May 29, 2016


News and Views


http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/no-school-pictures-for-families-in-jacksonvilles-urban-core/302967659

No school pictures for families in Jacksonville's urban core
by: Paige Kelton
Updated: May 25, 2016 - 8:32 PM


Students in many of Jacksonville’s impoverished neighborhoods are getting excluded from a school tradition – picture day.

A parent reached out to Action News Jax about the issue, and our investigation revealed 26 public schools in the Duval school district do not offer picture day for students.

Sandra Taylor’s son goes to John Love Elementary, one of the schools that doesn’t offer school pictures.

She said she is angry but more than that she's disappointed.

"These are memories that you can't get back,” said Taylor.

She said she was hurt when she got pictures of her grandson in Nassau County and found out there wouldn’t be any of her son.

Action News Jax asked the Duval County school district for a list of public schools that offer picture days.

It took 3 weeks to compile all the information. When the information was placed on a map, it showed almost all of the schools that don’t offer pictures are in Jacksonville’s urban core.

Action News Jax asked the district why students in Jacksonville's low income neighborhoods are getting excluded from picture day and was told it's not the district’s decision.

Individual photography companies decide who they serve, according to DCPS.

Officials said:

While the majority of our schools are able to secure a vendor for school picture day, several experience difficulty attracting interest from a photographer because of the size of the school and/or the low percentage of parents ordering pictures. This unfortunately has been a concern over the years for many public schools throughout the country.

The school district said if schools can’t find a vendor it encourages stakeholders in the community, such as businesses, photography clubs, parent associations and the media, to help fill the gap.

Duval County Public Schools released another statement:

We understand many parents and caregivers look forward to school picture day to capture a historical snapshot of their child. When a school principal experiences difficulty in securing a photography vendor, we certainly encourage community stakeholders to partner and collaborate with school leadership to identify vendor alternatives. Alternative sources to provide picture day services may include yearbook and newspaper sponsors/staff, community and school photography clubs, parent-teacher associations, and local media outlets offering in-kind support.



“It took 3 weeks to compile all the information. When the information was placed on a map, it showed almost all of the schools that don’t offer pictures are in Jacksonville’s urban core. Action News Jax asked the district why students in Jacksonville's low income neighborhoods are getting excluded from picture day and was told it's not the district’s decision. Individual photography companies decide who they serve, according to DCPS. Officials said: While the majority of our schools are able to secure a vendor for school picture day, several experience difficulty attracting interest from a photographer because of the size of the school and/or the low percentage of parents ordering pictures. This unfortunately has been a concern over the years for many public schools throughout the country. The school district said if schools can’t find a vendor it encourages stakeholders in the community, such as businesses, photography clubs, parent associations and the media, to help fill the gap. …. we certainly encourage community stakeholders to partner and collaborate with school leadership to identify vendor alternatives. Alternative sources to provide picture day services may include yearbook and newspaper sponsors/staff, community and school photography clubs, parent-teacher associations, and local media outlets offering in-kind support.”


This is very sad to me. There are many ways to evaluate a good school, and while I would not put things like this at the top of the list of important factors, it is a very real issue to me. Similarly, many schools have stopped having special arts or sports activities like the band and chorus, at least one art teacher, a senior play; and in this case your own photo – no matter had dorky it looks – in your own yearbook, and having people sign their names and “clever” comments in it finishes it off as one of your prized possessions. Among those photos will be friends from the earliest years and our emergence into young adulthood. Later you will pull it out at night sometimes when you’ve forgotten someone’s name or you’re feeling lonely. It is a matter of feeling REAL as an entity and a part of a larger group.

I say that because of something I saw in a psychology article that really explained a lot to me. People, especially young people growing up, need to have family members and friends who interact closely enough with them to give them “the look.” That is a knowing and appreciative look. One reason psychiatrists give for the very unfortunate -- but not as uncommon as I would like -- situation of a baby and parent not sharing that “look” very early in the child’s life so that as a result they do not “bond” as they should. Growing up, as a result, they don’t have that family love for each other which is so crucial. It’s just like that matter of corporal punishment and the lack of overall warmth in the relationship.

I know that some mental illness is inherited, but in many of the worst cases there is a parental and family situation that is so lacking in basic nurture and caring that the child withdraws into his/her own world and perhaps later surprises everyone by getting into the bathtub with a razor blade and slitting their wrists, or worse picks up the family gun and goes to school with a hit list of people to execute. Shocking, I know, but terribly understandable. We should quit playing dumb about the importance of such things in a kid’s life. Give your child as many hugs and smiles as you do the flat of your hand and they may survive their teens. Try using a warm tone when you “discuss” a serious problem with them rather than using one of rejection, heartless scorn, etc. If you do go against the rules of good parenthood, for goodness sake DO apologize to the child/teenager, explain your anger, calmly and lucidly give your "experience, strength and hope" on the subject, and tell them that if they continually do some nerve-wracking and annoying thing, you will do something that they won't like. Usually one word with a stern tone of voice will "nip it in the bud."You will find that your child will obey you better because they trust and respect you, and will love you ever more rather than progressively less and less.



GREAT FLICK -- I’m pausing the blog for a while because I must watch this funny, beautifully acted and ever interesting movie called “Marley and Me,” from 2008. These viewer reviews cover an interesting range of reactions to it, and between them capturing the true nature of the movie, part happy, funny, deeply thought out and portrayed, and, yes, partly sad (not depressing to me). I PERSONALLY do not demand that any work of art be PG, or sentimentalized and simplistic. Not every movie is suitable for a five year-old, nor should they have to be great. This is my idea of the way a really great movie looks! STARS: Owen Wilson, Jennifer Aniston, Alan Arkin and Kathleen Turner and others.

Read about it below:

http://www.fandango.com/marley26me_112617/movieoverview


MARLEY AND ME
BY EZ1
Went to see it at a sneak preview and it is not the comedy they make it out to be. It is a sad and depressing story a dog that gets put to sleep in the longest death scene I have ever watched (they...

MARLEY & ME
BY KGROSS1257
Awesome movie. Real tearjerker. Fuuny, sad, tender. Only problem was I took my young daughter who was bawling at the ending and I spent the rest of the night consoling her....


MARLEY AND ME
BY JBELLS
As a parent I was anticipating a wonderful holiday outing with my family, which included my young nine year old daughter, to watch the movie Marley and Me. My expectations, since we were viewing a...

NOT FOR KIDS AT ALL!
BY MELRIVSONS
I cannot believe this movie had a PG rating. With swearing, sex, skinny dipping, and talk of "bong hits", it should be no less than PG-13! I was uncomfortable and so were my husband and three boys. I...

READ PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
BY IMNDANCE
If you liked this movie you obviously have a lot of problems! I never have seen a movie that was soooo depressing. I HATED this movie. This movie was definately NOT a comedy. On Christmas day, I...

IT WAS JUST OK FOR ME~
BY LUVDATENITES
There was too much story in too little time and definitely not for little ones! It was way too much movie for them, from the story line to the adult content. This was one I wish I'd waited to RENT~...

.THE WORLD'S BEST DOG .
BY MELADAWY
Best Christmas movie ever. Moving story that touches the heart and is so real. I cried so much but I loved Marley and his family. Marley is a great dog...

MARLEY AND ME GREAT FAMILY MOVIE
BY CAB2DKB
What a great movie to take the family to, this movie has everything, comedy, drama, and a good story line. I would love to see more movies made like this in the future. i think this one could win...




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-voters-should-take-a-hard-look-at-clinton-emails-report/

Sanders: Voters should take a "hard look" at Clinton emails report
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS FACE THE NATION
May 29, 2016, 10:01 AM

Play VIDEO -- Full interview: Bernie Sanders, May 29
Play VIDEO -- Sanders won't go after superdelegates from states Clinton won


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said in an interview airing Sunday that voters will need to take a "hard look" at the State Department audit criticizing Clinton for her use of a private email server, but stopped short of going after her directly for it.

"The Inspector General just came out with a report, it was not a good report for Secretary Clinton. That is something that the American people, Democrats and delegates are going to have to take a hard look at," he said. "But for me right now, I continue to focus on how we can rebuild a disappearing middle class, deal with poverty, guarantee health care to all of our people as a right."

Back in the fall, at the first Democratic debate, Sanders famously said he was "sick and tired of hearing about [her] damn emails," and it's not an issue the Vermont senator has used against Clinton on the campaign trail.

Sanders said he believes he doesn't have to focus superdelegates' attention on the IG report.

"They will be keeping it in mind. I don't have to tell them that," Sanders said. "I mean, everybody in America is keeping it in mind, and certainly the superdelegates are."

Despite the steep mathematical odds facing him for the Democratic nomination, Sanders said he would not try to get the support of superdelegates in states Hillary Clinton won overwhelmingly. He has focused his efforts on trying to flip superdelegates in states where he won big victories.

"Hillary Clinton won Mississippi by a huge vote. Should I convince super delegates there to vote for me when she won that state overwhelmingly? No, I shouldn't," he said in a Saturday interview for CBS "Face the Nation."

"But we won states -- you know -- like Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire in landslide victories," he continued. "And I do believe that the super delegates, whether it's Clinton's or mine -- states that we won -- super delegates in states where a candidate wins a landslide victory should listen to the people in those states and vote for the candidate chosen by the people."

He addressed the influence of superdelegates, saying the primary process isn't "rigged" against him because of superdelegates--just that it's "dumb."

"You have a situation where over 400 super delegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast," he said. "That's not rigged, I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."

The Vermont senator, whose campaign has been sustained by record small-dollar donations, said he is the candidate with grassroots enthusiasm--and that an uninspiring Clinton at the top of the ticket could keep Democratic turnout low in November.

"We have the energy and enthusiasm in our campaign that Clinton's campaign frankly in my view does not have. That can generate a large voter turnout in November," he said. "Democrats win when the voter turnout is high. We can generate that. Republicans win when the voter turnout is low. Frankly, I don't know that Secretary Clinton's campaign can create a high voter turnout."

Sanders reiterated that he would not depend on any super PACs in the general election if he were to be the Democratic nominee, despite the billions of dollars that will be spent on the Republican side.

"Right, we will continue what we are doing. We will depend on the middle class," he said. "And an incredible number of small individual campaign contributions is how we'll fund our campaign and it is how we will win the national election."



“Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said in an interview airing Sunday that voters will need to take a "hard look" at the State Department audit criticizing Clinton for her use of a private email server, but stopped short of going after her directly for it. "The Inspector General just came out with a report, it was not a good report for Secretary Clinton. That is something that the American people, Democrats and delegates are going to have to take a hard look at," he said. "But for me right now, I continue to focus on how we can rebuild a disappearing middle class, deal with poverty, guarantee health care to all of our people as a right." …. Despite the steep mathematical odds facing him for the Democratic nomination, Sanders said he would not try to get the support of superdelegates in states Hillary Clinton won overwhelmingly. He has focused his efforts on trying to flip superdelegates in states where he won big victories. "Hillary Clinton won Mississippi by a huge vote. Should I convince super delegates there to vote for me when she won that state overwhelmingly? No, I shouldn't," he said in a Saturday interview for CBS "Face the Nation." "But we won states -- you know -- like Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire in landslide victories," he continued. "And I do believe that the super delegates, whether it's Clinton's or mine -- states that we won -- super delegates in states where a candidate wins a landslide victory should listen to the people in those states and vote for the candidate chosen by the people." …. "We have the energy and enthusiasm in our campaign that Clinton's campaign frankly in my view does not have. That can generate a large voter turnout in November," he said. "Democrats win when the voter turnout is high. We can generate that. Republicans win when the voter turnout is low. Frankly, I don't know that Secretary Clinton's campaign can create a high voter turnout."


Just like Charlie Brown, Bernie’s a good man! He’s fair, even to Hillary and the DNC, who haven’t been fair to him. Hillary's a creature of the moment, and I don’t deeply dislike her. I just don’t trust her, or respect her as much as I used to. She and Bill were a good pair, but on her own she has often been disappointing to me. The DNC is another matter, however. If things are as they seem to me to be, and the DNC has gone lock stock and barrel over to the Dark Side, they will lose many members within the next year or so, and there will be a Draft Bernie movement, even if he himself is not actively promoting it. If he does step to the lead, the DNC is going to face that party split that, if they are smart, they will fear. They will do well to give Bernie what he wants in the way of fair representation in this convention and in the future. He has been an important champion for democracy and the needs of the many over those of the few.

Trust me, there are few if any among the Republicans who will do anything to help the poor, and the groundswell of deep discontent will simply continue grow. I pray in my Unitarian way for the future of our country. On the fate of nations, see the Wikipedia article below on Tytler, who seems to have been a great man in his own time, though I had never heard of him. I had only heard the statement that a democracy can only last around 200 years. He actually said that democracies WILL degenerate back to a situation of “bondage” for the citizens. I can see from this article that his work has been studied by those who fear the welfare state or a condition of Socialism - conservatives in other words. For myself, I’m just so tired of the vileness in a condition of unqualified rule by any other form than a democratic one that I’m ready to move from a usually conservative Republic to a true democracy. These may or may not be his words, they have been attributed to another man also, but whatever is correct about that, they are arresting. I think that if we keep on top of our game we can make it without giving in to some despot. Ponder Donald Trump in connection with this. It isn’t just that I think his thinking pattern is chaotic, but that he is so willful and vengeful to those who dispute his right to absolute power. He was at his top when he was on the ridiculous TV show telling people with great relish, “You’re fired!”


Wikipedia Excerpt -- “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”



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

Alexander Fraser Tytler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee FRSE (15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813) was a Scottish advocate, judge, writer and historian who served as Professor of Universal History, and Greek and Roman Antiquities at the University of Edinburgh.[1]

Life[edit]

Tytler was born in Edinburgh, the eldest son of William Tytler of Woodhouselee (author of Inquiry into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots) and his wife, Ann Craig of Costerton.[2]

In 1780 he was appointed joint professor of Civil History at Edinburgh University. In 1790 he became Judge Advocate of Scotland. In 1802 he became a Lord of Session in the Scottish Courts, with the judicial title Lord Woodhouselee.[3]

Tytler's other positions included Senator of the College of Justice and George Commissioner of Justiciary in Scotland.[4] Tytler was a friend of Robert Burns, and prevailed upon him to remove lines from his poem "Tam o' Shanter" which were insulting to the legal and clerical professions.[5]

He died at his townhouse on Princes Street in Edinburgh and was buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard. The vault lies on the west side of the section known as the Covenanter's Prison which is generally closed to public view.[2]

Translation[edit]

Tytler wrote a treatise that is important in the history of translation theory, the Essay on the Principles of Translation (London, 1791).[6] It has been argued in a 1975 book by Gan Kechao that Yan Fu's famous translator's dictum of fidelity, clarity and elegance came from Tytler.

Tytler said that translation should fully represent the 1) ideas and 2) style of the original and should 3) possess the ease of original composition.

