her the stock market’s biggest “whale” and ending videos with credos like “shout out to Nancy for the stock tips.”
If Pelosi has her way, those trades will continue, telling reporters last month that members should have the right to participate in the “free-market economy” like everyone else. But after a series of scandals and ethically problematic trades, a growing coalition of lawmakers on the left and the right want to ban the practice to prevent the perception, if not actual abuse of their positions. The most recent calls for change came from Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who told Punchbowl News in an interview published Tuesday he’d consider banning trades if Republicans took over the House next year. While House Democratic leadership dismissed McCarthy as insincere at best, the idea is gaining steam.
Virginia Democrat Rep. Abigail Spanberger has twice sponsored legislation with Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) that would bar members of Congress from trading stocks and equities while in office. She doesn’t believe there’s rampant insider trading among her fellow members of Congress, but she does believe there’s a “perception” among Americans that members would do so.
To her, that’s a problem. “We may believe as members that everyone is doing the right thing and everyone is behaving admirably,” Spanberger said. “But I think it is important that we go a step beyond that, which is [to] demonstrate to the American people that we’re not even going to give the illusion of doing something inappropriate.” “I think she’s wrong on this. I think she is out of step with public opinion,” Spanberger (D-VA) told The Daily Beast, when asked about Pelosi’s position. Roy told The Daily Beast he thinks Pelosi’s position is “mind-boggling.”
snip
January 12, 2022
https://www.thelocal.se/20220112/sweden-pledges-to-compensate-homeowners-for-record-high-energy-bills/
The highest level of compensation will be offered to those using more than 2,000 kWh per month, who will receive 2,000 kronor per month for three months – a total of 6,000 kronor. (my add, this is around 700 usd) The proposal is a response to record-high energy bills hitting users across Sweden this winter. The cash boost will primarily affect house owners, explained Finance Minister Mikael Damberg in a press conference alongside Energy Minister Khashayar Farmanbar.
“Not everyone will get compensation. Generally those with detached homes or small homes which are heated by electricity will be covered by this proposal,” Damberg said. Compensation will be paid out to households with high electricity bills automatically, the government explained, although it will take a few months to come into effect. “This will take a few months to be introduced,” Damberg said. “You can’t count on getting a lower energy bill in January, February – our proposal can’t make that possible.”
When asked about when homeowners could expect to receive compensation, Farmanbar responded: “We need to talk to electricity companies, authorites and parliament – but I think it will be a few months before we can give a clear answer on what exactly this will look like.” “We believe it is important that compensation goes to those who really need it,” he continued.
Ministers were unable to give details on what the lower limit of compensation will be at this time, only that it will be offered on a sliding scale, with the maximum level of compensation offered to households using more than 2,000 kWh per month. Damberg underlined the fact that it is extremely unusual for the state to compensate individual households for market price fluctuations. “This is an exceptional measure for an exceptional situation,” he said. “We have extremely high energy prices in Sweden and Europe at the moment. The government takes this situation very seriously.”
snip
Sweden pledges to compensate homeowners for record-high energy bills
Swedish ministers have announced plans to offer compensation for December, January and February's electricity bills. The compensation will be on a scale, based on households' energy usage.https://www.thelocal.se/20220112/sweden-pledges-to-compensate-homeowners-for-record-high-energy-bills/
The highest level of compensation will be offered to those using more than 2,000 kWh per month, who will receive 2,000 kronor per month for three months – a total of 6,000 kronor. (my add, this is around 700 usd) The proposal is a response to record-high energy bills hitting users across Sweden this winter. The cash boost will primarily affect house owners, explained Finance Minister Mikael Damberg in a press conference alongside Energy Minister Khashayar Farmanbar.
“Not everyone will get compensation. Generally those with detached homes or small homes which are heated by electricity will be covered by this proposal,” Damberg said. Compensation will be paid out to households with high electricity bills automatically, the government explained, although it will take a few months to come into effect. “This will take a few months to be introduced,” Damberg said. “You can’t count on getting a lower energy bill in January, February – our proposal can’t make that possible.”
