Democrats organize to fight back

[Anthony '58]

The first chance for the Democrats to show some backbone for a change is in the repeal bill for ObamaCare - which unlike the repeal bill will be subject to a filibuster.

And that backbone can be shown by the Democrats saying: NO health savings accounts for the rich. NO letting Big Insurance selling their plans across state lines. NO compromises. SCORCHED EARTH.

[Eric the Green]

America’s liberal cities are readying to battle Donald Trump on almost every front

WRITTEN BY
Max de Haldevang

"America First"
January 28, 2017
https://qz.com/862380/americas-liberal-c...ery-front/

As a candidate and now as US president, Donald Trump has seemed hellbent on alienating urban voters.

During the campaign, the New Yorker repeatedly and, some would argue, offensively spoke of America’s “inner cities” as “war zones” where life was “hell” for African-Americans. City voters returned the slight—Trump lost badly in urban areas on Nov. 8. Showing little interest in making amends with this slice of the electorate, he then nominated Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon with zero experience in either government or urban policy, as secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
So it was somewhat surprising when Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, dropped in on the US Conference of Mayors winter meeting on Jan. 17, three days before taking the oath of office as US vice president, and told the 300 assembled city leaders that “this administration is going to be a friend to America’s mayors.”

When guessing at Pence’s motives for reaching out to urban leaders, one fact stands out: Cities are the only major layer of US government where Democrats are in control—and massively so. While Republicans hold the presidency, both houses of Congress, and 31 of 50 state governorships, Democrats are in charge of all but three of the country’s 20 biggest cities. And the political leanings of the 32 million residents they represent tend to align very closely. Trump garnered just 10% of votes (paywall) cast in Manhattan, his longtime home, and 4% in his new stomping grounds of Washington DC.

With the blessing of their base, liberal big-city mayors have been among the only elected US politicians to openly and meaningfully defy Trump. Right after his election, the heads of over a dozen major cities said that, even at the risk of losing federal funding, they would refuse to cooperate with any Trump-ordered immigrant deportation force. On Jan. 25, the new president signed an executive order officially declaring he would defund them—and they’re still refusing to acquiesce, with Boston mayor Marty Walsh noting Trump’s inability to reroute funding without authorization from Congress and New York’s Bill de Blasio threatening a lawsuit.
A “constructive alternative” to Trump’s agenda

Mayors hold a fair amount of heft in America’s devolved political system. At a time of sustained sclerosis in Washington, cities (arguably with some exceptions) are “the one institution today that still works, where government functions, where trust levels are double the levels of other institutions,” according to Fordham University’s Benjamin Barber, an acclaimed social scientist and author of If Mayors Ruled the World.

They also pack a serious economic punch. In 2013, America’s 23 richest metropolitan areas produced almost half the country’s GDP. If the New York metro area (which includes Newark and Jersey City, New Jersey) were a country, it would rank above Canada as the 10th-biggest economy in the world.

Just after the US election, Barber told us, “Cities are going to become the most important, constructive alternative to a Trump agenda.” He argued they will shore up civil rights and labor protections for millions, and take up the charge on the environment.

To do so, mayors plan to take collective action. “If you combine the power of America’s cities, that could really be a game changer in terms of moderating [Trump’s] agenda,” de Blasio said in November. “Maximum coordination. Maximum simultaneous activity.”

Plus, as de Blasio found during Trump’s campaign, they can get a handy approval-ratings boost from picking a fight with the new president.

[Eric the Green]

To see how urban centers of liberalism plan to deal with the new White House administration, we spoke with the mayors of six cities around the country over the last couple of months, from Los Angeles, Atlanta, Boston, Pittsburgh, Austin, Texas, and Portland, Oregon.