Quotations on democracy[edit]

In his Lectures, Tytler displayed a cynical view of democracy in general and representative democracies such as republics in particular. He believed that "a pure democracy is a chimera", and that "All government is essentially of the nature of a monarchy".[7]

In discussing the Athenian democracy, after noting that a great number of the population were actually enslaved, he went on to say, "Nor were the superior classes in the actual enjoyment of a rational liberty and independence. They were perpetually divided into factions, which servilely ranked themselves under the banners of the contending demagogues; and these maintained their influence over their partisans by the most shameful corruption and bribery, of which the means were supplied alone by the plunder of the public money".[7]

Speaking about the measure of freedom enjoyed by the people in a republic or democracy, Tytler wrote, "The people flatter themselves that they have the sovereign power. These are, in fact, words without meaning. It is true they elected governors; but how are these elections brought about? In every instance of election by the mass of a people—through the influence of those governors themselves, and by means the most opposite to a free and disinterested choice, by the basest corruption and bribery. But those governors once selected, where is the boasted freedom of the people? They must submit to their rule and control, with the same abandonment of their natural liberty, the freedom of their will, and the command of their actions, as if they were under the rule of a monarch".[8]

Tytler dismisses the more optimistic vision of democracy by commentators such as Montesquieu as "nothing better than an Utopian theory, a splendid chimera, descriptive of a state of society that never did, and never could exist; a republic not of men, but of angels", for "While man is being instigated by the love of power—a passion visible in an infant, and common to us even with the inferior animals—he will seek personal superiority in preference to every matter of a general concern".[9]

"Or at best, he will employ himself in advancing the public good, as the means of individual distinction and elevation: he will promote the interest of the state from the selfish but most useful passion of making himself considerable in that establishment which he labors to aggrandize. Such is the true picture of man as a political agent”.[9]

That said however, Tytler does admit that there are individual exceptions to the rule, and that he is ready to allow "that this form of government is the best adapted to produce, though not the most frequent, yet the most striking, examples of virtue in individuals”, paradoxically because a "democratic government opposes more impediments to disinterested patriotism than any other form. To surmount these, a pitch of virtue is necessary which, in other situations, where the obstacles are less great and numerous, is not called in to exertion. The nature of a republican government gives to every member of the state an equal right to cherish views of ambition, and to aspire to the highest offices of the commonwealth; it gives to every individual of the same title with his fellows to aspire at the government of the whole”.[10]

Tytler believed that democratic forms of government such as those of Greece and Rome have a natural evolution from initial virtue toward eventual corruption and decline. In Greece, for example, Tytler argues that "the patriotic spirit and love of ingenious freedom ... became gradually corrupted as the nation advanced in power and splendor”.[11]

Tytler goes on to generalise: "Patriotism always exists in the greatest degree in rude nations, and in an early period of society. Like all other affections and passions, it operates with the greatest force where it meets with the greatest difficulties ... but in a state of ease and safety, as if wanting its appropriate nourishment, it languishes and decays”. ... "It is a law of nature to which no experience has ever furnished an exception, that the rising grandeur and opulence of a nation must be balanced by the decline of its heroic virtues”.[11]

Misattribution[edit]

The following quotation has been attributed to Tytler, although it has also been occasionally attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville:[citation needed]

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

This text was popularised as part of a longer piece commenting on the 2000 U.S. presidential election, which began circulating on the Internet during or shortly after the election's controversial conclusion.[12]

There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having written any part of the text.[12] In fact, it actually comprises two parts which didn't begin to appear together until the 1970s. The first paragraph's earliest known appearance[13] is in an op-ed piece by Elmer T. Peterson in the 9 December 1951 The Daily Oklahoman, which attributed it to Tytler:

Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy”.[14]

The list beginning "From bondage to spiritual faith" is commonly known as the "Tytler Cycle" or the "Fatal Sequence". Its first known appearance was in a 1943 speech by Henning W. Prentiss, Jr., president of the Armstrong Cork Company and former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, delivered at the February 1943 convocation of the General Alumni Society of the University of Pennsylvania. The speech was subsequently published under the titles "The Cult of Competency"[15] and "Industrial Management in a Republic".[16]

May 28, 2016


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/protesters-and-police-clash-outside-donald-trump-rallies-in-california/

Protesters and police clash outside California Trump rallies
CBS/AP
May 27, 2016, 7:08 PM
Last Updated May 28, 2016 12:45 AM EDT

Photograph -- trump-fresno.jpg, Protesters yell as police officers form a skirmish line outside a rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in Fresno, California, May 27, 2016. REUTERS/NOAH BERGER
Play VIDEO -- Protests get ugly at Trump rallies in California
Photograph -- san-diego-trump-3.jpg, Anti-Trump protesters protest outside a venue where republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will speak in San Diego, California on May 27, 2016. MARK RALSTON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Play VIDEO -- Trump hits delegate mark for GOP nomination
Photograph -- san-diego-trump.jpg, Police arrest a person outside a Donald Trump rally in San Diego, California on Friday, May 27, 2016. CBS NEWS
Play VIDEO -- Donald Trump faces more angry protests in California


SAN DIEGO, Calif. -- Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told California voters Friday that he can solve their water crisis, declaring, "there is no drought."

Speaking at a rally in Fresno, Calif., Trump accused state officials of denying water to Central Valley farmers so they can send it out to sea "to protect a certain kind of three-inch fish."

"We're going to solve your water problem. You have a water problem that is so insane. It is so ridiculous where they're taking the water and shoving it out to sea," Trump said to cheers at a rally that drew thousands.

Trump's rallies Friday in Fresno and San Diego drew vocal crowds of protesters under heavy police presence.

More than a thousand Trump opponents demonstrated outside San Diego's convention center, some engaging in shouting matches with the candidate's supporters.

Many protesters carried signs critical of his plan to wall off the U.S. border with Mexico, which runs just south of the city. Some waved Mexican flags and one man broke apart a Trump piñata with a pole.

Numerous opposition groups, from organized labor to immigration advocates, marched to the center and demonstrated outside, CBS affiliate KFMB reported. Protests turned violent Tuesday in Albuquerque, leading to concerns about security in San Diego.

Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman told reporters earlier Friday that law enforcement would not tolerate violence, disruptive behavior or unlawful acts at the Trump event.

"The safety of our public is paramount," Zimmerman said. "The whole goal is to provide a safe environment for everyone."

The department had a "significant presence" of uniformed and plainclothes officers at the bayside gathering and has coordinated with state, local and federal agencies to promptly put a stop to any combative or destructive protesters or counter-protesters, the chief said.

The city designated demonstration zones -- one for Trump supporters and another for those who oppose the 69-year-old billionaire's presidential bid -- on the northwest and southeast sides of the Harbor Drive center and will strictly monitor attendees' behavior while ensuring their constitutional free-speech rights, Zimmerman said.

San Diego police said a total of 35 people were arrested, according to KFMB. Officers were seen beating a man with batons after he attempted to scale a security barricade, CBS News correspondent Carter Evans reported.

Some people in the crowd eventually started throwing things, prompting police to declare an unlawful assembly and begin moving people out of the area. Police in riot gear maintained a huge presence as the crowd moved into the city's Gaslamp Quarter, KFMB reported.

View image on Twitter
Follow
Richard Allyn ‎@RichardCBS8
#SDPD disperses crowds after Trump rally: fights broke out, arrests made, pepper spray deployed: @CBS8 at 6:30
9:15 PM - 27 May 2016
10 10 Retweets 1 1 like

In the protest area, Martha McPhail of La Mesa held a "Dump Trump" sign.

"I am opposed to the hateful, bigoted, racist language of Donald Trump and his arrogance and intolerance," McPhail told City News Service. "I'm for all of our people -- all races, sexes, genders, military veterans -- and he's divisive."

Bryan Sanders, a Tucson resident, said he came to San Diego because Trump needs to be stopped.

"Donald Trump is a fascist," said Sanders, 33. "He has no business being in American politics. He's un-American. His march toward power needs to stop, and it's gonna."

Sanders said he was injured at a previous Trump rally in his hometown.

Riley Hansen, a 19-year-old supporter, was selling pro-Trump T-shirts and said he likes the candidate's business knowledge.

"My dad always told me you need a businessman as president," the Orange County resident said. "I like his policies. We need the border wall built."

Tami Eshelman of Lake San Marcos said she came to hear Trump speak and to show her support. She said she wants to find out who would serve on his team, such as cabinet members, if he's elected.

Trump has reached the required number of delegates to officially clinch the Republican nomination, according to a CBS News estimate.

Earlier Friday in Fresno, Trump said he spent 30 minutes before the rally meeting with more than 50 farmers who complained to him about their struggles.

"They don't understand -- nobody understands it," he said, adding that, "There is no drought."

Trump appeared to be referring to water that runs naturally from the Sacramento River to the San Francisco Bay and then to the ocean. Some farmers want more of that flow captured and diverted to them. The three-inch Delta smelt is a native California fish on the brink of extinction. The smelt has become an emblem in the state's battles over environmental laws and water distribution.

Politically influential rural water districts and well-off corporate farmers in and around California's Central Valley have been pushing back against longstanding federal laws protecting endangered fish and other species, saying federal efforts to make sure endangered native fish have enough water is short-changing farmers of the water they want and need for crops.

Water authorities say they can't do it because of the water rights of those upstream of the farmers, and because of the minimum-water allowances needed by endangered species in the bay and by wildlife in general.

The farm lobby, a heavyweight player in California's water wars, also is seeking federal and state approval for billions of dollars in new water tunnels, dams, water distribution plans, and other projects.

Trump said, "If I win, believe me, we're going to start opening up the water so that you can have your farmers survive."

California is the country's No. 1 agriculture producer. The state's five-year drought is raising the stakes in water disputes among farmers, cities and towns, and environmental interests. California last year marked the driest four-year period in its history, with record low rainfall and snow.



“Earlier Friday in Fresno, Trump said he spent 30 minutes before the rally meeting with more than 50 farmers who complained to him about their struggles. "They don't understand -- nobody understands it," he said, adding that, "There is no drought." Trump appeared to be referring to water that runs naturally from the Sacramento River to the San Francisco Bay and then to the ocean. …. California is the country's No. 1 agriculture producer. The state's five-year drought is raising the stakes in water disputes among farmers, cities and towns, and environmental interests. California last year marked the driest four-year period in its history, with record low rainfall and snow.” There is no drought." “The state's five-year drought is raising the stakes in water disputes…”

I truly don’t understand where Trump is getting the impression that there “is no drought.” Pictures of the dried up reservoirs, the mud bottom so dry that it is cracked have been in the news for at least a year. California is and always has been a dry state, and it will get worse because of “climate change,” or as the scientists and politicians used to call it more honestly, “global warming.” Due to clamor from the Republicans who don’t want to stop the extreme emissions of CO2, methane and other pollutants which are a byproduct of the burning of the ever so lucrative carbon fuels; our government obediently stopped using the term “global warming” a few years ago, and replaced it with “climate change.” That leaves the issue nice and vague, so you can’t point the finger at anyone.

"The Republicans have also blocked the passage of bills that will promote research, production and improvements of solar, wind and the 8 or 10 other types of renewable energy. The “leave it in the ground” movement is anathema to the GOP, for obvious reasons. If they weren’t so silly they would switch over to renewables as well, and thus keep making money. They even deny that certain molecules are causing the earth to become less able to get rid of the heat by trapping it around the earth’s surface. We need the sun’s heat, of course, but after it strikes the earth and does its’ magic, it needs to float back up to the layers above our atmosphere and make room for more. At this point it moves upward and hits our CO2 and methane concentrations in the upper atmosphere, from which it is reflected back toward the earth again and thus trapped as heat. One article explained it as the passage of sunlight down into the atmosphere happens fairly easily, but the passage of heat – due to the fact that heat has “longer waves” than light has. We need heat, but too much is a disaster in the making. Republicans tend to call that “pseudoscience,” and just another screwy liberal idea.

Our dear Governor Rick Scott, in answer to a question about it from a reporter said “I’m no scientist.” That’s because he’s bright enough to know better, but he didn’t want to buck the party line. Some of those folks have denied stridently that there is any such thing as global warming and others say that mankind is not capable of changing the climate by their activities.

In this case, it is the farmers who are complaining that they don’t want any restrictions on how they use water, and that the “little three-inch fish” is not important enough to try to save. When people say things like that they clearly are not thinking about the fact that those big, yummy fish have to have small fish to eat, or they will die. It’s called the chain of life, and it’s being violated over and over again in our mechanized and industrial age. We just don’t need the food chain anymore, apparently.

The farming industry is a large part of CA’s economy which is, indeed, not an unimportant issue, and the farmers do need water, of course; but they need to reuse it in my opinion and use the most up to date techniques which can save water. An article was in the news this last couple of years about a new watering method that injects the water underneath the top layer down where the roots are growing. When those big spraying machine roll up and down the rows of plants that water doesn’t sink down to where it is needed, and that water on the top simply evaporates. Talk about waste! Likewise, cities are beginning to recycle water after home use. Yuck, you say! It can be stripped of chemicals and bacteria and, if that isn’t clean enough, we add chlorine. One mayor, Flint, MI, I think, was on the news personally drinking some of the Flint River water to show it’s okay and isn’t harming the mental and physical health of the citizens there. (No, it isn’t now because after the damning government report, they “got on the stick,” and started treating the water as they should have all along. Whether we like it or not, recycling is the pattern of the future. All of that is the case not because “there is no drought” but because we have to get used to having to use our vital resources much more carefully from now on.

So what about that drought? Debunking global warming theory is an ongoing and highly cynical attack from big industry, especially concerning the burning of coal and oil products by power plants and motor vehicles. The fascinating article below is one of those “scientific” studies, that Republicans use to back up their activities. Their “source,” PSI, is roundly excoriated by another called “desmogblog” which is also found “below.” It states that PSI has been linked to the creation and dispersal of more than one fringe theory, including of course the idea that CO2 actually COOLS the atmosphere. Well, as Scott said, “I’m no scientist,” but I tend to think that this “naturalnews” article is pure propaganda. (There’s that word “natural,” again, also.)

Whenever I see the word “natural” used to promote a medicine, food, or anything else, I am convinced that it is very likely worthless. Everything is “natural” if it is not specifically manmade, just as anything that can be eaten and digested is also “organic.” The use of that word to imply high quality and very high prices (note the recent scandalous case of Whole Foods being caught drastically inflating their prices for their precious “organic” food), is nothing but a common way to sell so many products to very gullible and status conscious people (if it’s costly, then it’s super cool). False sales practices should be against the law.

In a business law course I took years ago I was introduced to the fascinating word, “puffery.” That refers to many types of exaggerated claims made by manufacturers simply to make more and more money on them, and which lie within a fuzzy delineation that escapes being sheer fraud by a hairs’ breadth, being therefore “legal.” It may be legal, but it’s not moral or ethical. I would get rid of the laws that protect those scam artists if I were President. It’s like Trump University. Go to the Internet and look that up to find yet another reason NOT to vote for the scumbag.


http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.
. . . .


WHO IS Principia Scientific International (PSI)? This is a very good and informational article, and I like it especially because its’ name, if broken down in syllables, looks to be “de smog blog!” Somebody’s having a little fun here!

http://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international

Principia Scientific International
Background

Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. [1]

PSI claims it provides its members with a “reliable port of call to ascertain the facts behind the news stories to better judge whether information being presented by third parties is accurate information and reflects a balanced view of all facets of the subject.” [2]

The PSI website says the organization is “for everyone who supports the traditions [sic] scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded 'post normal science'.”

The group claims on its website to be a “not-for-profit community interest subsidiary of PSI Acumen Ltd.” [2]

PSI Acumen was registered with Companies House in the UK in March 2013 (see PDF) as a private company, with an address in Battersea Park Road, London. In July 2013, the business address of PSI Acumen was changed (PDF) to an address in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, which is the same as the home address of John O'Sullivan, the organization's founder and chief executive officer. PSI Acument LTD was dissolved (PDF) on October 15, 2014. [3], [4], [5]

The two named directors were John O'Sullivan, of the UK, and a Walter James O'Brien, with a US address listed in Fargo, North Dakota. Emails published by climate skeptic blogger Pete Ridley suggest that Walter James O'Brien no longer has any connection to the PSI Acument company. [3], [6]

Principia Scientific reports that one of their “proudest endeavors is the ongoing support given to world-leading independent climatologist, Dr Tim Ball,” who is also a founding member and former chairman of PCI. [7]

Stance on Climate Change

PSI regularly publishes commentary which claims that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and that it could actually cool the planet. For example, in an article published in November 2013, “PSI Staff” wrote: [8]

Scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI), who peer-reviewed Nahle's paper, are currently advising colleagues that the most reliable data available now confirms that CO2 is shown to act as a coolant in earth's climate. As such, the notion of a so-called 'greenhouse gas' warming effect may be regarded as refuted, while environmental measures by governments and individuals to reduce “carbon emissions” to combat climate change are, in turn, rendered pointless.

In 2013, PSI also began to promote unfounded claims that wind turbines make people sick and that childhood vaccines were “one of the largest most evil lies in history.” [9]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

Post-normal science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post-normal science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent" (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). It is primarily applied in the context of long-term issues where there is less available information than is desired by stakeholders.

According to its advocates,[who?] post-normal science is simply an extension of situations routinely faced by experts such as surgeons or senior engineers on unusual projects, where the decisions being made are of great importance but where not all the factors are necessarily knowable. Although their work is based on science, such individuals must always cope with uncertainties, and their mistakes can be costly or lethal.