When asked about when homeowners could expect to receive compensation, Farmanbar responded: “We need to talk to electricity companies, authorites and parliament – but I think it will be a few months before we can give a clear answer on what exactly this will look like.” “We believe it is important that compensation goes to those who really need it,” he continued.
Ministers were unable to give details on what the lower limit of compensation will be at this time, only that it will be offered on a sliding scale, with the maximum level of compensation offered to households using more than 2,000 kWh per month. Damberg underlined the fact that it is extremely unusual for the state to compensate individual households for market price fluctuations. “This is an exceptional measure for an exceptional situation,” he said. “We have extremely high energy prices in Sweden and Europe at the moment. The government takes this situation very seriously.”
snip
January 12, 2022
The World Economic Forum's new Global Risks Report is out..and it isn't pretty.
The report - which is based on a survey on 1,000 world leaders and experts - ranked climate action failure, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss as the top three most severe risks facing the world. Cyber threats, orbital collisions, and the pandemic also made the list.
Cyber risks add to climate threat, World Economic Forum warns
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/11/1072029936/cyber-risks-add-to-climate-threat-world-economic-forum-warns
LONDON — Cybersecurity and space are emerging risks to the global economy, adding to existing challenges posed by climate change and the coronavirus pandemic, the World Economic Forum said in a report Tuesday.
The Global Risks Report is usually released ahead of the annual elite winter gathering of CEOs and world leaders in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, but the event has been postponed for a second year in a row because of COVID-19. The World Economic Forum still plans some virtual sessions next week.
Here's a rundown of the report, which is based on a survey of about 1,000 experts and leaders:
snip
January 12, 2022
A new study of nearly 70,000 Covid patients in California demonstrates that Omicron causes less severe disease than other coronavirus variants, results that align with similar findings from South Africa, Britain and Denmark, as well as a host of experiments on animals.
Compared with Delta, Omicron infections were half as likely to send people to the hospital. Out of more than 52,000 Omicron patients identified from electronic medical records of Kaiser Permanente of Southern California, a large health system, the researchers found that not a single patient went on a ventilator during that time.
“It’s truly a viral factor that accounts for reduced severity,” said Dr. Lewnard, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley who was an author of the study, which was posted online on Tuesday and has not yet been published in a scientific journal.
Despite the less severe virulence of Omicron, U.S. hospitals are buckling under an influx of coronavirus cases. Dr. Lewnard said that this was the result of the variant spreading like wildfire. On average, more than 730,000 people are testing positive every day in the United States, almost three times the previous peak last winter.
snip
California hospitals find that Omicron causes fewer hospitalizations and shorter stays.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/health/california-omicron-hospitalizations.htmlA new study of nearly 70,000 Covid patients in California demonstrates that Omicron causes less severe disease than other coronavirus variants, results that align with similar findings from South Africa, Britain and Denmark, as well as a host of experiments on animals.
Compared with Delta, Omicron infections were half as likely to send people to the hospital. Out of more than 52,000 Omicron patients identified from electronic medical records of Kaiser Permanente of Southern California, a large health system, the researchers found that not a single patient went on a ventilator during that time.
“It’s truly a viral factor that accounts for reduced severity,” said Dr. Lewnard, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley who was an author of the study, which was posted online on Tuesday and has not yet been published in a scientific journal.
Despite the less severe virulence of Omicron, U.S. hospitals are buckling under an influx of coronavirus cases. Dr. Lewnard said that this was the result of the variant spreading like wildfire. On average, more than 730,000 people are testing positive every day in the United States, almost three times the previous peak last winter.
snip
January 12, 2022
https://thebanter.substack.com/p/republican-judges-are-out-of-control
Mitch McConnell could see the writing on the wall. The Republican Party was doomed. After decades of openly pursuing the Southern Strategy of racial resentment and culture war rage, the white and old Republican base was shrinking rapidly. The glory days of Reagan were long gone and there was little chance of another 9/11 giving Republicans free rein to rule unopposed. At this rate, everything McConnell had worked on, all the power Republicans had stolen, would start to unravel within what was left of his lifetime. He would go to his grave knowing that the future would not be in the hands of the rich and unaccountable.