Outlooks ranged from the bullish defiance of Atlanta’s Kasim Reed—who says his aim is to “to do everything we can do to be left alone” by Trump—to the skeptical pragmatism of LA’s Eric Garcetti, who is cautiously hoping for some avenues to work with fellow city dweller Trump. Boston’s Walsh says planning to counteract Trump’s policies has been near impossible because the president has been light on policy specifics. But he encapsulates his fellow mayors’ promises to do all they can to nullify a Trumpian assault on liberals, saying simply, “Of course I’m gonna protect my citizens. It’s what I do. It’s my job.”

The idea of taking on the mantle as the leading voices of Democrats elicits palpable enthusiasm. “I think that we’re gonna be the ecosystem for where the solutions are developed—much in the way that states were for Republicans and conservatives for a very long time,” says Atlanta’s Reed.

Despite Pence’s olive branch and Trump’s Dec. 15 promise to maintain the tax-exempt status on bonds that cities issue to pay for infrastructure, the past week’s war of words on immigration means it’s highly unlikely mayors will find as close an ally in the White House as they had in former US president Barack Obama (who saw working with cities as a way of sidestepping congressional intransigence). Instead, they’ll likely try to extract whatever they can from the president while hoping to avoid punishment for defying him elsewhere.

So, as the new administration gets underway in Washington, in what policy areas can cities find practical ways to shore up their progressive agendas? And where does their power end in the face of a presidency that seems determined to work against them?

Policing and criminal sentencing

Trump has nominated the most hardline US attorney general in recent memory: Alabama senator Jeff Sessions. Together, their favored policies include mass deportations, strict drug-crime sentencing, and “stop and frisk” policing, which has massively marginalized urban African-Americans (and probably exacerbated crime rates). Mayors can’t do much to stop Trump from issuing these policies, but they say in practice they can help render them ineffective in their cities. One major motivation for this: they have no interest in swelling mass-incarceration rates, which began slowly dropping under Obama.

For example, should Sessions and Trump impose harsher drug sentences or take a stronger view of addiction as a criminal rather than mental health issue, mayors can simply tell their police forces not to focus on arresting people for low-level drug offenses. “Local police chiefs and sheriffs decide what their police practices will be,” says Charlie Hales, who finished his term as mayor of Portland, Oregon, on Jan. 1. “Then local sheriffs get to decide who goes to jail and local district attorneys get to decide who gets prosecuted. That’s America, that’s how it works.”

He says the federal government “doesn’t get to hand down a mandate that ‘Thou shalt stop and frisk, thou shalt put these people in jail, and thou shalt impose these sentences.’ That is simply unconstitutional.”

Immigrant deportation

This is where Trump has pulled out his biggest weapon. His Jan. 25 executive action threatens to pull federal funding for “sanctuary jurisdictions,” a term for cities which refuse to arrest undocumented immigrants who haven’t broken any other laws.

Most of the mayors we’ve spoken with, and several others, have refused to bow to the threat. Walsh promised to let immigrants “live” in city hall if need be. And he and de Blasio both have said they don’t think Trump is authorized to unilaterally nix the funding.

But when pushed, none of the mayors interviewed for this piece said they could stop Trump from succeeding with the deportations if he were really intent on them and if, as Reed puts it, he were “prepared to blow a hole in the federal budget” to make them happen.

If Trump does make a serious attempt to cancel federal funds, mayors say they hold cards to make life tough for the president. Among the more overt mechanisms they say they have available:

Helping as many residents as possible become US citizens or get legal residency—27 cities have aligned under the Cities for Citizenship coalition to do so, headed by New York, LA, and Chicago.

Refusing to give any police cooperation. This would starve federal officers of local knowledge needed to help find and arrest people.

Fighting deportation cases in court to slow the process to a near halt. “Seeing how slow the immigration courts are working now, if we load people up on top of that with new deportations and protect their due process it’ll be pretty slow going,” says LA’s Garcetti. He has announced a $10 million “justice fund” to do so, while Chicago has a $1 million fund. New York already does this, and Walsh says he’s working on a $1 million to $2 million fund in Boston.