Because of this, advocates of post-normal science suggest that there must be an "extended peer community" consisting of all those affected by an issue who are prepared to enter into dialogue on it. These parties bring their "extended facts", that will include local knowledge and materials not originally intended for publication, such as leaked official information. A political case exists[citation needed] for this extension of the franchise of science, but Funtowicz and Ravetz also argue that this extension is necessary for assuring the quality of the process and of the product.

Context[edit]

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduced the concept of normal science as part of his theory that scientific knowledge progresses through socially constructed paradigm shifts, where normal science is what most scientists do all the time and what all scientists do most of the time. The process of a paradigm shift is essentially as follows:

from normal science (the rules are agreed upon or disagreed upon in debates that cannot be concluded; science is puzzle solving, but some contradictions in theory cannot be resolved)
to revolutionary science (important rules are called into question; contradictions may be resolved; paradigms shift)
to new normal science (new rules are accepted, science returns to puzzle solving under new rules). . . . .

Another example is the question of whether light is a particle or a wave. For a long time there was debate on this point. Advocates on both sides had many valid arguments based on scientific evidence but were lacking a theory that would resolve the conflict. After a revolution in thinking, it was realized that both perspectives could be true.

Physicist and policy adviser James J. Kay described post-normal science as a process that recognizes the potential for gaps in knowledge and understanding that cannot be resolved in ways other than revolutionary science. He argued that (between revolutions) one should not necessarily attempt to resolve or dismiss contradictory perspectives of the world, whether they are based on science or not, but instead incorporate multiple viewpoints into the same problem-solving process. Post-normal science is discussed by Carrozza (2015) [1] in relation to the concept of democratization of expertise. For this scholar two important sources in the development of Post-normal science are Jerome Ravetz's Scientific knowledge and its social problems and Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz's Uncertainty and quality in science for policy.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-law-unc-margaret-spellings/

UNC system takes a stance on controversial bathroom law
AP May 28, 2016, 10:13 AM

Photograph -- Margaret Spellings, president of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, speaks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on June 24, 2015, in Washington. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Play VIDEO -- 11 states sue gov't over transgender school bathroom rules
Play VIDEO -- His, Hers, Theirs
Play VIDEO -- Mixed reaction to Obama administration directive on transgender students
Play VIDEO -- Texas official claims Obama transgender rules are "blackmail"
Play VIDEO -- Trump says transgender rights should be left to the states


RALEIGH, N.C. -- The University of North Carolina system told a federal court Friday that it won't enforce a law requiring transgender students to use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates.

The declaration came in a motion asking a federal court to halt civil legal proceedings against the university system while a higher court decides a separate case on transgender rights from Virginia.

University system President Margaret Spellings wrote in an affidavit that, pending the outcome of the North Carolina case: "I have no intent to exercise my authority to promulgate any guidelines or regulations that require transgender students to use the restrooms consistent with their biological sex."

The university system's lawyers went further, noting in a filing that the state law contains no enforcement mechanism and the university system also hasn't "changed any of its policies or practices regarding transgender students or employees."

"There is nothing in the Act that prevents any transgender person from using the restroom consistent with his or her gender identity," the lawyers wrote.

They ask the federal judge to halt proceedings against the university system pending the outcome of a case on transgender rights being heard by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia as well as a separate case by the federal Department of Justice against North Carolina.

Five dueling cases over the law are pending in federal courts in North Carolina.

The UNC System had been named as a defendant along with Gov. Pat McCrory in a case filed on behalf of plaintiffs including students and university employees. Plaintiffs say the law requiring them to use restrooms matching the sex on their birth certificate is discriminatory.

Separately, a three-judge panel of the Virginia appeals court gave a favorable ruling to a transgender student seeking to use high school restrooms in line with his gender identity. The Virginia school board he sued has asked for a new hearing before the full appeals court. That case hinges on a federal antidiscrimination law that's also central to the North Carolina cases.

The North Carolina law enacted in March requires transgender people to use restrooms corresponding with the sex on their birth certificate in public schools, universities and many other public buildings. It also excludes gender identity and sexual orientation from statewide antidiscrimination protections.

In a recent letter, McCrory asked Congress to clarify U.S. Civil Rights Act protections. The May 18 letter to U.S. House and Senate leaders asks them to act in light of Justice Department and Education Department instructions stating the federal law's protections apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. McCrory disagrees.

Friday's filings go a step further than previous statements by Spellings, who had lamented in a May 9 letter to the Justice Department that the system was "in a difficult position" caught between state and federal laws.

"Spellings is just being whipsawed," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "She's in a tough spot, as is the system. They're trying to do the best they can by their different constituencies."

He said the request for a stay was sensible considering that the outcome of the Virginia case will likely dictate how the federal judges decide the North Carolina lawsuits.

"The district judges in North Carolina are probably not going to do anything other than what the 4th Circuit says," he said.



“The University of North Carolina system told a federal court Friday that it won't enforce a law requiring transgender students to use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates. The declaration came in a motion asking a federal court to halt civil legal proceedings against the university system while a higher court decides a separate case on transgender rights from Virginia. …. The university system's lawyers went further, noting in a filing that the state law contains no enforcement mechanism and the university system also hasn't "changed any of its policies or practices regarding transgender students or employees." "There is nothing in the Act that prevents any transgender person from using the restroom consistent with his or her gender identity," the lawyers wrote. …. Plaintiffs say the law requiring them to use restrooms matching the sex on their birth certificate is discriminatory. …. . It also excludes gender identity and sexual orientation from statewide antidiscrimination protections. In a recent letter, McCrory asked Congress to clarify U.S. Civil Rights Act protections.


“Plaintiffs say the law requiring them to use restrooms matching the sex on their birth certificate is discriminatory.” It’s not only discriminatory, it will be somewhere between a nightmare and a Marx Brothers comedy to enforce. Are we all going to have to carry our birth certificates around with us now?? Seriously, though, if gender identity and sexual orientation are not protected, that will open up the doors to decriminalizing all manner of abuse, even physical. In the old days some 15 years ago, men especially were beaten up or even killed by drunken, rowdy rednecks setting things straight with “the American Way.” That rarely made the news, and it may not have been very common either, but some men who didn’t look masculine enough have been beaten to death, raped with objects, etc., so it shouldn’t be left up to the often prejudiced and corrupt local authorities to enforce the law. The Civil Rights law needs to cover it, and if it doesn’t yet, it should be amended to do so.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-city-police-officer-gun-bystander-video/

Cop in hot water after pulling gun on bystander in video
CBS/AP
May 21, 2016, 3:32 PM

Video -- CBSN report


NEW YORK -- A New York City police officer shown on video pointing his gun at a bystander who was filming a police encounter has been stripped of his gun and badge.

The incident happened Thursday at a public housing complex in Manhattan's Harlem neighborhood.

A video posted on Facebook shows two officers struggling with a man on the floor when one of them orders bystanders to move back. The video shows the officer then pulling out his gun and shouting, "I'm not playing."

Ronnie Pinkerton Jr. was in the crowd that witnessed the incident. He told CBS New York the crowd believed the officer was using excessive force.

"He has him in a headlock between his legs, so his head is in between his legs, and he's kind of like squeezing, so as he's doing that, he's telling us to back up. But you're overreacting, you're using too much physical strength on him, so we're telling him ... 'You're bugging out,'" Pinkerton said. "So he pulled out his gun. He says, 'Back up! Back up! Back up!'"

Police said the man had been resisting arrest after riding an illegal dirt bike and fleeing from police.

Another video shows the same officer later punching another man in the face before arresting him.

Police said that man, 19-year-old Jahnico Harvey, was arrested for menacing and disorderly conduct, CBS New York reports.

A police spokesman says internal affairs investigators are probing the incidents.



A video posted on Facebook shows two officers struggling with a man on the floor when one of them orders bystanders to move back. The video shows the officer then pulling out his gun and shouting, "I'm not playing." Another video shows Pinkerton hitting another man in the face. The CBSN video states that the officer has been stripped of his gun and badge and “placed on modified duty.” Why are people like that not fired??



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-not-rigged-just-dumb/

Bernie Sanders: Democratic primary not "rigged," just "dumb"
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS
May 28, 2016, 5:06 PM

Video -- Face The Nation
26 PHOTOS -- Bernie Sanders: Everything you need to know


After Donald Trump announced Friday that he would not debate Bernie Sanders, despite being the first one to float the idea, Sanders said Saturday that Trump's change of heart is exactly the kind of flip-flopping he's come to expect from the presumptive Republican nominee.

"Donald Trump said he wanted to go forward, then he changed his mind, said no, then he changed his mind and said yes, then he changed his mind and said no," Sanders told "Face the Nation" moderator John Dickerson in an interview taped for Sunday's broadcast. "Maybe we'll get a call in five minutes and he'll say yes again. I think that is who Donald Trump is, and I think the American people should be very concerned about somebody who keeps changing his mind not only on this debate, but on virtually every issue he's been asked about."

In a press release declining the debate, Trump suggested the Democratic primary is "totally rigged" to prevent Sanders from winning, and that it would be "inappropriate" for him to debate a "second-place finisher."

Dickerson asked Sanders, who trails Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates as the end of primary season approaches, whether he agrees with Trump's characterization.

"Well, I've been very touched by Donald Trump's love for me," Sanders replied sarcastically. "But John, you know, with all due respect, I think there may be some aspect of this which he thinks will advantage himself. So I do appreciate his love and his compassion for me, but I don't really accept his words."

Turning to the underlying question, Sanders explained, "We knew when we were in this, that we were taking on the entire Democratic establishment. No great secret about that. And yet we have won twenty states, we're in California right now, I think we have a good chance to win here. I think we have an uphill fight, but there is just a possibility that we may end up at the end of this nominating process with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. "

"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word 'rigged' because we knew what the rules were -- but what is really dumb, is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where three million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate," Sanders added. "You have a situation where over 400 super delegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged, I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."

For more of the interview with Sanders, tune into "Face the Nation" tomorrow. Check your local listings for airtimes.



"Donald Trump said he wanted to go forward, then he changed his mind, said no, then he changed his mind and said yes, then he changed his mind and said no," Sanders told "Face the Nation" moderator John Dickerson in an interview taped for Sunday's broadcast. "Maybe we'll get a call in five minutes and he'll say yes again. I think that is who Donald Trump is, and I think the American people should be very concerned about somebody who keeps changing his mind not only on this debate, but on virtually every issue he's been asked about." …. Turning to the underlying question, Sanders explained, "We knew when we were in this, that we were taking on the entire Democratic establishment. No great secret about that. And yet we have won twenty states, we're in California right now, I think we have a good chance to win here. I think we have an uphill fight, but there is just a possibility that we may end up at the end of this nominating process with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. " …. "You have a situation where over 400 super delegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged, I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."


The business with the Superdelegates lined up behind Hillary 8 months before all the contestants were in position, and certainly before the election, really is unfair to the max, and it does look “rigged” to me. Why are there superdelegates anyway? Could it be for any reason other than a mechanism for discounting the popular vote? I did hear a news commentator say sometimes within this last year, “It’s Hillary’s turn now.” It’s becoming, as we used to say, a “good old boys’ network” and that stinks. we don't need coronations. I just don’t trust the DNC anymore. They’re a country club and I need a political party which will conduct serious business. I do hope Sanders will take the lead in a party split after November, unless they do “open up their hearts and let the sun shine in” at this convention. Sanders should get more “planks” in the platform at the very least. $15.00 an hour should be the law. Rent, gasoline and groceries keep going up in price!



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-judge-trump-university-case-election-2016/

Donald Trump rails against Hispanic judge in Trump University case
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
May 28, 2016, 12:44 PM

Play VIDEO -- Angry protests dog Trump campaign in Calif.


Donald Trump went after the federal judge presiding over a civil case against the now-defunct Trump University Friday, calling out the judge's ethnicity in an attack spanning several minutes at a San Diego campaign rally while protests against Trump's anti-immigrant policies raged outside.

"I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump -- a hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel. And he is not doing the right thing," Trump told supporters, kicking off a 12-minute rant in California, where he was campaigning ahead of the state's June 7 primary.

Curiel, who was first appointed by President Obama as a judge for the Southern District of California in 2011 (and later confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a voice vote), is overseeing a six-year-old lawsuit against Trump's education venture. The case -- one of many lawsuits against Trump University -- alleges that people who paid up to $35,000 for real estate were defrauded. The billionaire, according to his lawyer, is expected to testify in the class-action suit, which goes to trial in San Diego in November.

"We're in front of a very hostile judge," Trump went on. "The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he's given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative."

"What happens is the judge, who happens to be -- we believe -- Mexican. Which is great. I think that's fine," he said. "You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, OK?"

Curiel was born in East Chicago, Indiana. Curiel's parents, however, are Mexican, according to a 2002 New York Times report of the judge's work in the Southern District of California's narcotics enforcement division.

Later, Trump called for an investigation into Curiel, who the presumptive presidential nominee said should "be ashamed of himself."

"I'm telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel," Trump said. "Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK?"

This is far from the first time Trump has attacked the federal judge.

In February, Trump posited that Curiel was biased against him because of his policy positions on immigration and his proposals to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"I think it has to do perhaps with the fact that I'm very, very strong on the border, very, very strong at the border," Trump told Fox News in an interview. "He has been extremely hostile to me."

The network's interview followed another of Trump's tirades, at a February rally in Arkansas, where the real estate mogul had trashed Curiel for overseeing a case that he believed should have been thrown out years ago.

"There's a hostility toward me by the judge -- tremendous hostility -- beyond belief," Trump said then. "I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine. He's Hispanic -- which is fine."



"I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump -- a hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel. And he is not doing the right thing," Trump told supporters, kicking off a 12-minute rant in California, where he was campaigning ahead of the state's June 7 primary. Curiel, who was first appointed by President Obama as a judge for the Southern District of California in 2011 (and later confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a voice vote), is overseeing a six-year-old lawsuit against Trump's education venture. The case -- one of many lawsuits against Trump University -- alleges that people who paid up to $35,000 for real estate were defrauded. …. Curiel was born in East Chicago, Indiana. Curiel's parents, however, are Mexican, according to a 2002 New York Times report of the judge's work in the Southern District of California's narcotics enforcement division. Later, Trump called for an investigation into Curiel, who the presumptive presidential nominee said should "be ashamed of himself." "I'm telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel," Trump said. "Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK?" …. The network's interview followed another of Trump's tirades, at a February rally in Arkansas, where the real estate mogul had trashed Curiel for overseeing a case that he believed should have been thrown out years ago. "There's a hostility toward me by the judge -- tremendous hostility -- beyond belief," Trump said then. "I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine. He's Hispanic -- which is fine."


Donald Trump has a habit of repeating every sentence twice before he thinks of another one to say. Annoying. He keeps railing against Curiel in this article, without actually saying what the man has done to him that was so unfair. Most of what’s in this article is repetitive from earlier times, also. “Build a wall, yadda yadda yadda!” I have to look to see what he's doing each day, but it isn't fascinating.



http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-warns-hillary-clinton-running-mate-pick-n582196

Bernie Sanders Warns Hillary Clinton on Running Mate Pick
by JORDAN FRASIER
MEET THE PRESS
MAY 28 2016, 6:23 PM ET

Video -- Meet The Press


Senator Bernie Sanders doubled down on his warning to democratic rival Hillary Clinton that her pick for running mate will be critical to winning over his supporters going into the general election during an interview to air Sunday on "Meet the Press."

Follow
Meet the Press ✔ ‎@meetthepress
.@BernieSanders tells @ChuckTodd that @HillaryClinton shouldn't look to Wall Street for her VP pick #MTP
5:46 PM - 28 May 2016
9 9 Retweets 11 11 likes

"That means having a candidate who can excite working families, excite young people, bring them into the political process, create a large voter turnout," Sanders told Chuck Todd.

The Vermont senator was adamant that Clinton pick a hardline progressive for vice president if she successfully secures the Democratic nomination for president. This could help her appeal to the supporters who have flocked to Sanders' campaign during the primary.

Asked whether Virginia senator Tim Kaine, who's rumored to be on Clinton's short list, is the kind of running mate he's recommending, Sanders said, "I really like him very much," but declined any further speculation.

The full interview airs Sunday on "Meet the Press."