This was America. It did not belong to the little people. It belonged to the powerful. It belonged to Republicans. McConnell had a plan. The only way to lock in the power the GOP had stolen over the previous decades was to turn the judiciary into a weapon. No more qualified judges making center-right, but legally justifiable, rulings. It was time to rule America from the bench for the next 30-40 years. The “judicial activism” Republicans once decried would become their mantra. Democracy was for suckers. Judicial tyranny was the future.
Gods on the bench
A decade later, the results of McConnell’s plan are bearing fruit. Republicans blocked Obama’s judicial appointments for two years, an unheard of abuse of the Senate’s power. This abuse culminated with the theft of a seat on the Supreme Court. Under Trump, a Republican Senate confirmed hundreds of judges, many of them young and a number of them unqualified for their lifetime appointments. Of course, the only qualification they needed was their adherence to Republican ideology and a willingness to reject the rule of law to pursue it.
That’s exactly what we’re seeing now. Judicial activism on a level unthinkable just ten years ago. One example is a single Republican judge granting himself the power to determine America’s border policy. He also assumed the authority to dictate how America conducts foreign policy with Mexico in the process. The Republican extremists on the Supreme Court backed up this massive shift of power from the Executive Branch to the Judicial.
snip
Republican Judges Are Out Of Control
Until Trump showed Republicans that fascism was a viable path, the plan was always to rule by judicial fiat.https://thebanter.substack.com/p/republican-judges-are-out-of-control
Mitch McConnell could see the writing on the wall. The Republican Party was doomed. After decades of openly pursuing the Southern Strategy of racial resentment and culture war rage, the white and old Republican base was shrinking rapidly. The glory days of Reagan were long gone and there was little chance of another 9/11 giving Republicans free rein to rule unopposed. At this rate, everything McConnell had worked on, all the power Republicans had stolen, would start to unravel within what was left of his lifetime. He would go to his grave knowing that the future would not be in the hands of the rich and unaccountable.
This was America. It did not belong to the little people. It belonged to the powerful. It belonged to Republicans. McConnell had a plan. The only way to lock in the power the GOP had stolen over the previous decades was to turn the judiciary into a weapon. No more qualified judges making center-right, but legally justifiable, rulings. It was time to rule America from the bench for the next 30-40 years. The “judicial activism” Republicans once decried would become their mantra. Democracy was for suckers. Judicial tyranny was the future.
Gods on the bench
A decade later, the results of McConnell’s plan are bearing fruit. Republicans blocked Obama’s judicial appointments for two years, an unheard of abuse of the Senate’s power. This abuse culminated with the theft of a seat on the Supreme Court. Under Trump, a Republican Senate confirmed hundreds of judges, many of them young and a number of them unqualified for their lifetime appointments. Of course, the only qualification they needed was their adherence to Republican ideology and a willingness to reject the rule of law to pursue it.
That’s exactly what we’re seeing now. Judicial activism on a level unthinkable just ten years ago. One example is a single Republican judge granting himself the power to determine America’s border policy. He also assumed the authority to dictate how America conducts foreign policy with Mexico in the process. The Republican extremists on the Supreme Court backed up this massive shift of power from the Executive Branch to the Judicial.
snip
January 12, 2022
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/11/covid-loses-90-of-ability-to-infect-within-five-minutes-in-air-study
Coronavirus loses 90% of its ability to infect us within 20 minutes of becoming airborne – with most of the loss occurring within the first five minutes, the world’s first simulations of how the virus survives in exhaled air suggest.
The findings re-emphasise the importance of short-range Covid transmission, with physical distancing and mask-wearing likely to be the most effective means of preventing infection. Ventilation, though still worthwhile, is likely to have a lesser impact.