There also are more subtle tactics they could use. Among them:

Leveraging the fact that Trump also depends on cities. In New York’s case, this could get personal. Federal dollars funneled to the city will be needed to help pay for Trump’s personal security when he’s in town, and will continue to be needed to pay for first lady Melania Trump and youngest son Barron’s protection.

Leveraging Trump’s business interests. Mayors like de Blasio have significant influence over real estate and other regulations that could have a financial impact on the Trump real estate portfolio.

Reaching out to Republican allies in Congress on issues like federal funding that provides vouchers for homeless military veterans.

Working with state legislatures. Atlanta’s Reed says even staunchly conservative administrations like in his state of Georgia may quietly recoil against attempts at mass deportations and funding cuts. “It would have a chilling effect on our state’s reputation as a business-friendly state that is welcoming and inclusive,” says Reed. “So I think you would have a serious triage to consider if you’re going to start enforcing very aggressive and draconian immigration policies.”

Rallying their citizens. If Trump follows through on his promises, mayors can make themselves opposition figureheads by encouraging local action. “I believe there would be massive resistance from ordinary citizens in Portland and lots of other places if federal agents started swooping in and rounding up our neighbors,” Hales says.

Climate Change

There’s a silver lining for environmentalists who are horrified by the climate-change denialism concentrated in Trump’s cabinet, not to mention his assault on the US Environmental Protection Agency and his support of two highly controversial pipelines. Cities produce 75% of global carbon emissions, and they have no desire to go backward here.

It’s not just altruism at work on this issue. With solar panels becoming cheaper than fossil fuels in 2016, it’s making less and less economic sense to shy away from green energy.

Declaring he was “probably the furthest thing from an Al Gore clone you could find,” the Republican mayor of Georgetown, Texas, in 2015 announced plans to go 100% renewable simply because green energy was a better deal for residents. Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff to Obama, came out with a similar message in December. “Even if you didn’t believe in climate change, [green energy] is a pure driver of economic activity,” he said. “The city is never going back from this.”

Garcetti has rallied more than 60 mayors from both parties to sign an open letter calling for the president to “shift” his views and embrace the Paris climate change agreement, insisting “we are prepared to forge ahead even in the absence of federal support.”

As for actual climate policy, city leaders say there are both global and local levers available. For one, they see an opportunity to collectively take over the global leadership role that Trump is abandoning.”This is where an American network expands across the seas,” says Pittsburgh’s Bill Peduto, arguing that mayors around the world can work together to step up carbon reduction targets (like New York aiming to drop emissions 80% from 2005 levels by 2050, or London’s goal for a 60% drop from 1990 levels by 2025) and cooperate on practical reduction measures.

They’ll also try to limit the global reverberations of steps Trump might take to stall progress. For example, if he leaves the Paris climate agreement, Garcetti and Walsh said cities across America could adopt it locally, undermining both the symbolism and the environmental consequences of Trump stepping away from it.

More locally, mayors can tackle big problems by twisting the arms of hometown businesses and ramming small, unsexy measures through their local bureaucracies. Reed, for example, claims he can cut emissions by “25 percentage points” by picking off “low-hanging fruit” like retrofits on wasteful buildings and incentives to businesses to cut energy use. “To take action in the city of Atlanta, the center of the ninth largest metro in the country…it takes my decision and eight votes from [the city] council. In my opinion, that’s very efficient,” says Reed.

Of course, volunteering themselves as the new leaders on this issue means mayors also become responsible if it fails. And already there is concern that even the more aggressive pledges on the table, from cities like New York and in the Paris agreement itself, won’t be enough to stave off disaster for the planet.

Bandaids for a creaking social safety net

America already has among the lowest government spending for OECD countries, and the relatively meager social safety net that still exists looks imperiled by potential cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, a promised repeal of Obamacare, threats to defund women’s health care provider Planned Parenthood, and a possible drop in public housing funding under HUD nominee Carson, who has said that in his experience poverty is “more of a choice than anything.”