PLEASE NOTE: Due to NBC Sports programming, "Meet the Press with Chuck Todd" will air at different times this Sunday than its regular schedule in many markets. Revised broadcast times for this coming Sunday can be found here: http://nbcnews.to/1TZfNrM. The show may be pre-empted in some markets but will be available On Demand with video available online at MeetThePressNBC.com.


"That means having a candidate who can excite working families, excite young people, bring them into the political process, create a large voter turnout," Sanders told Chuck Todd. The Vermont senator was adamant that Clinton pick a hardline progressive for vice president if she successfully secures the Democratic nomination for president. This could help her appeal to the supporters who have flocked to Sanders' campaign during the primary. Asked whether Virginia senator Tim Kaine, who's rumored to be on Clinton's short list, is the kind of running mate he's recommending, Sanders said, "I really like him very much," but declined any further speculation.”

Sounds like good advice to me! I do believe it is true that Clinton needs to do something significant to placate the dislike for her that is growing among Progressives. She could start by acting less arrogant and smug, seeing that Sanders’ issues are a part of the platform, and then choosing a good reliable running mate. I do very much want the party to be unified because a Trump presidency is unthinkable. I am delighted that Sanders has proven himself a tough candidate and a leader with a message, which is resounding with the voters all across the country. He has made a point – the Democrats have been on that old path of theirs for too long already, and the party needs a thorough change.


Virginia senator Tim Kaine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (February 2015)

Tim Kaine
Tim Kaine, official 113th Congress photo portrait.jpg
United States Senator from Virginia Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 2013
Serving with Mark Warner
Preceded by Jim Webb
Chair of the Democratic National Committee
In office
January 21, 2009 – April 5, 2011
Preceded by Howard Dean
Succeeded by Donna Brazile (interim)
70th Governor of Virginia
In office
January 14, 2006 – January 16, 2010
Lieutenant Bill Bolling
Preceded by Mark Warner
Succeeded by Bob McDonnell
38th Lieutenant Governor of Virginia
In office
January 12, 2002 – January 14, 2006
Governor Mark Warner
Preceded by John Hager
Succeeded by Bill Bolling
76th Mayor of Richmond
In office
July 1, 1998 – September 10, 2001
Preceded by Larry Chavis
Succeeded by Rudy McCollum
Personal details
Born Timothy Michael Kaine
February 26, 1958 (age 58)
St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Anne Holton (1984–present)
Children Nat
Woody
Annella
Alma mater University of Missouri, Columbia
Harvard University
Religion Roman Catholicism
Signature
Website Senate website

Timothy Michael "Tim" Kaine (born February 26, 1958) is an American politician currently serving as the junior United States Senator from Virginia. A member of the Democratic Party, Kaine was first elected to the Senate in 2012.

Born in Saint Paul, Minnesota, Kaine is a graduate of Harvard Law School. Kaine began his career as a clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit before entering private practice and becoming a lecturer at the University of Richmond School of Law. Kaine was first elected to public office in 1995, when he won a seat on the Richmond, Virginia City Council. He was then elected Mayor of Richmond, Virginia in 1998, serving in that position until being elected Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 2002.

As all Virginia governors are limited to one consecutive term,[1] Kaine declared his candidacy for Governor of Virginia in 2005, in a bid to replace Mark Warner. Kaine won in an uncontested Democratic primary, and faced Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore in the general election; Kaine won with 51% of the vote, to Kilgore's 46%. Kaine served as Governor from 2006 to 2010. Upon becoming Governor, Kaine gave the Democratic response to the 2006 State of the Union Address. He was considered a top contender for running mate in Senator Barack Obama's successful 2008 presidential campaign, but instead became the 51st Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, serving from 2009 to 2011.

In 2012, after incumbent Senator Jim Webb announced that he would retire, Kaine declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Kaine prevailed in the Democratic primary and faced former Senator and Virginia Governor George Allen in the general election. On November 6, 2012, Kaine won with 53% of the vote, to Allen's 47%. Kaine was sworn into office on January 3, 2013.

BLOG II
The Sanders Movement 2016 – An Ongoing News Collection
Lucy Maness Warner


May 24 and 27, 2016

The Sanders campaign sent me this email. In it are the names of 8 up and coming new progressive candidates around the country. This effort to increase awareness and strengthen the organization of progressives could, you know, be the basis of a new political party – “Progressives” would be a fine name. Then we could build a group who are committed to the views of FDR, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, and others.

It’s time for the right thinking Americans to come together and replace the dangerous Rightist forces with social and economic fairness. I am sending Bernie’s email on in this blog to post their names and accomplishments, and to alert the public that some energy as well as hope is being put together to fight the influence of the Koch contaminated parties, some of whom used to be good friends. It’s sad, but sometimes truth is sad.


Bernie Sanders Today at 2:26 PM
To
Lucy Warner

Bernie Sanders for President

Lucy -
No president, not Bernie Sanders, not the greatest president you could possibly imagine, can take on the billionaire class alone. And that’s because change never happens from the top down, it always occurs from the bottom up.

That’s why today I am announcing my support for eight progressive state legislative candidates who embody the spirit of our political revolution.

Today, they are state representatives running for re-election or challenging to win their first race. Tomorrow, they’ll be progressives running for Congress and maybe even the presidency. And in 2020, they’ll help determine how congressional districts are drawn for the remainder of the next decade — a key to Democrats taking back and holding the House of Representatives for the decade to come.

It’s up to us to transform the future of the Democratic Party, and that’s why I am proud to ask:

Can I count on you to split a $28 contribution to our campaign and a great slate of progressive state legislative candidates as a way of saying we are going to fight to transform our country, and the Democratic Party, from the bottom up?

Justin Bamberg is a state representative from South Carolina who was an early endorser of Hillary Clinton’s campaign but switched his endorsement before the primary because of Bernie’s work for "racial, social, and economic justice." Justin won his last election by ONLY 113 votes and needs our support in what’s sure to be another close race this November.

David Bowen is the son of Jamaican immigrants who is running for his second term in the Wisconsin State Legislature. He fought for and won a living wage for Milwaukee city employees and is a progressive champion Wisconsin needs.

Clara Hart is a refugee from Mozambique whose family fled from violence when she was just 8 years old. Now she's running for the South Dakota House, where she hopes to continue her work for immigrant families.

Terry Alexander is a representative in the South Carolina legislature who supports raising the minimum wage, expanding health care, and protecting the right to vote. He is a courageous legislator who I'm proud to support.

Carol Ammons became the first African-American woman to win election in her district of the Illinois State Legislature, scoring an upset election victory against a well-funded establishment opponent. She's fighting for progressive issues and candidates and deserves our support.

Chris Pearson is running for the Vermont State Senate after spending four terms in the Vermont House of Representatives. He is a champion on the issues of livable wages, strong labor union advocacy, climate change, and voting rights. This year he was able to pass a bill into law for automatic voter registration. Chris is a good friend of working people and of mine.

Jane Kim is the first Korean American to win election in San Francisco, and she's running to become a California state senator. The daughter of immigrants, Jane is a civil rights attorney who's fought for affordable housing and fair wages in her city.

Joe Salazar is a representative to Colorado's state house who is a tireless advocate for stopping fracking, protecting civil rights, and advancing criminal justice reform. He won his last election by just 221 votes, and your support will go a long way to helping him win this year.

Can you split a $28 contribution to our campaign and these candidates as a way of saying we are going to fight to transform our country, and the Democratic Party, from top to bottom?
We are going to keep fighting for every vote, every delegate, and every state, but this moment also requires helping progressives who are fighting for change at the local level. That is the political revolution, and that’s why splitting your contribution between our campaign and this great slate of local candidates is so important.

In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-argues-harming-democratic-party-staying-race/story?id=39337863

Bernie Sanders Argues He's Not 'Harming' Democratic Party by Staying in the Race
By VERONICA STRACQUALURSI JOSH HASKELL
May 24, 2016, 12:41 PM ET


Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders argued today that he's "absolutely not" harming the Democratic Party by staying in the 2016 primary race, but rather "invigorating" the party.

"I don't think I'm harming the Democratic Party," Sanders said in an interview on ABC's "The View." "I think I'm invigorating American democracy and invigorating the Democratic Party. The establishment obviously doesn't like it. They would like us to go away and do things in the same old, same old."


Follow
ABC News Politics ✔ ‎@ABCPolitics
.@BernieSanders to @TheView: "Absolutely not" harming Democratic Party by staying in race, but "invigorating it"
11:44 AM - 24 May 2016
60 60 Retweets 76 76 likes
The Vermont senator, who continues to battle Democratic rival Hillary Clinton despite her delegate lead, also asserted that he's brought in more voters and suggested that his candidacy has helped the Democratic Party achieve an "unprecedented increase in voter registration among young people, among Latinos."

Sanders also clarified remarks he made in a recent interview with The Associated Press in which he said that the convention would be "messy."

Bernie Sanders Blasts Hillary Clinton's Refusal to Debate as 'Insulting' to Voters
Sanders to Have Increased Input in Democratic Party Platform
Sanders Makes Fundraising Appeal for Wasserman Shultz Primary Opponent
"People in America have the right to demonstrate," Sanders said on "The View." "It's kind of what the Constitution of the United States is."

"It goes without saying ... that I will condemn any and all forms of violence," Sanders said, adding, "I don't see anything wrong with a vigorous debate."



https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/phonebank


EMAIL -- May 21, 2016

BernieSanders.com May 21 at 7:44 PM
To
Lucy Warner

Bernie Sanders for President
Lucy:
A massive haul of 475 pledged delegates will be up for grabs in California's June 7th election. We hope to win a big majority of those.

Since this is a people-powered campaign, we're asking for your help – in any of the following four ways – to do that!

1. Call some California voters now. We're working to get as many Californians as possible registered to vote for Bernie before the voter registration deadline this Monday. Lots of voters – even those in other parties – are looking for the strongest candidate to beat Trump, and polls consistently show that that's Bernie.

MAKE CALLS TO CALIFORNIA NOW

2. Sign up to call California voters later. Since California offers online voter registration, we'll be making calls right up through the deadline Monday evening. And every voter we can register, or re-register as a Democrat (or "no party preference"), is another potential vote for Bernie.

SIGN UP TO MAKE SOME CALLS LATER

3. Share our California voter registration page on Facebook. If you have friends in California, tag them and ask them to spread the word too. Voter registration numbers are already trending up this year in the Golden State, so let's keep that momentum going!
SHARE ON FACEBOOK AND TAG SOME FRIENDS

4. Contribute to support our campaign. We don't take money from super PACs, and have shocked the political establishment by showing that Americans just like you are eager and ready to fund a grassroots campaign that's not beholden to wealthy donors. Your donation will help keep our political revolution rolling all the way into the Democratic convention in July.
CONTRIBUTE TO SUPPORT OUR CAMPAIGN

We're staying in this fight all the way to the convention, because we know that Bernie is the strongest candidate to beat Trump in the fall. Every state we win and every vote we earn strengthens our hand in delivering that message at the convention in Philadelphia, and signals to the political establishment that we will not accept the status quo of a corrupt political system that holds in place a rigged economy.
In solidarity,
Team Bernie



View ad and Sanders videos on this abc news site.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-air-california-15-million-ad-buy/story?id=39342613

Bernie Sanders Goes on the Air in California With $1.5 Million Ad Buy
By JOSH HASKELL
May 24, 2016, 3:15 PM ET


Although Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders' California campaign will still center around large-scale campaign rallies over the next two weeks, the campaign has decided to go on the airwaves with a $1.5 million dollar buy.

The ad will start airing in Los Angeles tomorrow, Fresno and Sacramento.

The 30-second ad shows California farmworkers, scenes of Venice beach and college students contrasted with images of Wall Street.

Bernie Sanders Argues He's Not 'Harming' Democratic Party
Bernie Sanders Blasts Hillary Clinton's Refusal to Debate as 'Insulting' to Voters
Bernie Sanders Will Have More Input in Democratic Party Platform

In the ad, Sanders explains how California has "the power to choose a new direction for the Democratic party.”

California holds its primary on June 7.



*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************



May 27, 2016


Sanders ups the ante

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0YH1ST

Politics | Thu May 26, 2016 8:34pm EDT Related: ELECTION 2016, POLITICS
Trump, Sanders explore staging unusual presidential debate
BISMARCK, N.D. | BY EMILY STEPHENSON

Video -- Trump: If world leaders are "rattled" by him that's a "good thing"
Video -- Trump says Clinton has "bad judgment"
Video -- Trump calls Sen. Warren: "a real disaster"
Video -- Clinton urges Sanders' followers to unite to stop Trump


Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders on Thursday explored staging an unconventional U.S. presidential debate that would sideline Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and create a television spectacle that could attract huge ratings.

The two men - a billionaire and a democratic socialist - expressed interest in a one-on-one encounter in California even though Republican and Democratic presidential candidates traditionally do not debate each other until the parties have selected their nominees.

"I'd love to debate Bernie," Trump told reporters in North Dakota, after he secured enough delegates to clinch the Republican presidential nomination. "I think it would get very high ratings. It would be in a big arena."

Basking in his newly sealed nomination at a later campaign rally in Billings, Montana, Trump said he expected to put 15 states in play in the general election, compared with three or four for a traditional Republican. He named California, Washington and Michigan among others.

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email there were no formal plans yet for a debate. But Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN there had been "a few discussions" between the campaigns about the details.

"We hope that he will not chicken out," Weaver said. "We hope Donald Trump has the courage to get on stage now that he said he would."

Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, is running far behind Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination for the Nov. 8 presidential election.

But a nationally televised debate with the presumptive Republican nominee would be a big boost to his chances in the California primary on June 7, when Clinton is likely to clinch the nomination.

Trump said a debate with Sanders could raise up to $15 million for charity.

"I'd love to debate Bernie, but they'll have to pay a lot of money for it," he said.

The idea was hatched during an appearance by Trump on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" late on Wednesday. Kimmel said he asked Trump about the debate at the suggestion of Sanders, who is scheduled to appear on the show on Thursday night.

"Game on," Sanders tweeted. "I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary."

'NOT A SERIOUS DISCUSSION'

Clinton, who backed out of an agreement to debate Sanders before the California vote, said she did not think a Trump-Sanders showdown would happen.

"This doesn’t sound like a serious discussion. I’m looking forward to debating Donald Trump in the general election. I really can’t wait to get on the stage with him," she told CNN in a phone interview.

A Fox News spokeswoman confirmed the network was trying to host a forum with Trump and Sanders. Representatives from other networks did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

"If it does come to pass, it would generate enormous ratings," said Alan Schroeder, a Northeastern University professor who has written extensively about presidential debates. "They are from two different planets. You have a real personality contrast. It would dominate media coverage."

Sanders, who has promised to continue his campaign through the Democratic nominating convention in July, has said he will do everything he can to ensure that Trump does not win the White House.

"Smart and bold move by Sanders," Democratic strategist Brad Bannon said. "The Clinton people are furious but Bernie wins points for being so aggressive.”

Clinton has tried to woo Sanders supporters as she turns her attention to the general election. But some Democrats worry his supporters - who are largely young, working-class and disillusioned with the Democratic Party establishment - will turn instead to political neophyte Trump, who has championed a populist agenda.

The debate would give Trump a national forum to criticize Clinton and try to win over Sanders supporters ahead of an expected Trump-Clinton general election contest, Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis said.

"I think Sanders should think long and hard about giving Trump a forum," Kofinis said. "It crosses a line, but apparently in this election there is no line."

Dale Ranney, 62, a Trump volunteer who has been to 21 of his rallies, said she would be delighted to see Trump and Sanders debate.

“I think it’s a great idea, any time you can get more information to the people, absolutely," Ranney said. "Having Trump debate a socialist? Absolutely. Go for it."

(Additional reporting by Emily Flitter in New York, Megan Cassella, James Oliphant and Alana Wise in Washington, Lisa Richwine in Los Angeles; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Alistair Bell and Peter Cooney)



EXCERPTS -- "If it does come to pass, it would generate enormous ratings," said Alan Schroeder, a Northeastern University professor who has written extensively about presidential debates. "They are from two different planets. You have a real personality contrast. It would dominate media coverage." Sanders, who has promised to continue his campaign through the Democratic nominating convention in July, has said he will do everything he can to ensure that Trump does not win the White House. "Smart and bold move by Sanders," Democratic strategist Brad Bannon said. "The Clinton people are furious but Bernie wins points for being so aggressive.”…. The debate would give Trump a national forum to criticize Clinton and try to win over Sanders supporters ahead of an expected Trump-Clinton general election contest, Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis said. "I think Sanders should think long and hard about giving Trump a forum," Kofinis said. "It crosses a line, but apparently in this election there is no line." …. “I think it’s a great idea, any time you can get more information to the people, absolutely," Ranney said. "Having Trump debate a socialist? Absolutely. Go for it."