“People have been focused on poorly ventilated spaces and thinking about airborne transmission over metres or across a room. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen, but I think still the greatest risk of exposure is when you’re close to someone,” said Prof Jonathan Reid, director of the University of Bristol’s Aerosol Research Centre and the study’s lead author.
“When you move further away, not only is the aerosol diluted down, there’s also less infectious virus because the virus has lost infectivity [as a result of time].”
snip
Covid loses 90% of ability to infect within 20 minutes in air - study
Exclusive: Findings highlight importance of short-range Covid transmissionhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/11/covid-loses-90-of-ability-to-infect-within-five-minutes-in-air-study
Coronavirus loses 90% of its ability to infect us within 20 minutes of becoming airborne – with most of the loss occurring within the first five minutes, the world’s first simulations of how the virus survives in exhaled air suggest.
The findings re-emphasise the importance of short-range Covid transmission, with physical distancing and mask-wearing likely to be the most effective means of preventing infection. Ventilation, though still worthwhile, is likely to have a lesser impact.
“People have been focused on poorly ventilated spaces and thinking about airborne transmission over metres or across a room. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen, but I think still the greatest risk of exposure is when you’re close to someone,” said Prof Jonathan Reid, director of the University of Bristol’s Aerosol Research Centre and the study’s lead author.
“When you move further away, not only is the aerosol diluted down, there’s also less infectious virus because the virus has lost infectivity [as a result of time].”
snip
January 12, 2022
Today is going to be all about tactics and strategy for House and Senate Democratic leaders, and the White House. Senate Democrats are preparing a showdown over voting rights and the filibuster this weekend and possibly into Martin Luther King Jr. Day Monday.
Right now, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer doesn’t have the votes to win on voting rights or the filibuster, despite a fierce appeal from President Joe Biden on Tuesday. So the larger strategy being employed here – forcing votes that are likely to fail – is already in question. But we’ll get back to this and how it figures into the larger Democratic problems of the moment.
Now onto tactics. Schumer can call up the Freedom to Vote Act (supported by all 50 Senate Democrats) or the Senate version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (supported by all Senate Democrats besides Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia) or both. Both bills have been blocked by unyielding GOP opposition. Schumer can call for their reconsideration at any time.
However, there’s another, more complex plan under consideration to provide an alternative way for Senate consideration.
The House this week is supposed to take up an amendment to a bill dealing with NASA’s leasing “underutilized” property to private entities. The House and Senate have ping-ponged this bill back and forth already.
Under this new plan – which is still just under consideration, it hasn’t been agreed to yet – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats would use this NASA bill as a shell, strip out the existing language and insert the Freedom to Vote Act instead. The House would then pass this revised bill and send it onto the Senate. Since it’s a “message” between the House and Senate, there’s no filibuster on the motion to proceed to the legislation. That means the Senate could take it up quickly.
Senate Republicans will still filibuster the underlying bill and Schumer would have to file cloture in order to cut off debate and force a vote. That hasn’t changed. So, in sum, a GOP filibuster still has to be overcome, but there’s only one cloture vote, compared to two with a regular bill.
Yet the advantage of this proposed plan is that Schumer would be filing cloture on a voting rights bill that’s already been adopted by the House, instead of the Senate-only version of the legislation. Thus when Republicans filibuster the measure, they’d be blocking a bill that just needs Senate approval in order to head to the president’s desk. It’s a distinction with a difference.
Schumer is expected to unveil more on his next steps today, so let’s return to the strategy discussion. As we said, Schumer doesn’t have the votes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act – any version of it – due to a GOP opposition. And he can’t pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act for the same reason. All 50 Senate Republicans will vote no.
More importantly, Schumer doesn’t have 50 Democratic votes to trigger the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules unilaterally and get rid of the filibuster. Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) remain opposed to any such move.