On top of all that, Trump has to find a way to pay for tax cuts. The fiscal promises he campaigned on would cost the country an estimated $4.5 trillion over a decade.

Clearly, city budgets can’t stretch to cover all these costs, but Pittsburgh’s Peduto says he’s laying plans to address the needs of the most vulnerable. He’s promising to work with insurance companies and hospitals to get together healthcare funding to cover seniors, children, and people with pre-existing conditions. After that, he says, he would aim “to scale up” funding for everyone else. “We can’t just let people be at the mercy of federal policy that would affect quite literally their lives and the lives of the people they love,” he says.

Boston’s Walsh is confident he can work with his state to return universal health coverage to Massachusetts (Obamacare was based on Massachusetts’ healthcare system put in place by governor Mitt Romney) and perhaps to ease Trump’s cuts on federal funding for Planned Parenthood. But he admits there’s little states can do to deal with more systemic effects that could result from some of Trump’s promised policies. “This isn’t about Massachusetts, it’s about the whole country. It’s about potentially sending the country into recession,” says Walsh.

Peduto and Walsh are also looking to deliver on an unfulfilled Obama promise to make pre-kindergarten education free. Stymied by Congress, Obama appealed directly to US mayors to bring the idea to fruition, but, as Peduto puts it, “it’s doubtful that the Trump administration’s going to pick that up.”

But de Blasio, who accomplished the feat in New York, has provided a model to other large cities, and Peduto says he can stitch enough dollars together in Pittsburgh through a combination of city funds, a state handout, private-sector donations, and fundraising by the schools themselves. Walsh has been trying to square similar circles in Boston—his most radical proposal being to sell off City Hall to pay for it—and hopes his state will let him dip into city tourism profits.

When it comes to housing, Carson’s nomination puts cities in unchartered territory—since we just don’t know what his views are on the matter. For this crucial front in the war on poverty, mayors across the country are largely left to take what Walsh calls “a wait and see approach.”

Civil rights and gun control

Mayors love pointing out that cities have long been the first places to try out progressive policies that are now in or near the mainstream—and they’re promising to keep delivering on this. San Francisco was the first to allow LGBT marriage in 2004, Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage in 2014, and Philadelphia in 2011 restricted all employers from discriminating against people with criminal records.

If Trump were to appoint US Supreme Court justices who help overturn the landmark ruling protecting same-sex marriage, many cities can now revert to laws that enshrined it locally. If the court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees women the right to abortion, cities might look for ways to protect abortion rights locally—though they would face tricky legal barriers to do so—while pressuring their states to offer protections, too.

San Francisco mayor Ed Lee and Boston’s Walsh also have an inventive idea to get around Congress and improve gun safety, involving the arming of their police forces with “smart guns.” The weapons only respond to one person’s fingerprints—so they can’t be used if they’re stolen—and only fire when gripped tightly, making them less liable to result in accidents. If the idea is adopted broadly enough, it is hoped, there will be a shift in the firearms market. As producers adapt to meet the enormous demands of city police departments, it could start making less financial sense to make more dangerous guns for private consumers. Lee has the support of San Francisco’s tech community, but Walsh says the National Rifle Association’s opposition has so far scared major guns manufacturers from producing the technology on a large scale.

Working with Trump

But every resistance has its limits. Asked whether Democrats should oppose the new president full stop, some mayors take a measured view.

“I think we need to get in the mix, not try to burn it down,” says Garcetti, the Instagram-loving, jazz piano-playing, Jewish-Latino mayor of LA who was on Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential longlist. “Ultimately, this federal administration will succeed or fail if it produces results—same thing with us here. So, we have a mutual interest to serve the same people.”

At the US Conference of Mayors, Pence brought a message directly from Trump: “He said, ‘tell ’em we’re going to a do an infrastructure bill and it’s going to be big,’” Pence said. That’s just the kind of message big-city mayors love to hear, no matter whose mouth it comes from.