What happens when a Democratic Socialist gets his dander up after years of being a minority of one in the Senate? Elected year after year by his loyal following, he fought on stubbornly refusing to change his path toward the right like most of the Democrats. As a result he became a little bit unpopular, or as one put it "a lone wolf."

I personally don’t think many at all of his true followers would ever switch to a man like Trump, but they might join in if a third party, “Progressives,” perhaps, were to emerge. Sanders has promised not to do that until after the November election, but I wouldn’t discount the idea once Trump is either beaten or perhaps wins…

There are many whites, blacks and purples in this country who want the Democratic Party to either man up for the people, or face a challenge. I think the true threat to the Democratic Party of today is the unfortunate fact that so many of its (effectively silenced) members actually believe in, or at any rate espouse, a viewpoint very similar to that of Sanders. So far they have been an amorphous group, but along came Sanders with the picture of what, to me, is a REAL Democrat. The result has been a spontaneous Bern. It’s really a mistake for the Clintonites to pretend that in an age of intense and intensifying poverty in this country which is directly threatening the Middle Class itself, Sanders’ views are “radical.” What they are is the right thing, and with a little persistence and courage, can become the path of the future.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fbi.html?_r=0

Die-Hard Bernie Sanders Backers See F.B.I. as Answer to Their Prayers
By YAMICHE ALCINDORMAY 27, 2016

Photograph -- According to polls, a growing number of supporters backing Senator Bernie Sanders have said they will not support Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination. Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times
Photograph -- Bernie Sanders’s supporters at a recent rally in National City, Calif. Credit Mike Blake/Reuters


ANAHEIM, Calif. — Senator Bernie Sanders may be trailing Hillary Clinton by hundreds of delegates, and Mrs. Clinton may be treating the Democratic nomination as hers, but Julie Crowell, a stay-at-home mother and a die-hard Sanders supporter, is holding out for an 11th-hour miracle: divine deliverance at the hands of the F.B.I.

Like many of Mr. Sanders’s supporters, Ms. Crowell, 37, said she hoped that Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state would eventually yield an indictment, and she described it as the kind of transgression that would disqualify another politician seeking high office.

“She should be removed,” said Ms. Crowell, of Tustin, Calif., who attended a Sanders rally here on Tuesday and said she planned to vote for a third-party candidate if Mr. Sanders failed to overtake Mrs. Clinton and capture the Democratic nomination. “I don’t know why she’s not already being told, ‘You can’t run because you’re being investigated.’ I don’t know how that’s not a thing.”

Campaigning in California, where polls show a tightening primary race, Mr. Sanders continued to hit Mrs. Clinton over her positions on Wall Street, trade deals, the minimum wage, hydrofracking and “super PACs” — seemingly everything except her emails, which he famously took off the table as an issue during an early Democratic debate. But Mrs. Clinton faces renewed criticism after an inspector general’s report faulted her for violating the State Department’s records-retention policy. And as the F.B.I. continues its investigation into the handling of classified information, attendees at Sanders rallies have repeatedly expressed hope that the scandal would result in criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton.

“If there’s any chance of her getting indicted, they shouldn’t even consider her for the nomination,” said Zachary O’Neill, 21, of Escondido. “We can’t have a criminal in the White House.”

And what would be a more colossal comeuppance to the Democratic establishment?

“We can’t go back and undo giving her the Democratic nomination,” said Jennifer Peters, 28, of Costa Mesa.

Ms. Peters added that if Mrs. Clinton had broken the law, she should be held accountable. “I’m hoping that the F.B.I. sends a strong message to people like her, as well as other people in politics who are using their position of power to manipulate the system for their own personal advancement,” Ms. Peters said. “She feels like she can do whatever she wants with absolute impunity, and that she somehow is above any type of repercussions.”

Polls show that an increasing number of Sanders supporters say they will not vote for Mrs. Clinton in November’s general election. It’s a position not unlike that held by many of her supporters in 2008 before they eventually rallied around Barack Obama. And while Mr. Sanders has said he will do all he can to defeat Donald J. Trump, the level of vitriol for Mrs. Clinton coursing through Mr. Sanders’s audiences lately — where “Bernie or Bust” signs are commonplace and the mention of his rival prompts boos or shouts of insults like “corporate puppet” — suggests that party unity might be even more difficult to achieve this time. Sanders supporters have also begun to protest at Mrs. Clinton’s events with signs that read, “Where are Hillary’s emails?”

Ms. Peters, who makes a living selling goods online, said that she would not vote for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstance — and that she would blame the Democratic Party for a Trump victory in November.

“If the D.N.C. wants to go ahead and put out the candidate who can’t win and we lose in November, it’s not because I didn’t vote,” she said. “It’s because they were looking out for their interests and not for the better interests of the country.”

Not everyone at Mr. Sanders’s rallies is dreading a Trump victory, however.

Victor Vizcarra, 48, of Los Angeles, said he would much prefer Mr. Trump to Mrs. Clinton. Though he said he disagreed with some of Mr. Trump’s policies, Mr. Vizcarra said he had watched “The Apprentice” and expected that a Trump presidency would be more exciting than a “boring” Clinton administration.

“A dark side of me wants to see what happens if Trump is in,” said Mr. Vizcarra, who works in information technology. “There is going to be some kind of change, and even if it’s like a Nazi-type change. People are so drama-filled. They want to see stuff like that happen. It’s like reality TV. You don’t want to just see everybody be happy with each other. You want to see someone fighting somebody.”

Jackie Becerra, 28, an executive assistant who lives in Lake Forest, also said she was leaning toward voting for Mr. Trump if Mr. Sanders was not the Democratic nominee. She said that she doubted Mr. Trump would keep his promise to build a wall along the border with Mexico, and that, even though his proposal to bar foreign Muslims from entering the United States made her “nervous,” she did not believe he could stop people from coming into the country based on their religion.

“Everyone is like: ‘Trump has these terrible social issues. He hates Muslims and he hates the L.G.B.T. community,’ ” she said. “But our world is big enough that he’s not actually going to implement any of those changes in a realistic way. But what he will do is potentially audit the federal government, and he will try to break up some of the banks and try to at least influence government that way. However, with Hillary, it will just be a complacent, run-of-the-middle-of-the-road presidency.”

Such thinking worries Pete Navarro, 65, a lawyer in Los Angeles who supports Mr. Sanders but said he planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton if she was the eventual Democratic nominee. “I think it’s a mistake to demonize Hillary Clinton,” he said. “I think that just serves Republican purposes. It’s chopping your nose off to spite your face.”

Yet the email investigation keeps coming up in conversations with Mr. Sanders’s supporters, who are all too aware of Mrs. Clinton’s delegate lead and increasingly desperate for an equalizer.

“If Bernie had 12 F.B.I. agents investigating him, the way Hillary has,” said Robert Jost, 50, of San Diego, “the entire establishment, the entire mainstream media, would every day be consistently saying he should drop out of the race.”



“Ms. Peters added that if Mrs. Clinton had broken the law, she should be held accountable. “I’m hoping that the F.B.I. sends a strong message to people like her, as well as other people in politics who are using their position of power to manipulate the system for their own personal advancement,” Ms. Peters said. “She feels like she can do whatever she wants with absolute impunity, and that she somehow is above any type of repercussions.” …. “If there’s any chance of her getting indicted, they shouldn’t even consider her for the nomination,” said Zachary O’Neill, 21, of Escondido. “We can’t have a criminal in the White House.” And what would be a more colossal comeuppance to the Democratic establishment? “We can’t go back and undo giving her the Democratic nomination,” said Jennifer Peters, 28, of Costa Mesa. Ms. Peters added that if Mrs. Clinton had broken the law, she should be held accountable. “I’m hoping that the F.B.I. sends a strong message to people like her, as well as other people in politics who are using their position of power to manipulate the system for their own personal advancement,” Ms. Peters said. “She feels like she can do whatever she wants with absolute impunity, and that she somehow is above any type of repercussions.” …. Yet the email investigation keeps coming up in conversations with Mr. Sanders’s supporters, who are all too aware of Mrs. Clinton’s delegate lead and increasingly desperate for an equalizer. “If Bernie had 12 F.B.I. agents investigating him, the way Hillary has,” said Robert Jost, 50, of San Diego, “the entire establishment, the entire mainstream media, would every day be consistently saying he should drop out of the race.” …. “She should be removed,” said Ms. Crowell, of Tustin, Calif., who attended a Sanders rally here on Tuesday and said she planned to vote for a third-party candidate if Mr. Sanders failed to overtake Mrs. Clinton and capture the Democratic nomination. “I don’t know why she’s not already being told, ‘You can’t run because you’re being investigated.’ I don’t know how that’s not a thing.”


One of Hillary’s problems is that she has skirted around the borders of the rules during her entire career, from the yuuge amount of money she made speculating on the stock market -- honestly or not, it seemed as though an illegal act may very well have been committed -- while Bill Clinton was in office, to a certain personal arrogance that is involved in this email controversy and in some of her comments. Her facial expression, also, seems smug. That just doesn’t make folks like her. I personally do not believe that she transferred any government information to shadowy third parties, but that she has “played fast and loose” and plans to keep doing so doesn’t appeal to me and most other Americans.

It’s her basic honesty and willingness to grab for power in order to advance herself that annoys me most. What CONCERNS me most, however, is that I agree with those in the crowd who jeered at her as a “corporate puppet.” This whole problem with Wall Street and the perhaps truly evil Koch Brothers is that they are a fascist power that has been manipulating the thoughts and beliefs of the under-educated in this country, merely to gain more and more political and economic control. They are an international threat as well as a US power. Trump is small potatoes compared to them.



http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/26/trump-sanders-debate-would-be-hillary-clintons-worst-nightmare-commentary.html

Trump-Sanders debate would be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare
Jake Novak | @jakejakeny
Thursday, 26 May 2016 | 10:40 AM ET

Photographs -- Getty Images, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (l) and Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (c, r).
Related -- Donald Trump, Top three reasons Donald Trump is surging in the polls right now
Related -- U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
Related -- The three biggest mistakes Hillary Clinton is making right now
Related -- Donald Trump is winning over Wall Street—here's who they're afraid of now


Just when you thought the 2016 election was starting to get a little predictable, a big wrench has been thrown into the works.

A Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders debate in the coming days before the June 7th California primary is getting closer to becoming a reality. If this happens, it will likely be a huge boost for Sanders, a mild aid to Trump, and -- to borrow the key buzz word of this election so far – a YUGE pain in the neck for Hillary Clinton.

For Sanders, this entire election has been a "nothing to lose" proposition. He was given no chance to even make a dent in Mrs. Clinton's inevitable coronation, er presidential nomination, by the Democrats. And as a lifetime Senate backbencher, he was not in danger of losing a chairmanship or leadership position. While it's basically impossible for Sanders to overtake Clinton in the delegate battle, the latest PPIC poll shows Sanders trails her by just two percentage points among likely California primary voters.

Needless to say, if Sanders wins this primary it will wound Mrs. Clinton greatly. And Sanders chances to do just that would rise if this debate comes off. The contest would no doubt be the most-watched event in Sanders' political life and Clinton wouldn't even be there to defend herself. For a campaign that's been suffering a number of failures lately, its refusal to debate Sanders and setting off this alternative contest vs. Trump is perhaps the biggest failure yet. She can't even benefit from a sympathy factor if Trump and Sanders get too nasty in attacking her in absentia, because her absence is entirely her own fault.

It's also not wise for Clinton to allow any major campaign event to occur without her participation. With many right wing and progressive voters still hoping she may be disqualified from the race if she is indicted over her State Department email scandal, this kind of "Clinton-less" event gives them a taste of what they've been praying for all year.

The only potential negative for Sanders is he's wading into waters vs. Trump that he's not quite used to. His battle with the Clinton campaign has become nastier of late, but it's nothing compared to what Donald Trump's opponents have had to face over the past 10 months. Sanders can get pretty nasty himself, as many of his Senate colleagues can tell you, but even though he can fight fire with fire against Trump it doesn't mean that's the kind of image he wants to present to undecided voters in California and nationwide.

If the debate gets so nasty that it becomes an embarrassment on the level of some of the GOP debates earlier this year, the Clinton campaign could possibly get some traction by claiming it was staying above an unnecessary nasty fray all along. Sanders, by contrast, could come off looking like the Democratic Party home wrecker the Clinton forces have been portraying him to be for last month. But Mrs. Clinton and establishment Democrats and Republicans have been acutely tone deaf about the new and rising tolerance the voters have had for nastiness in this new social media dominated world. It goes with the territory.

So what's in this for Trump? He already has the California primary sewn up, and he seems to be getting into a groove attacking Clinton. At the same time, he's been sending almost daily encouragement to Sanders' camp with comments about how the Democratic Party primary process is rigged against him. So why would Trump seemingly take his eye off the Clinton ball and simultaneously risk angering even the few Sanders voters who could potentially switch over to him or just stay home in the general election?

The answer is the exposure will be worth it, even for the overexposed Trump. Right now, Trump's #1 best goal is to prove to as many people as possible that he's not crazy. And a relatively cordial, yet lively, debate vs. fellow firebrand Sanders would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. And each and every moment Trump and Sanders seem to be on the same page about Hillary Clinton's record or choreographed path to the Democratic nomination will be extremely helpful to the Trump camp. Trump's winning image as an outsider can only be enhanced by a sustained national TV appearance with fellow outsider Sanders.

The only unanswered question is how the Clinton camp will be able to stay out of this debate as the publicity and excitement over it grows. "The best thing Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta could do is call everyone's bluff and get Hillary to show up to the debate after all, eliminating Trump from the podium. But the Clinton campaign has been about predictability for years now and no matter how disastrous the outcome, it's desperately sticking to the script.

Commentary by Jake Novak, supervising producer of "Power Lunch." Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.



http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-27/prodded-by-trump-sanders-doesnt-say-yes-or-no-to-independent-white-house-run

Prodded by Trump, Sanders Doesn’t Say Yes - or No - to Independent White House Run
The Vermont senator, appearing on late-night TV, says he wants to face Trump as the Democrats’ nominee “and beat him bad.”
By Gabrielle Levy | Political Reporter
May 27, 2016, at 10:39 a.m.


Bernie Sanders on Thursday laughed off Donald Trump's attempts to goad him into launching an independent bid for president, but notably did not rule out the prospect.

"I think there is a little bit of self-service there from Donald Trump," the Vermont senator said in an appearance on "Jimmy Kimmel Live."

Kimmel had given Trump, who appeared on his show Wednesday, an opportunity to pass on a question for Sanders.

"Bernie, you have been treated very unfairly," the Republicans' presidential nominee asked, according to Kimmel. "Both primary systems are rigged, but in particular the Democrats' ridiculous system of superdelegates. Will you run as an independent when [Democratic National Committee Chairwoman] Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the party bosses steal this nomination away from you?"

"You think he's really worried about me?" Sanders joked. "I really appreciate his concern for me. I know it comes straight from his heart."

But he didn't directly answer the question.

"What I hope will happen is in fact that I will run against him as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States," he said, "and if I do, we're going to beat him and beat him bad."

The host had given Sanders the same option ahead of Trump's appearance; Sanders asked if Trump was willing to debate, and the former reality television star said he would – for charity.

Trump, who has nicknamed him "Crazy Bernie," has for several weeks feigned concern for Sanders, playing off Sanders' supporters accusations that the Democratic National Committee had tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton, the party's front-runner.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump
Bernie Sanders has been treated terribly by the Democrats—both with delegates & otherwise. He should show them, and run as an Independent!
12:07 PM - 26 Apr 2016
12,289 12,289 Retweets 30,408 30,408 likes

With just a handful of states yet to hold their primaries, Sanders trails Clinton by nearly 300 pledged delegates and more than 3 million votes. To overtake her, Sanders would have to win 68 percent of the delegates still available – far exceeding the 46 percent he has so far – and convince a majority of superdelegates to swing his way.