Manchin will back some technical changes to the filibuster, although he won’t back getting rid of the 60-vote threshold to cut off debate on a bill.
“I'm not for breaking the filibuster, but I am for making the place work better by changing the rules,” Manchin told reporters on Tuesday, one of several statements he made laying out his continued opposition.
For her part, Sinema met Tuesday night in the LBJ Room with a group of Senate Democrats from the Rules Committee. The group included Sens. Angus King (I-Maine), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to discuss potential rules changes.
As far as we can tell, however, Sinema’s position didn’t change following that session either. More meetings with Manchin and Sinema are likely today, Democratic insiders told us.
But if the voting rights-filibuster push fails, where does it leave Biden, Schumer, Pelosi and Democrats?
Despite control of the House and Senate – by razor-thin margins, admittedly – and having Biden in the Oval Office, the key elements of the progressive agenda are stalled, which is causing growing unrest on the left.
? The $1.7 trillion Build Back Better Act, the centerpiece of Biden’s agenda, could go down in flames because of the post-pandemic surge in inflation. (Note: The December inflation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be released at 8:30 a.m., which could make the political environment even worse for Democrats.)
? During the Omicron-fueled surge in Covid cases, huge lapses in testing capacity remain. Democrats are already talking about passing more relief for small businesses and restaurants, despite passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan less than a year ago.
? Democrats can’t get anything done on gun control since that stalled out last year, despite a huge spike in gun violence.
? Guaranteed access to abortion – already restricted in Texas, the nation’s second most populous state – could be be struck down by the Supreme Court.
? Democrats failed to raise the minimum wage.
? Democrats have gotten very little done on climate change.
? Democrats haven’t been nearly as aggressive as activists want on student loan debt thanks to Biden’s opposition.
? Images of empty store shelves are popping up all over social media as supply chain problems – exacerbated by bad weather and the Omicron surge – continue to dog stores.
This isn’t how a lot of Democrats pictured their full control of Washington.
Detailed update on the voter bills and the filibuster
No link, this is from an email newsletter (Punchbowl)Today is going to be all about tactics and strategy for House and Senate Democratic leaders, and the White House. Senate Democrats are preparing a showdown over voting rights and the filibuster this weekend and possibly into Martin Luther King Jr. Day Monday.
Right now, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer doesn’t have the votes to win on voting rights or the filibuster, despite a fierce appeal from President Joe Biden on Tuesday. So the larger strategy being employed here – forcing votes that are likely to fail – is already in question. But we’ll get back to this and how it figures into the larger Democratic problems of the moment.
Now onto tactics. Schumer can call up the Freedom to Vote Act (supported by all 50 Senate Democrats) or the Senate version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (supported by all Senate Democrats besides Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia) or both. Both bills have been blocked by unyielding GOP opposition. Schumer can call for their reconsideration at any time.
However, there’s another, more complex plan under consideration to provide an alternative way for Senate consideration.
The House this week is supposed to take up an amendment to a bill dealing with NASA’s leasing “underutilized” property to private entities. The House and Senate have ping-ponged this bill back and forth already.
Under this new plan – which is still just under consideration, it hasn’t been agreed to yet – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats would use this NASA bill as a shell, strip out the existing language and insert the Freedom to Vote Act instead. The House would then pass this revised bill and send it onto the Senate. Since it’s a “message” between the House and Senate, there’s no filibuster on the motion to proceed to the legislation. That means the Senate could take it up quickly.
Senate Republicans will still filibuster the underlying bill and Schumer would have to file cloture in order to cut off debate and force a vote. That hasn’t changed. So, in sum, a GOP filibuster still has to be overcome, but there’s only one cloture vote, compared to two with a regular bill.
Yet the advantage of this proposed plan is that Schumer would be filing cloture on a voting rights bill that’s already been adopted by the House, instead of the Senate-only version of the legislation. Thus when Republicans filibuster the measure, they’d be blocking a bill that just needs Senate approval in order to head to the president’s desk. It’s a distinction with a difference.