If Sanders were indeed considering a third-party run, however, it would contradict his vow not to do so if he lost the Democratic nomination.

"If it happens that I do not win that process, would I run outside of the system? No," he told the Hispanic Chamber of Congress in July. "I made the promise that I would not and I'll keep that promise."

Jane Sanders, his wife and a top campaign surrogate, reiterated the pledge after Trump made sympathy for Sanders' treatment a regular part of his stump speech.

"We've been very clear right from the beginning that we will not play the role of spoiler," his wife, Jane Sanders, told CNN in late April. "The reason that he was active and he decided to run in the Democratic Party was just that: We cannot afford a Republican in the White House. We cannot afford a Republican appointing Supreme Court justices. So Bernie will not be running as an independent."

Still, Democrats have publicly worried that Sanders, having fallen out of real contention in the primary but refusing to drop out, would damage Clinton's ability to unite the party against Trump in the fall.

At campaign rallies, the senator has vacillated, sometimes toning down his rhetoric against Clinton and aiming his fire at Trump, but other times blasting Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and the system he says has hamstrung his campaign.

While Sanders has promised to fight for every vote through the end of the primaries – and is doing everything he can to keep his supporters engaged – he has privately assured Democrats he will work for unity.

Last week, Sanders called several Senate colleagues, insisting he would go to bat for Clinton if she were the nominee.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZB8Lg1tcA

Bernie Sanders FULL SPEECH at Liberty University (C-SPAN)
Published on Sep 14, 2015
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA. He did Q&A following his remarks. Watch the complete event here: http://cs.pn/1EXH2Sy


To my readers, I suggest that you listen to this Youtube. In it, Sanders quotes the Torah and Jesus very effectively to his Liberty University audience; plus he simply and truthfully lays out his views including those that are unabashedly Socialist. He is that most uncommon of all things, a honest man. Student comments are below.


COMMENTS

Ryan Sandoval
Ryan Sandoval8 months ago

Republicans are corporate Socialists.
Bernie is a populist Socialist.

Pick and choose your Socialist. I think I'll choose the populist. #feelthebern #Bernie2016


Evan Oswald8 months ago

I'm glad somebody told these kids…


LDPercussion
LDPercussion4 months ago

+Evan Oswald I'm not quite sure what you are referring to specifically, but it's not like these students are ignorant and stupid like a lot of people on this web site believe. They have minds and a free will to believe what they want just like any other university. You can be taught anything, that doesn't mean you have to follow that and believe it. From past experiences, I can tell you that Liberty University does not brain wash its students, (And no I'm not saying this because I am) they give the students the option to agree or disagree with the beliefs that the university holds. I'm not stating that you are making claims against anything I am saying here, but many of the comments are and I though I would reply.


big Cahuna8 months ago (edited)

At some point, hopefully, candidates will discuss the damage lobbying does to America. The news media must not be controlled by the corporate CEOs


american muslim girl8 months ago

I'm glad that some people in the audience supported him. I can't believe they invited him. I think he needed to cater his speech, not to the fact that they are Christian and religious, but to the fact that they have been lied to their entire lives about poor people and rich people, and WHY the system is this way. His regular crowds already get that. These young, Christian, mostly white college students still think the world is fair, and both poor people and rich people get what they deserve, and that everyone has a chance in the system the way it is today. That is what he should have told them, but they live in different worlds. Bernie doesn't understand how much they've been lied to because he wasn't lied to like I was and they are when he was young.


Vurtax1 month ago

And actually, just to really drive y point home. Any actual Christian -ESPECIALLY in regards to aouthern baptists - see the prosperity gospel as heresy.



These comments go on and on as usual, but some are more coherent and fair-minded to me than others and I chose a few of those. Go to the Youtube website for the whole thing. His speech is eloquent as usual, and impassioned. The difference between the passion of Sanders and that of Trump is in content and spirit. Sanders is a “little-d democrat,” which does not preclude his being a Socialist. Socialists are not Communists, but economic reformers. The US may be a republic as the Republicans predictably like to stress, but it is based on social fairness and has strongly democratic characteristics. That’s all I care about, and I will fight verbally and with my votes to see it retained. As a result, I am his loyal follower.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-supporters-file-emergency-injunction-calif-primary/story?id=39419096

Bernie Sanders Supporters to File Emergency Injunction Against Calif. Primary, City Attorney Says
By DAVID CAPLAN
May 27, 2016, 11:59 AM ET

TWEET – Follow SF City Attorney ✔ ‎@SFCityAttorney, #BREAKING: Bernie #Sanders backers will seek emergency injunction in federal court on Friday, May 27, in #CAPrimary http://bit.ly/1U9Wewu,
12:36 AM - 27 May 2016
Photograph and text -- Photo published for Sanders backers will seek emergency injunction from federal court on Friday in Calif. Primary -... Sanders backers will seek emergency injunction from federal court on Friday in Calif. Primary -... Defending San Francisco, Herrera calls it unfortunate that plaintiffs would ‘inject confusion and uncertainty into an election that has been underway for weeks’ SAN FRANCISCO (May 26, 2016)—Attorneys... sfcityattorney.org


Attorneys representing a group of Bernie Sanders supporters informed San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera Thursday night that they plan to file an "emergency request" with U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in the city today "for a preliminary injunction" in California's June 7 presidential primary," Herrera's office said.

"I think it's unfortunate -- and selfish, frankly -- that these plaintiffs would inject confusion and uncertainty into an election that has been underway for weeks," Herrera said in a statement Thursday night. "San Francisco's Department of Elections and its employees have been doing an exemplary job, and I'm equally confident that our co-defendants are also meeting or exceeding their legal duties. This lawsuit is without merit, and there is no basis for an emergency injunction. I intend to fight it aggressively."

Voting by mail began in California May 9.

A news release from the Office of the City Attorney, noted, "San Francisco, Alameda County, and state elections officials were sued last week by an unincorporated association of Sanders backers called the 'Voting Rights Defense Project,' who together with the American Independence Party and two San Francisco voters leveled an array of allegations in their May 20 civil complaint that Herrera calls wholly baseless."

The release continued, "The activists are seeking sweeping injunctive relief in their suit, including provisions to force 58 counties to segregate ballots already cast by unaffiliated voters; to allow "re-votes" by those voters for presidential primary candidates; and to extend the state's voter registration deadline -- which passed on May 23 for eligibility to vote in the June 7 primary -- until election day itself."

Bill Simpich, one of the San Francisco-based lawyers representing the group, said, "The main relief we are asking for is for the independent voters -- non-party preference or NPP -- to be able to vote for president on June 7 without tying up the voting lines and avoiding a situation of mass confusion.”

“We are asking the judge for an order that the poll workers be trained to inform voters that NPP voters have a separate presidential ballot rather than the voter having to ask for one, and that PSAs be sent out to all voters about how to vote NPP given the “We are asking the judge for an order that the poll workers be trained to inform voters that NPP voters have a separate presidential ballot rather than the voter having to ask for one, and that PSAs be sent out to all voters about how to vote NPP given the incorrect mandatory notices mailed out by government officials across the state, and to ensure that there are enough ballots for everyone to vote,” he told ABC News., and to ensure that there are enough ballots for everyone to vote,” he told ABC News.

"We believe the City Attorney is confused about what the problems are: 50 percent of the NPP voters want to vote Democratic. As of May 24, only 14 percent of them have received their ballots. Half to 2/3 of the whole state votes by mail. Hundreds of thousands of votes at stake. The deadline to have the elections officials mail your ballot to you is May 31."

Sanders has not issued a statement on the matter.



“A news release from the Office of the City Attorney, noted, "San Francisco, Alameda County, and state elections officials were sued last week by an unincorporated association of Sanders backers called the 'Voting Rights Defense Project,' who together with the American Independence Party and two San Francisco voters leveled an array of allegations in their May 20 civil complaint that Herrera calls wholly baseless." The release continued, "The activists are seeking sweeping injunctive relief in their suit, including provisions to force 58 counties to segregate ballots already cast by unaffiliated voters; to allow "re-votes" by those voters for presidential primary candidates; and to extend the state's voter registration deadline -- which passed on May 23 for eligibility to vote in the June 7 primary -- until election day itself." …. “We are asking the judge for an order that the poll workers be trained to inform voters that NPP voters have a separate presidential ballot rather than the voter having to ask for one, and that PSAs be sent out to all voters about how to vote NPP given the incorrect mandatory notices mailed out by government officials across the state, and to ensure that there are enough ballots for everyone to vote,” he told ABC News.


“… incorrect mandatory notices mailed out by government officials across the state ….” This move by CA Dems rivals Richard Nixon for pure “dirty tricks.” Anything to gain ground in a hard-fought neck to neck race. The public may weigh in on this dispute in a way that is devastating. Between writing in Bernie’s name on ballots or “staying home,” to actually voting for Trump it is very likely that the Dems will win in an election that was considered to be guaranteed to go in their favor.

The DNC is so concerned about maintaining their business oriented platform and the exclusion, pure and simple, of Bernie Sanders, that they’re willing to lose to a crook. If Sanders does start a new party, hopefully called Progressives, I will join it. If the Clintonites do succeed in suppressing the populist vote, I plan to write them a clearcut letter withdrawing my membership from the Democratic Party and stating why. They will rue the day that they are balking at the simple expedient of letting Bernie into the deliberations in a fair way. They also need to eliminate the Superdelegate process as anti-democratic. People are turning against the mainstream DNC and I'm willing to bet that they will lose not only votes, but members.




http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/senate-bernie-sanders-223538

Newly powerful Sanders flexes Senate muscles
Suddenly a national figure, he's injecting himself into legislative fights from the campaign trail.
By Seung Min Kim
05/26/16 05:18 AM EDT

Photograph -- Bernie Sanders gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 16. | AP Photo
Related: Bernie Sanders camp: We're getting 'zero' pressure from Dems to drop out
Photograph -- 05_hillary_clinton_29_ap_1160.jpg, The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails, By NICK GASS
Photograph -- 04_Hillary_clinton_4_gty_1160.jpg, State Dept. watchdog: Clinton violated email rules, By RACHAEL BADE, JOSH GERSTEIN and NICK GASS


Far away from the halls of Congress, as he continues to rankle Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, Bernie Sanders is fashioning a new role for himself in the Senate: The next Dr. No.

The Vermont senator, remade as one of the best-known members of Congress, is throwing his weight against some of the most significant bipartisan deals pending in Congress this year. He’s actively urging Senate Democrats to reject a deal reached by House Republicans and the Obama administration to ease Puerto Rico’s debt crisis and has emerged as one of the few opponents of a landmark overhaul of chemical safety laws — the first major environmental legislation in a generation.

Sanders’ stands against those measures are the first signs of how he intends to leverage his newfound notoriety to become a force for the left in Congress once his presidential run ends. Asked how influential Sanders would be on these and other issues once he returns to the Senate, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded: “Very.”

“He’s grown a movement, and he is the leader of it, although there are others,” Schatz added. “I think his voice is louder and stronger than ever.”

But Sanders’ contrarian positions on legislation are showing signs of irritating colleagues in the close-knit chamber, where work gets done only by collaboration and with consent. Of Sanders’ opposition to recent deals such as the Puerto Rico legislation and the Toxic Substances Control Act, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) responded: “Bernie’s always been that way.”

“Why do you think Bernie doesn’t have any more senators that are out there beating the drum for him?” added Manchin, who has long worked on the chemical safety measure. “He’s sincere as a heart attack. I like him, he’s a good guy, brings a lot to the table, but doesn’t have a lot of answers for the problems that we’re dealing with.”

Sanders has long been an iconoclastic voice of the left in the Senate, but his positions have generally drawn little notice. Before he launched his campaign last year, the most recent time he had commanded serious national attention was when he waged an eight-hour speech railing against renewal of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 — a maneuver that dazzled liberals.

But, at whatever point he comes back to the Senate, Sanders is poised to be more powerful than ever, backed by more than 2 million Twitter followers and millions more admirers nationwide who’ll be looking to him to help set the progressive agenda.

That means Sanders’ active opposition to the Puerto Rico deal could be the first test of his post-campaign influence in the Senate. He circulated a letter earlier this week urging fellow Democrats to kill the deal and find a solution that doesn’t, in his view, shortchange residents of the beleaguered island territory.

Senate Democrats have been generally reluctant to weigh in on the details of the Puerto Rico legislation. But some liberals, such as Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), are showing some distaste over the House package. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), on the other hand, has endorsed the bill, which passed a key House panel on Wednesday.

There was already opposition to the Puerto Rico deal brewing among Senate Democrats without Sanders’ letter, Durbin said, and there have been objections from unions — a critical constituency for Sanders and Democrats.

Sanders has been speaking out on the Puerto Rico debt crisis since last summer, but privately there is some suspicion among Democrats that his aggressive tack against the Puerto Rico compromise is political posturing ahead of the island’s June 5 caucuses. The campaign didn’t return a request for comment.

“I think Bernie is irrelevant to this,” a top Democratic aide said.

A number of provisions in the Puerto Rico deal are problematic for Sanders and other congressional Democrats, including language that allows the governor of the island territory to cut the minimum wage to $4.25 an hour. Sanders and other liberal Democrats are also taking aim at a new oversight board that would oversee Puerto Rico’s finances under the new legislation, because a majority of the members would be chosen by Republicans.

Like Sanders, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) opposes the House Puerto Rico deal. But Menendez, who endorsed Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid on Wednesday, dismissed Sanders’ proposal to fix the island’s finances, calling it the “ultimate corporate bailout” because under it, the Federal Reserve would guarantee bonds.

The chemical safety legislation is much less of a fight for Sanders than is Puerto Rico. But his opposition to the deal is notable because the agreement is backed by a broad spectrum of senators — from Barbara Boxer of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts on the left to Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and David Vitter of Louisiana on the right.

Boxer, a key Democratic negotiator on the chemical safety bill and a top Clinton surrogate, noted Wednesday of Sanders: “He was absent from the entire negotiation session.”

“If he were to call me, I could explain to him why this is really important to get done, because it’s better than current law,” Boxer added. “If he were to stop the bill — which I don’t think he will — he would be stopping helping children who have childhood cancers. He would be stopping the ability to go after chemicals that are stored near a water supply. And he would be stopping the ability of the EPA to go into any chemical company and order an independent study on a chemical that concerns them.”

The Democratic senator is receiving 'zero' pressure from Democrats and party officials to get out of the race.

“But it’s fine if he wants to oppose it,” Boxer added.

In a statement last week, Sanders said he is concerned that the legislation would restrict states such as Vermont from establishing environmental regulations that are more aggressive than those set by the federal government.

But ultimately, his concerns may matter little. The House easily passed the legislation 403-12 on Tuesday, and the Senate is aiming to quickly take it up and pass it before lawmakers leave town for the Memorial Day recess. A spokesman for Sanders in his Senate office said he will not object to speedy consideration of the bill.

On another issue brewing in Congress — criminal justice reform — it’s Sanders’ silence that’s drawing attention. On the campaign trail, Sanders has talked up the need to overhaul sentencing laws. Yet he hasn’t endorsed a Senate bill backed by a bipartisan coalition of senators, including his home-state colleague, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy.

That omission has not been lost on some criminal justice reform advocates, who are urging Sanders’ proxies on the panel that writes the Democratic National Committee’s platform to include the issue this summer.

. . . .

“He has made this pledge to end incarceration, but he hasn’t put out bold ideas to get us there,” said Inimai Chettiar, director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

Pushing to include criminal justice reform in the platform, she added, is “one thing [Sanders] could do that really would help take leadership on this and really put the Democrats out there, to have the party prioritize the issue.”

Some of the Vermont senator’s close allies in Congress acknowledge, however, that there will be times they simply won’t see eye to eye with him.

The top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, was the first lawmaker in Congress to endorse Sanders. Though he had a hand in crafting the Puerto Rico deal in the House, Grijalva said he isn’t upset with Sanders’ move to stir up dissent.

“The senator’s opposition to it is something I knew was coming,” Grijalva said in an interview. “We had to produce something, and I wish it would’ve been half a loaf. It’s not … this is not a win-win, this is just a survival for the Puerto Rican people.”

Colin Wilhelm contributed to this report.



“Sanders’ stands against those measures are the first signs of how he intends to leverage his newfound notoriety to become a force for the left in Congress once his presidential run ends. Asked how influential Sanders would be on these and other issues once he returns to the Senate, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded: “Very.” “He’s grown a movement, and he is the leader of it, although there are others,” Schatz added. “I think his voice is louder and stronger than ever.” “He’s grown a movement, and he is the leader of it, although there are others,” Schatz added. “I think his voice is louder and stronger than ever.” …. There was already opposition to the Puerto Rico deal brewing among Senate Democrats without Sanders’ letter, Durbin said, and there have been objections from unions — a critical constituency for Sanders and Democrats. Sanders has been speaking out on the Puerto Rico debt crisis since last summer, but privately there is some suspicion among Democrats that his aggressive tack against the Puerto Rico compromise is political posturing ahead of the island’s June 5 caucuses. The campaign didn’t return a request for comment. …. “He has made this pledge to end incarceration, but he hasn’t put out bold ideas to get us there,” said Inimai Chettiar, director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. Pushing to include criminal justice reform in the platform, she added, is “one thing [Sanders] could do that really would help take leadership on this and really put the Democrats out there, to have the party prioritize the issue.” …. The top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, was the first lawmaker in Congress to endorse Sanders. Though he had a hand in crafting the Puerto Rico deal in the House, Grijalva said he isn’t upset with Sanders’ move to stir up dissent. “The senator’s opposition to it is something I knew was coming,” Grijalva said in an interview. “We had to produce something, and I wish it would’ve been half a loaf. It’s not … this is not a win-win, this is just a survival for the Puerto Rican people.”


I am pleased to see that members of the Senate and the country at large are paying attention to Sanders, whether or not they agree with him, and according to Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii his influence now will be considerable. He has been weighing in on issues that are important on several liberal fronts and is clearly a subject of interest and respect. One member who was against his view said that he had “always been that way,” meaning contentious and stubborn, but sometimes that can be a compliment. I want a leader who can put up a fight.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-pile-on-bernie-sanders-over-bulls-donald-trump-debate/

Democrats pile on Bernie Sanders over "bulls***" Donald Trump debate
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
May 27, 2016, 11:34 AM

Play VIDEO -- What would a debate look like between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders?

Bernie Sanders' openness to debate Donald Trump ahead of California's primary -- an idea first floated during a "Jimmy Kimmel Live" interview with the presumptive GOP nominee Wednesday -- has some Democratic lawmakers fuming.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, told Politico Thursday that the possibility of a debate was "bulls***."

"That confirms what we've been saying," Manchin told the news site. "Why would you expect Bernie should be considerate or be nice or be working to bring everyone together? Why? He's not a Democrat."

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose state holds its primary on June 7, posited that the debate was a publicity ploy.

"What he's trying to do," Feinstein told Politico, "is bring attention to himself."

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters also told the news outlet, "I don't know why he would do that."

"I think it's time to start to winding down the primary," Peters said. "It's time to move on."

The naysaying members of the Senate's Democratic caucus underscore the increasing tensions between the party and Sanders, whose sometimes vicious primary battle against front-runner Hillary Clinton has led to some division in the ranks.

Other Democrats, however, have said they believe the debate would have a positive outcome, including Clinton surrogate Claire McCaskill, a Missouri senator.

"The more Donald Trump gets exposed in the context of public policy, the better it is for our country," McCaskill told Politico.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, Sanders' single supporter in the Senate, agreed.

"Here is Trump, who is posing as a defender of working Americans and he hasn't done one thing for working Americans his entire lifetime," Merkley said, according to Politico.

Whether the debate will actually happen before the California primary still remains to be seen.

Trump's own campaign seems undecided about the event, with staffers telling CBS News early Thursday that their candidate had just been joking when he agreed to it.

But in a North Dakota press conference later that day, Trump said he would "love to debate" Sanders -- provided some conditions were met.

"Maybe if we can raise for women's health issues or something-- if we can raise 10 or $15 million for charity....I think it would get very high ratings," Trump told reporters Thursday. "It should be in a big arena somewhere, and we can have a lot of fun with it."

While some television networks were in talks with Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver about hosting the debate, only one media outlet so far has offered to pony up some cash for the event.

Cenk Uygur, who hosts the online left-leaning video show "The Young Turks," announced Thursday that he would give $1 million to charity to stage the debate.

"It's a very real offer -- the charity could be decided upon by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders," Uygur said in an announcement video.



“That confirms what we've been saying," Manchin told the news site. "Why would you expect Bernie should be considerate or be nice or be working to bring everyone together? Why? He's not a Democrat." …. Other Democrats, however, have said they believe the debate would have a positive outcome, including Clinton surrogate Claire McCaskill, a Missouri senator. "The more Donald Trump gets exposed in the context of public policy, the better it is for our country," McCaskill told Politico. Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, Sanders' single supporter in the Senate, agreed. "Here is Trump, who is posing as a defender of working Americans and he hasn't done one thing for working Americans his entire lifetime," Merkley said, according to Politico. …. Cenk Uygur, who hosts the online left-leaning video show "The Young Turks," announced Thursday that he would give $1 million to charity to stage the debate. "It's a very real offer -- the charity could be decided upon by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders," Uygur said in an announcement video.”


The CA DNC group’s stupid mistake -- or blatant attempt to disenfranchise lots of presumed left-leaning independents, perhaps – namely, the mailing of false/inaccurate voting instructions for the Presidential primary if they are not affiliated with any party, can diminish the votes for the Clintonites in the end. It’s too grotesquely unfair. On the other hand, this potential Sanders move to shake hands with the devil, so to speak, likewise could anger too many potential Democratic voters and be dangerous to Sanders’ campaign. I hope for the best. If he does debate Trump I will certainly watch.

While I think the debate between the two of them will be interesting and entertaining for sure, I don’t want Sanders to be damaged by it. Still, it has the audacity that could win him not only those important seats on the DNC platform committee and lots of street cred, but an increase in the overall popular vote. I think Sanders can probably run circles around Trump verbally and intellectually, and without making any really disgusting comments. What Sanders has demanded of the DNC is a 50-50 split between his nominees and Clinton’s, plus one uncommitted Wasserman appointee as a tie breaker. That would be the ideal situation, if Wasserman-Schulz is capable of doing anything that is truly independent of Hillary’s influence. I am impressed more and more by Sanders tactics. When it looks as though he may be going down, he simply applies more pressure from some other angle.




**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************






May 30, 2016


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-vs-the-dnc-will-convention-committee-appointments-backfire

Sanders vs. the DNC: Will convention committee appointments backfire?
By Adam Howard
05/30/16 10:05 AM

RELATED: Sanders’ supporters refuse to bend


Just when you might have thought the Democratic presidential primary race couldn’t get more into the weeds, a new turf war has emerged over who gets to sit on the party’s platform and rules committees at the convention in Philadelphia this summer.

This weekend, Sen. Bernie Sanders called for the DNC to remove to prominent Clinton supporters – Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank – from panels that help determine policy positions and procedures for the Democrats because both men have allegedly displayed “political and personal hostility” toward the Vermont lawmaker.

Malloy, whose state was rocked by the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012, has taken Sanders to task for not being a stronger advocate for gun control. Frank has been even more frank, accusing the senator’s campaign of “McCarthyite” tactics and arguing that “Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it.”

The DNC has rejected Sanders’ request – which may wind up prolonging an already ugly rift between Sanders and Clinton forces, which appear to be clashing more over process at this point rather than the ultimate primary result. Sanders has long been an outspoken critic of controversial DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and has endorsed her primary opponent Tim Canova.

“Clearly, I favor her opponent,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper earlier this month. “His views are much closer to mine than as to Wasserman Schultz’s. Let me also say this, in all due respect to the current chairperson: If [I am] elected president, she would not be re-appointed chairwoman of the DNC.”

Meanwhile, Clinton holds what appears to be an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, and Sanders may be beginning to see the writing on the wall. He recently suggested that the Democratic front-runner’s VP pick will play a crucial role in winning his voters’ support and didn’t take his own name out of consideration for the second spot on a general election ticket.

Polls show that Sanders holds considerable leverage over the fate of the Clinton campaign. The former secretary of state, who is currently locked in a dead heat race against presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, would have a substantial lead outside the margin of error should Sanders exit the race and his supporters lined up behind her, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. In the past, Sanders has pledged to provide full-throated support for whoever the Democratic nominee is, in order to prevent a Republican victory in November.

In some ways, Sanders has already scored some significant concessions. He was able to get Dr. Cornel West, one of President Obama’s harshest critics on the left (he’s called him a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface), and James Zogby, a Palestinian rights activist, on the platform committee, although their selections have led to some concern about whether this will lead to a floor fight over the party’s position on Israel.

While Sanders has suggested the party’s convention will be “messy,” he is still holding out hope that he will win the Democratic nomination outright through semi-traditional means. Besides winning the major primary in California on June 7 (a race that appears to be tightening), Sanders will be forced to persuade hundreds of superdelegates (who overwhelmingly favor Clinton) to switch over to his side.

“We’re going to make the case for the superdelegates, ‘Your job is to make sure that Trump is defeated, that Bernie Sanders, in fact, for a variety of reasons, not just polling, is the strongest candidate,‘ “ he told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd on Sunday.

And while many Democrats have been troubled by the tone of some of Sanders’ attacks on the party’s establishment, others have argued that Sanders has earned the right to play hardball.

“This is exactly what Sanders should be doing,” wrote Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum this weekend. ” He won a lot votes. He has a lot of delegates. He has a substantial following that’s willing to take cues from him. There’s no intelligent politician in the country who wouldn’t use that to push the country in a direction he deeply believes in. Hillary would do the same thing in his position.”



“This weekend, Sen. Bernie Sanders called for the DNC to remove to prominent Clinton supporters – Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank – from panels that help determine policy positions and procedures for the Democrats because both men have allegedly displayed “political and personal hostility” toward the Vermont lawmaker. …. In some ways, Sanders has already scored some significant concessions. He was able to get Dr. Cornel West, one of President Obama’s harshest critics on the left (he’s called him a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface), and James Zogby, a Palestinian rights activist, on the platform committee, although their selections have led to some concern about whether this will lead to a floor fight over the party’s position on Israel. …. “We’re going to make the case for the superdelegates, ‘Your job is to make sure that Trump is defeated, that Bernie Sanders, in fact, for a variety of reasons, not just polling, is the strongest candidate,‘ “ he told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd on Sunday. And while many Democrats have been troubled by the tone of some of Sanders’ attacks on the party’s establishment, others have argued that Sanders has earned the right to play hardball.”


“The DNC has rejected Sanders’ request – which may wind up prolonging an already ugly rift between Sanders and Clinton forces, which appear to be clashing more over process at this point rather than the ultimate primary result.” Process is the most important thing that needs to change, from Superdelegates over directly earned delegates, and caucuses rather than primaries, to several Sanders haters being on the DNC governing body and committees. One article said that Sanders, who is only recently a Democrat, hasn’t always played nice with others and is considered stubborn about his views and not a team player. Clinton isn’t always nice either, as has been pointed out numerous times, but she is the anointed choice.

The fact remains, however, that the DNC has moved toward the right in order to gain conservative leaning voters, and Sanders, by comparison, is a Democratic Socialist causing conflict. Bill Clinton was in office when a Rightward movement among blue collar workers, especially men, was noted with alarm, as a group called “Reagan Democrats” emerged; and the party decided to compromise their principles in order to win some of them back.

Others point out that it is Koch Brothers contamination. Clinton was accused in one news article recently of CHANGING HER VOTE because of a large donation to her war chest. Whatever the primary cause of the shift is, the Dems aren’t interested in a proper economic and social balance anymore, at least to the degree that I would like. Barney Frank used to be one of the most liberal members of Congress, and now he isn’t, and Ted Kennedy is dead.

In the old days there were unions which, while hated by the business interests, did force them to moderate their influence on wages and prevented layoffs, keeping enough people “in the money” that non-professional citizens successfully bought houses and helped their kids go to college. As a result, we had a growing Middle Class rather than a diminishing one.

Sanders strongly stands up for the progressives and offers concrete aid to the poor and lower Middle Class in the form of a $15.00 an hour minimum wage, free college tuition at state supported universities and a one payer medical program. Those things are expensive but apply directly to the needs of the Middle Class and the Poor. At least if they don’t have those good jobs anymore, they won’t have to live in crippling privation. Their kids can get a college degree.

We don’t have prosperity, not because business isn’t making enough money and the “trickle” isn’t coming down, but because the all too few jobs that exist in the USA don’t pay enough. Our well-paying industrial jobs are being taken away by technological development, or have been sent overseas, and laws enacted in the last fifteen years or so have cramped the style of unions, which had a powerful influence on business in my day. The jobless situation has improved somewhat, but it’s still a problem. Like the business with Sanders and the DNC, it is a “process” problem. The prosperity grows upward rather than coming down.

Besides there is still hard core poverty in this country despite the “social safety net” which is continually being reduced by “conservatives” in Congress; and the relief systems don’t pay as much as the costs of daily life require. Some members of the legislature make it their daily goal to restrict certain things like Medicaid, SS, and Unemployment, which they consider to be “coddling the poor” who are basically just lazy or stupid. That’s partly because they think that “give away” programs only weaken the lower classes by robbing them of the “incentive” of starvation; and partly because the businesses “can’t afford” to pay well. (That’s why they make millions and nowadays billions of dollars a year on their businesses.)

Bernie is doing the right thing in tackling the DNC upfront, because reform takes struggle. Those in power will not give it up voluntarily in most cases, so Bernie has entered the fray. I’m proud of his courage and persistent vision for a better nation. I’m surprised at how well he has done. He’s the dark horse who comes up from the back and surprises everybody. Go, Bernie!



WHO IS BERNIE SANDERS?


https://www.yahoo.com/news/energizer-bernie-does-sanders-keep-000000095.html

Energizer Bernie: How does Sanders keep going, and going, and going?
Lisa Belkin
May 29, 2016


It was well past lunch on a highway in California near the start of Memorial Day weekend, and the reporters on the Bernie Sanders press van were basically begging their handler for some downtime. Maybe after the next event we could swing by the hotel, they asked the press aide. And to each other they wondered, Doesn’t this 74-year-old ever get tired?

But there is rarely time for a break in the Sanders campaign, as staffers and reporters follow a candidate who doesn’t ever seem to slow down. His opponents might consider the relentless pace a metaphor — why doesn’t he just stop running already? But the Vermont senator is currently barnstorming California, a delegate-rich state he sees as his last hope to slow Hillary Clinton’s path to the nomination. On this holiday weekend when Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, had scheduled just one public event and Hillary Clinton, the most likely Democratic nominee, had nothing public on her schedule, Sanders held one rally after another, interspersed with TV appearances. Ventura, Pomona, and Jimmy Kimmel on Thursday; Long Beach, Inglewood, the Young Turks and Bill Maher on Friday; Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Bakersfield on Saturday; Visalia and Fresno on Sunday; a few stops in Oakland on Monday.

As he points out at each event, this is the kind of primary campaign this state has never seen. Usually the race is decided by the time California votes. But Sanders is hoping that a big win here, while not enough to overcome Clinton’s lead in pledged delegates, will somehow convince unbound superdelegates to throw their support his way. “We are doing something that to the best of my knowledge has never been done in California political history, holding rallies just like this up and down this state,” he says again and again. “By the end of this, I am confident we will have personally met and spoken to over 200,000 Californians. We will win here, and we will go to the Democratic National Convention with the momentum to make our case.”

So as his staff catnapped in the motorcade and the press hoped for at least a coffee stop, the man himself — call him the Energizer Bernie — was completely “on” at one event after the next, giving his one-hour stump speech at what seemed like full volume over and over again.

“He runs the 25-year-old staffers into the ground,” says one former aide who recently left the campaign, which has shedded team members as Clinton has closed in on the nomination.

Another ex-staffer expressed similar surprise at Sanders’ grueling pace.

“Most candidates half his age would strain under the weight of that schedule. There was one day where he hit five or six states in a single day. I really don’t understand how he does it,” the staffer said.

So how DOES he do it?

His wife, Jane, described her husband as “just one of those people who is built to keep going.” He has been sick fewer than half a dozen times in their 28-year marriage, she said, and she credits his endurance to the fact that he was a competitive runner in high school.