Schumer is expected to unveil more on his next steps today, so let’s return to the strategy discussion. As we said, Schumer doesn’t have the votes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act – any version of it – due to a GOP opposition. And he can’t pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act for the same reason. All 50 Senate Republicans will vote no.
More importantly, Schumer doesn’t have 50 Democratic votes to trigger the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules unilaterally and get rid of the filibuster. Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) remain opposed to any such move.
Manchin will back some technical changes to the filibuster, although he won’t back getting rid of the 60-vote threshold to cut off debate on a bill.
“I'm not for breaking the filibuster, but I am for making the place work better by changing the rules,” Manchin told reporters on Tuesday, one of several statements he made laying out his continued opposition.
For her part, Sinema met Tuesday night in the LBJ Room with a group of Senate Democrats from the Rules Committee. The group included Sens. Angus King (I-Maine), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to discuss potential rules changes.
As far as we can tell, however, Sinema’s position didn’t change following that session either. More meetings with Manchin and Sinema are likely today, Democratic insiders told us.
But if the voting rights-filibuster push fails, where does it leave Biden, Schumer, Pelosi and Democrats?
Despite control of the House and Senate – by razor-thin margins, admittedly – and having Biden in the Oval Office, the key elements of the progressive agenda are stalled, which is causing growing unrest on the left.
? The $1.7 trillion Build Back Better Act, the centerpiece of Biden’s agenda, could go down in flames because of the post-pandemic surge in inflation. (Note: The December inflation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be released at 8:30 a.m., which could make the political environment even worse for Democrats.)
? During the Omicron-fueled surge in Covid cases, huge lapses in testing capacity remain. Democrats are already talking about passing more relief for small businesses and restaurants, despite passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan less than a year ago.
? Democrats can’t get anything done on gun control since that stalled out last year, despite a huge spike in gun violence.
? Guaranteed access to abortion – already restricted in Texas, the nation’s second most populous state – could be be struck down by the Supreme Court.
? Democrats failed to raise the minimum wage.
? Democrats have gotten very little done on climate change.
? Democrats haven’t been nearly as aggressive as activists want on student loan debt thanks to Biden’s opposition.
? Images of empty store shelves are popping up all over social media as supply chain problems – exacerbated by bad weather and the Omicron surge – continue to dog stores.
This isn’t how a lot of Democrats pictured their full control of Washington.
January 12, 2022
Label: ND Records
Format: LP, Green vinyl
Country: Jamaica
Released: 1964
Genre: Reggae
Style: Ska
The Skatalites - Ska Aunthentic (1964)
Label: ND Records
Format: LP, Green vinyl
Country: Jamaica
Released: 1964
Genre: Reggae
Style: Ska
January 11, 2022
The host posited a hypothetical in which Mr Trump lost the election but had enough supporters in place to overturn the results
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bill-maher-trump-2024-election-b1990372.html
HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher is ringing alarm bells ahead of former President Donald Trump's presumed run for re-election in 2024, telling his audience that early 2025 might be a good time to consider leaving the country. During his Saturday night show, Mr Maher spoke with AL.com's Ben Flanagan about national affairs when the topic of Mr Trump was raised.
During the discussion, Mr Flanagan asked Mr Maher about a question he had recently raised: "What happens on January 20th, 2025, when Trump shows up despite election results that say otherwise?" Mr Flanagan asked the host "do you think democracy is really in trouble?" "First of all, he is definitely going to run. He’s definitely going to get the nomination. And he’s definitely not going to concede. He hasn’t conceded this election," Mr Maher said. Mr Maher suggested that, unlike in 2020, Mr Trump will "have people in place who will back him up”.
That’s what he didn’t have in 2020. He thought he did. He thought anyone who had an 'R' by their name would be on his side," he said. "He didn’t count on the fact that there were Republicans with integrity, who told him 'I’m sorry, sir. We looked and we looked and we looked, and you did not win this election.' He’s replacing those people. That’s what they’re doing." The television host posited a potential 2024 scenario in which Mr Trump loses the election but once again asks loyal Republican officials to "find" the votes needed to flip the election. He believes that, unlike 2020, those officials would comply and presumably suppress or throw out enough votes to secure a victory for Mr Trump.