It’s certainly not his diet — he tends toward meat at meals, corn is his go-to vegetable, and his aides know to keep salty snacks, like pretzels, on hand in the limo. It’s probably not genetics — both his parents died young. It’s not because he is cosseted and spoiled on the trail. The former aide says “it pisses him off if we try to pamper him” and noted his preference for “simple” stops on the road.

“He’s a Hampton Inn guy, and he’s a diner guy. He’s, like, a Denny’s guy.”

It’s also not because he is religious about sleep — he is a night owl who often stays up too late — or exercises strenuously. There’s no gym time slotted on his schedule, though he often detours the motorcade to a field, or even an empty parking lot, so he can go for a brisk walk between events, with the Secret Service keeping people at bay. Staffers call these constitutionals “the Sanders Stroll.”

“He cannot stand that he doesn’t get fresh air and have a chance to walk,” his wife says. “It was 10 degrees in Wisconsin, and we went for an hour walk.”

Back home he rides his bike every day, she says, and when the Secret Service protection started one requirement was that the agents have bicycles.

And how does he keep his voice from disappearing, as happens to many candidates after such a long slog? That’s something Jane Sanders worries about. By the end of one of his congressional campaigns, he did in fact lose his voice completely and required surgery to remove a polyp from his vocal cords. Now he drinks a lot of hot green tea with lemon, she says, and has learned to rely on a microphone when he is speaking, rather than just shouting, as he did earlier in his career.

But mostly, she says, he is fueled by a lifelong feeling that you have to cram as much into a day as possible. “I first met him when he was mayor of Burlington,” she says, and even back then “he was always saying, ‘We have to accomplish this now because we don’t know how long we’ll be here.’ So he’s always pushing for a fuller day” of events. “If there are arguments with staff over the schedule it’s always him saying, ‘What do you mean just one rally?’ He wants to do as many events as possible, go to as many places as possible, saying, ‘We only have a certain amount of time.’”

Those who have been traveling with him over the course of the campaign says it is Jane who keeps him animated and it’s when she isn’t around that his energy sometimes flags.

“It was weird to see him without Jane,” the former aide says. “Jane brings a very, like, profoundly positive energy.”

This jam-packed weekend has, ironically, been one of those solo times, because Jane has been sick and stayed back home in Vermont. She says (between coughs during a phone interview) that it’s not because she pushed too hard that she became ill, but rather that she took a few days off. “On a campaign you can’t ever stop,” she says. “As long as you keep going, somehow you don’t get sick.” In other words, momentum.

So Bernie will not stop. Not for those in his party who say he has no real road to the nomination and that his extended campaign is only helping Donald Trump, and not for those in his circle who might be getting a little tired.

The entreaties from the press did result (or, more likely, coincide) with an impromptu stop at Tanner’s Coffee Co. in Culver City, where the candidate had a small coffee with cream, then slumped, but just for a few minutes, in a chair by the window. Then he was back in his limousine, before those on the press van even had a chance to order coffees of their own.

Hunter Walker contributed reporting to this story.




http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/28/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-dnc-chairs-platform/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Sanders to DNC: Remove Clinton backers from convention committees
By Eugene Scott, CNN
Updated 8:11 PM ET, Sat May 28, 2016


Washington (CNN) — Bernie Sanders' campaign wants the Democratic National Committee to remove two Hillary Clinton supporters from key convention roles, accusing them of being "aggressive attack surrogates."

The campaign on Saturday announced that it had written the DNC and called for the removal of Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, who is the co-chairman of the platform committee, and former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who leads the rules committee. The platform committee is responsible for shaping the party's official policies on a range of issues heading into the 2016 election season, and the rules committee shapes how the convention operates.

"Governor Malloy and Mr. Frank have both been aggressive attack surrogates for the Clinton campaign," Sanders campaign counsel Brad Deutsch wrote in a letter to the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee. "Their criticisms of Sen. Sanders have gone beyond dispassionate ideological disagreement and have exposed a deeper professional, political and personal hostility toward the senator and his campaign."

The Sanders campaign said Malloy and Frank cannot be trusted to perform their roles without bias.

"The appointment of two individuals so outspokenly critical of Sen. Sanders, and so closely affiliated with Secretary Clinton's campaign, raises concerns that two of the three Convention Standing Committees are being constituted in an overtly partisan way designed to exclude meaningful input from supporters of Sen. Sanders' candidacy," Deutsch said.

The DNC had no immediate comment Saturday morning, and Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Sanders campaign has discussed removing the leaders of the two key convention panels for some time, three Democrats with respective ties to Sanders, Clinton and President Barack Obama told CNN earlier in the week.

Sanders and his supporters have complained for months that the Democratic Party has been tilted against his insurgent bid. They're worried that should he lose to Clinton, the issues that have animated his bid will not find a place at July's convention.

Sanders' campaign also has engaged in an increasingly bitter feud with DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz during his presidential bid. Last week, he told CNN's Jake Tapper that he was supporting the Florida congresswoman's primary opponent, Tim Canova, and said if he was elected president, he would effectively terminate her chairmanship of the DNC.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated after a Sanders press release mistakenly said Frank is on the platform committee, not the rules committee.



*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************



May 31, 2016


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/30/panic-hillary-clinton-rush-back-california-week/

Panic: Hillary Clinton to Rush Back to California This Week
by JOEL B. POLLAK
30 May 2016

Photograph -- Clinton with microphone


Former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has a canceled campaign event in New Jersey and will be rushing back to California this week to hold off a late surge by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

The Washington Post‘s Abby Phillip reports that Clinton intends to return to the campaign trail in California on Thursday, and to campaign continuously in the state through the primary on Tuesday — though most votes will already have been cast by mail.

Phillip writes:

NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton has upended her campaign schedule, adding more stops in California, in an effort to prevent an embarrassing loss there to Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton originally planned to campaign for two days this week in New Jersey, but at the last minute canceled an event on Thursday and will instead return to California for a five-day swing.

The schedule change comes as Sanders has barnstormed California, not leaving the state in more than a week. Meanwhile, a recent poll found the race closing significantly. Clinton’s lead over Sanders had narrowed to just two points.

Details are scarce, but Clinton now plans to hold events in California from Thursday until the day before the state’s June 7 primary.

Clinton, needing fewer than 100 delegates to reach a majority, is almost certain to clinch the Democratic nomination on June 7, even if she loses California. But the political damage caused by losing California could hurt — or even halt — her campaign.

In the background is the symbolic importance of California for Democrats in the last year when the Golden State played a role in deciding the party’s nomination — namely, 1968, when Robert F. Kennedy crossed the threshold, only to be assassinated mere minutes later by a Palestinian named Sirhan Sirhan.

For Clinton, clinching the nomination by winning California would represent the party coming full circle from its troubled, radical days of the late 1960s.

For Sanders, denying Clinton a victory lap would represent the best chance of re-creating the chaos of the Chicago Democratic National Convention of 1968 on the convention floor in Philadelphia this July — and possibly in the streets outside as well.

Sanders has been campaigning at a grueling pace, drawing large rally crowds from Southern California to the Central Valley to the Bay Area and beyond. He has also taken the time to meet with farm workers, union members, and representatives of the black and Latino communities.

With momentum pointing towards a possible Sanders win — Breitbart News has already predicted he will win more delegates on July 7 — the only question is whether Clinton has more to lose by trying hard and failing, or by staying away and letting Sanders have what she hopes would be a last hurrah.

Photo: File

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new e-book, Leadership Secrets of the Kings and Prophets: What the Bible’s Struggles Teach Us About Today, is on sale through Amazon Kindle Direct. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.



Breitbart EXCERPT -- “For Clinton, clinching the nomination by winning California would represent the party coming full circle from its troubled, radical days of the late 1960s. For Sanders, denying Clinton a victory lap would represent the best chance of re-creating the chaos of the Chicago Democratic National Convention of 1968 on the convention floor in Philadelphia this July — and possibly in the streets outside as well. Sanders has been campaigning at a grueling pace, drawing large rally crowds from Southern California to the Central Valley to the Bay Area and beyond. He has also taken the time to meet with farm workers, union members, and representatives of the black and Latino communities. …. Clinton, needing fewer than 100 delegates to reach a majority, is almost certain to clinch the Democratic nomination on June 7, even if she loses California. But the political damage caused by losing California could hurt — or even halt — her campaign.”


Sanders is not merely assertive, clever, quick-thinking and courageous; he is a strategist. He has outflanked Clinton several times now, and has earned the moniker “the Energizer Bernie!” He also, while clearly serious about achieving his philosophical and political goals, is having a great time! He’s always been popular among his home constituency and the progressive Democrats, but he was never in the center of the whole world’s attention as he is now, and yet doesn’t act conceited about it. I’m enjoying this race as much as the Gore/Bush fight over Broward County, Florida. When that hit the news, I happened to be watching CNN, as the very handsome Bill Hemmer was doing a live report on the sidewalk.

He apparently got the word through his earpiece that Gore had challenged the election, and that he was to rush to Broward County. He was a young guy at that time and suddenly grinned like a boy, announced what was going on and took off down the street at a rapid clip followed by the camera crew. Within a couple of hours Florida was full of camera trucks and street interviews.

There are few things more exciting than a hard-fought political campaign. I’ve always enjoyed politics, and this year is one of the best. Go, Bernie! You’re doing well, too, Hillary. Read about the unforgettable 2000 election below, and an hour-long documentary is also available on Youtube, “Bush v. Gore: The Endless Election (2015) – YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcz6NSyxrfQ.”



****************** ******************* ********************** ***********
****************** ******************* ********************** ***********


June 1 and 2, 2016



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-voters-dont-believe-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-campaign-promises/

Poll: Voters don't believe Trump's or Clinton's campaign promises
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
June 2, 2016, 8:40 AM

Photograph -- A combination photo shows Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in Los Angeles, California, on May 5, 2016, and in Eugene, Oregon, on May 6, 2016, respectively. REUTERS/LUCY NICHOLSON AND JIM URQUHART
Play VIDEO -- Hillary Clinton calls Donald Trump a "fraud"


When it comes to campaign trail promises, voters aren't buying what Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are selling, according to a new national poll out Thursday.

A Quinnipiac survey found that on several key platforms put forth by the presidential candidates, most voters are skeptical that they will keep their promises. On the issue of building a wall along the southern border and getting Mexico to foot the bill, less than a quarter of voters believe Trump would actually be capable of closing that deal. Thirty-nine percent believe he'll try and fail, while 29 percent think he won't even make the attempt.

Only 19 percent of voters also believe the presumptive GOP nominee will be able to deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., while 45 percent say he'll fail at doing so. Twenty-nine percent believe he won't try.

Trump's promise to bar Muslims from entering the U.S. nets the billionaire his highest score: Twenty-nine percent believe he can and will carry out that pledge, 42 percent think he'll make the attempt but won't succeed, and 21 percent believe he won't even make the effort.

Clinton fares worse on her campaign vows to rein in Wall Street -- an undertaking 56 percent of voters believe Clinton won't even attempt. Twenty-one percent think she'll try and fail, while just 15 percent expect her to carry out her promise.

Voters also don't believe that the former secretary of state is liable to curb secret money flowing into politics, with 63 percent saying they don't believe Clinton would even try to do so. Eighteen percent believe she would make an effort but eventually fail. Only nine percent think she would succeed.

On the pledge to reduce the debt of students at public and community colleges, however, voters are more likely to believe Clinton. Twenty-two percent of voters say she would succeed at this, while 39 percent say she would try and fail. Thirty-two percent of voters believe the Democratic front-runner won't even try.

The Quinnipiac survey also asked about the ratings of the Republican and Democratic parties: Democrats garnered a negative favorability rating, 44 to 48 percent, while the Republicans also drew a negative 34 to 56 percent favorability score. The Democrats' rating was the party's best rating since November 12, 2008.

For both parties, voters disapproved of the jobs they were doing in Congress. Voters disapproved of Democrats in Congress 63 to 31 percent, and disapproved of Republicans 80 to 12 percent.

Quinnipiac University polled 1,561 registered voters nationally from May 24 - 30. The survey's margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.



I tend to believe the findings of Quinnipiac polls over more politically biased ones, such as the Wall Street Journal. The Quinnipiac polls are well known for fairness and accuracy. People do probably frequently answer the questions based more on what they feel and hope rather than what they think is going to pan out, however, and above all on their loyalties. I am at this point unimpressed with Hillary, but over Trump I’ll vote for her in a heartbeat.

The public tends to believe in the track record their party above the individual politicians – “Republicans do better in money matters and Democrats do better in social issues,” etc. -- and think that to one degree or another, most politicians as individuals are dirty and dishonest. I unfortunately agree with that. It’s a hard scrabble up to the top, and adequate funding is necessary, so the basic temptation to take a bribe in a quid pro quo situation is always there. People like Sanders and Trump don’t push easily, though, so they become unpopular within their party structure, while they gain thousands of admiring followers. They are often considered dangerous to the in group.

The law making process itself, with the frequently unethical and illegal activities by lobbyists, large donors, party central, etc., when applied on individual legislators causes them too frequently to bend with the wind in order to keep their personal position and group support intact. In other words, even when they haven’t been outrightly bribed, they know that saying the wrong thing can suddenly cause them to be out of office at the next election cycle or before.

It is well-known that the “New Democrats” of whom both Clintons were and are members, catered to the right leaning Democrats to keep them as party members, and now they, philosophically, do not represent what I consider to be a “Democrat” anymore. FDR, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, and Lyndon Johnson were Democrats. Those conservative Democrats or “Dixiecrats” have become Republicans, and the mainstream Democrats have retreated away from the left into the center out of an undisguised tactical decision.

That sounds “reasonable” and “good” to some Dems, but I am on the socially conscious side of things, so to me they are no longer in possession of my unwavering loyalty. If they’re afraid to vote for civil rights, justice, economic fairness, the glue that was holding me in the fold is no longer there. There haven’t been many courageous decisions since the Affordable Care Act, and that is, to my view, not as practical and efficient as an extension of Medicare to everyone would be.

Though they wouldn’t have the same level of reliable supporters so that they could “win by a landslide,” I think that if both parties were to split along ideological lines rather than the line delineated by the power structure, we would have a situation that would allow neither party to be guaranteed of winning at an election, but the views that I care about might well be more available to me in one party or another, and the winning and losing would be more fractionally represented in the number of votes per party. Congress and the Senate wouldn’t be a “good old boy’s network” as they are now, but a more briskly paced debating society based on serious current issues, more than team play. Instead of getting 60% of the popular vote, they could get 40% and still win. The losers after each election would have to polish up their virtues and present them in a better way to keep from continuing to lose -- competition, in other words.

Both parties have widely departed from their higher ideals when I was young, to the point of cynically treating elections strictly as wars between the two “armies,” and a “lone wolf” like Sanders who has insisted on his personal principles throughout his numerous reelections is viewed by many as a radical and an outsider. His views will simply not be considered. To the current DNC Dems, he hasn’t paid his dues to the established party, and neither has Trump. Sanders was an Independent who caucused with the Democrats, and Trump was a wannabe POTUS without a strong set of party principles, at least that is my opinion of him. He’s like Clinton, an opportunist. Both Sanders and Trump, however, voice views which represent strong segments of the American citizenry, and are putting up quite a fight. The conflict within both parties, with a strong unconventional candidate who is very possibly capable of winning against the majority and carrying his followers out of the party to a new group, could be to a formal party split. We would look more like a European country such as France.

If our candidates are of the “wishy washy” type, they aren’t as likely to win the presidency, because in that office most Americans do want a leader with a vision. Both Trump and Clinton have made a number of convenient restatements of their beliefs and plans for the country when they caught flak from the public on their phraseology or lack of political wisdom, which makes many of us view them as liars. The difference between the parties in their unfavorability ratings does appear to give the Dems a popularity advantage over the Republicans right now, due to the political baggage of both Clinton and Trump.

I think there will be fireworks and very possibly a surprise in the Democratic Party Convention, and I hope for the progressive view to emerge as more powerful than today, if not the winner; and it’s my opinion that if the Clinton Democrats do give ground on the desperately important issues of social problems and the frightening gap between the rich and the poor that we have nationwide, they will win new voters in the end, rather than losing those who are loyal to the principles rather than to the brand name.