"He’s not going to go away as easily as he did in 2020 next time. And that’s why January 2025 is going to be where the rubber hits the road in this country. We’ve been heading towards this cliff for a very long time, and we always think we’re the country where it can’t happen," he said. "Well, we thought that about terrorism. We thought that about everything. We’re not exempt. We are the country where it can happen. And when you have two claimants to the throne, I don’t know what happens. "He went on to say that "if you want to pick a time to take a vacation out of the country, that would be a good time to do it."
snip
Bill Maher warns January 2025 will be 'a good time to leave the country' as he predicts Trump
‘definitely’ runsThe host posited a hypothetical in which Mr Trump lost the election but had enough supporters in place to overturn the results
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bill-maher-trump-2024-election-b1990372.html
HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher is ringing alarm bells ahead of former President Donald Trump's presumed run for re-election in 2024, telling his audience that early 2025 might be a good time to consider leaving the country. During his Saturday night show, Mr Maher spoke with AL.com's Ben Flanagan about national affairs when the topic of Mr Trump was raised.
During the discussion, Mr Flanagan asked Mr Maher about a question he had recently raised: "What happens on January 20th, 2025, when Trump shows up despite election results that say otherwise?" Mr Flanagan asked the host "do you think democracy is really in trouble?" "First of all, he is definitely going to run. He’s definitely going to get the nomination. And he’s definitely not going to concede. He hasn’t conceded this election," Mr Maher said. Mr Maher suggested that, unlike in 2020, Mr Trump will "have people in place who will back him up”.
That’s what he didn’t have in 2020. He thought he did. He thought anyone who had an 'R' by their name would be on his side," he said. "He didn’t count on the fact that there were Republicans with integrity, who told him 'I’m sorry, sir. We looked and we looked and we looked, and you did not win this election.' He’s replacing those people. That’s what they’re doing." The television host posited a potential 2024 scenario in which Mr Trump loses the election but once again asks loyal Republican officials to "find" the votes needed to flip the election. He believes that, unlike 2020, those officials would comply and presumably suppress or throw out enough votes to secure a victory for Mr Trump.
"He’s not going to go away as easily as he did in 2020 next time. And that’s why January 2025 is going to be where the rubber hits the road in this country. We’ve been heading towards this cliff for a very long time, and we always think we’re the country where it can’t happen," he said. "Well, we thought that about terrorism. We thought that about everything. We’re not exempt. We are the country where it can happen. And when you have two claimants to the throne, I don’t know what happens. "He went on to say that "if you want to pick a time to take a vacation out of the country, that would be a good time to do it."
snip
January 11, 2022
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/america-electoral-map-turning-democratic-by-james-k-galbraith-2022-01
AUSTIN – With the anniversary of the January 6 riot now over, let’s focus on the big picture. The great anomaly of the 2020 US presidential election was that Joe Biden won the national popular vote by seven million votes, yet came within 43,000 (in three close states) of losing the Electoral College, and thus the election. In California alone, Biden had five million more votes than he needed, and in New York, another two million. So far this century, only Barack Obama has won decisive victories in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. In 2000 and 2016, the popular-vote winner lost the election. In 2004, the result turned on a single state: Ohio. This anomaly is not only persistent but constitutional, which makes it practically unsolvable.
Nevertheless, the 2020 election was a triumph for democracy. Turnout, as a proportion of eligible voters, was higher than in any election since 1900 (when the franchise was limited to males, almost all white). The COVID-19 pandemic forced local election administrators to innovate, and they did so with expanded voting by mail, early-voting days, 24-hour voting, and drive-in voting. More than 100 million ballots were cast before Election Day. In the end, Donald Trump’s final count was 11 million higher than it was in 2016, and Biden’s exceeded Hillary Clinton’s 2016 total by 15 million.
Low turnout in America is usually blamed on voter apathy, but 2020 proved that the real problem has always been barriers to voting. In previous elections, polling places were scarce, the ballots long and complex, and the whole process a slow one, with queues often stretching for hours. Many people lack the time, the patience, or the physical stamina to wait. The system also discouraged any change in voting patterns, because local election boards allocated machines and poll workers according to past turnout. So there were never enough machines for new voters whenever turnout surged, anywhere at all, for any reason. The 2020 election was thus a great unintended experiment in blowing up the barriers to voting – and it worked.
Those now crying fraud cite the vast increase in turnout as evidence. In fact, the growth in turnout in so-called swing states was no greater than in states where the outcome was not in question. One exception was Arizona, where turnout grew by 30%. But once you adjust for Arizona’s rapid population growth, the proportionate increase is similar to California, where turnout fraud would have been pointless. In any event, the Arizona vote was administered by Republican officials. Nor do the vote counts look suspicious. Votes are recorded and reported by county, and not merely at the state level. Any tampering with vote counts would have had to happen in specific counties. And because the 2020 election had a close precedent in 2016, strange changes in county voting patterns should be easy to spot.
snip
JAMES K. GALBRAITH - America's Democratic Future
Notwithstanding the lasting shock of the January 6, 2021, attack of the US Capitol, the Democratic Party can take comfort in the broader demographic trends. Not only was the 2020 presidential election an administrative triumph; record-high turnout showed that the real problem has always been barriers to voting.https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/america-electoral-map-turning-democratic-by-james-k-galbraith-2022-01
AUSTIN – With the anniversary of the January 6 riot now over, let’s focus on the big picture. The great anomaly of the 2020 US presidential election was that Joe Biden won the national popular vote by seven million votes, yet came within 43,000 (in three close states) of losing the Electoral College, and thus the election. In California alone, Biden had five million more votes than he needed, and in New York, another two million. So far this century, only Barack Obama has won decisive victories in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. In 2000 and 2016, the popular-vote winner lost the election. In 2004, the result turned on a single state: Ohio. This anomaly is not only persistent but constitutional, which makes it practically unsolvable.
Nevertheless, the 2020 election was a triumph for democracy. Turnout, as a proportion of eligible voters, was higher than in any election since 1900 (when the franchise was limited to males, almost all white). The COVID-19 pandemic forced local election administrators to innovate, and they did so with expanded voting by mail, early-voting days, 24-hour voting, and drive-in voting. More than 100 million ballots were cast before Election Day. In the end, Donald Trump’s final count was 11 million higher than it was in 2016, and Biden’s exceeded Hillary Clinton’s 2016 total by 15 million.
Low turnout in America is usually blamed on voter apathy, but 2020 proved that the real problem has always been barriers to voting. In previous elections, polling places were scarce, the ballots long and complex, and the whole process a slow one, with queues often stretching for hours. Many people lack the time, the patience, or the physical stamina to wait. The system also discouraged any change in voting patterns, because local election boards allocated machines and poll workers according to past turnout. So there were never enough machines for new voters whenever turnout surged, anywhere at all, for any reason. The 2020 election was thus a great unintended experiment in blowing up the barriers to voting – and it worked.
Those now crying fraud cite the vast increase in turnout as evidence. In fact, the growth in turnout in so-called swing states was no greater than in states where the outcome was not in question. One exception was Arizona, where turnout grew by 30%. But once you adjust for Arizona’s rapid population growth, the proportionate increase is similar to California, where turnout fraud would have been pointless. In any event, the Arizona vote was administered by Republican officials. Nor do the vote counts look suspicious. Votes are recorded and reported by county, and not merely at the state level. Any tampering with vote counts would have had to happen in specific counties. And because the 2020 election had a close precedent in 2016, strange changes in county voting patterns should be easy to spot.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,261