Garcetti, whose city in November passed a measure for a massive $120 billion transport fund, was pleasantly surprised to encounter a Republican president whose understanding of infrastructure goes well beyond rural “highway investments.” The LA mayor says that in phone conversations with Trump, he found the president “immediately had fluency about things like public transportation and the quality of our streets. That jumped out at me, like, ‘Ok, this is a person who lives in cities.'”

That may be enough to bring mayors around the table for substantive talks with Washington. But working with the White House on infrastructure while openly defying Trump on a host of other matters will mean walking a deeply tricky line—with both the administration and the voters at home.

[Eric the Green]

California Could Cut Off Feds In Response To Trump Threats
January 27, 2017 2:44 PM By Melissa Caen
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01...p-threats/

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned.

Officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.

“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news. “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”

California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding.

ALSO READ:

Family Detained At SFO Following Trump Travel Ban
Iran To Retaliate Against Pres. Trump Order Targeting Muslim Countries
Sanctuary Cities Grapple With Trump’s Threat To Pull Federal Funding
Mayor: San Francisco Will Remain Sanctuary City

[Marypoza]

(01-29-2017, 12:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: California Could Cut Off Feds In Response To Trump Threats
January 27, 2017 2:44 PM By Melissa Caen
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01...p-threats/

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned.

Officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.

“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news. “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”

California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding.

ALSO READ:

Family Detained At SFO Following Trump Travel Ban
Iran To Retaliate Against Pres. Trump Order Targeting Muslim Countries
Sanctuary Cities Grapple With Trump’s Threat To Pull Federal Funding
Mayor: San Francisco Will Remain Sanctuary City

-- hmmmm..... sounds like Calexit maybe on its way

[Eric the Green]

Is It Time for the Democrats to Wage All-Out War Against Trump?
With their base angry and fired up, they may not have a choice.

DAVID CORNJAN. 30, 2017 3:56 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017...mmigration

This weekend, some prominent Democrats took to the barricades to protest President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning immigrants from certain Muslim-majority nations and limiting refugees. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts rushed to Logan International Airport to join the spontaneous protest there. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey headed to Dulles International Airport outside Washington to decry the order as essentially a Muslim ban. Other Ds slammed Trump's move and praised the federal court order that temporarily froze part of the presidential order. It was a show of force. And it prompted a question: Was this a step toward a wider and deeper opposition to Trump?

Until now, the response from elected Democratic officials to the Trump takeover of the federal government has left some grassroots Dems underwhelmed and puzzled. The weekend of the inauguration, millions of Americans hit the streets to denounce Trump, his dystopic and divisive view of America, and his policies (especially those regarding women). The overarching message was fundamental: resist. Yet few national Democrats have mirrored back this sentiment to the progressive audience and to millions of Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton and have spent the last few months in a state of discouragement, fear, and anger.

Sure, Capitol Hill Democrats have spoken against Trump and his fellow Republicans' first stab at repealing Obamacare and have called out the early GOP talk of privatizing Medicare. Booker did break with senatorial courtesy to testify against the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump's choice to be attorney general. Yet at the same time, several key Democrats—most notably Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer—talked of working with Trump on areas of common ground, say infrastructure spending. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the progressive firebrand, said he would be "delighted" to collaborate with Trump on trade policy. And most Senate Democrats have been voting for Trump's Cabinet nominees. Warren and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), another leading progressive, voted in the banking committee for Ben Carson, Trump's hardly qualified pick to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Booker and 46 other Democratic senators voted for retired General James Mattis, Trump's choice for defense secretary. (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has so far voted against every nominee except UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.)

The Senate Democrats have indicated they will mount campaigns against certain Trump nominees, notably Betsy DeVos, the education secretary nominee, and perhaps Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump's eager-to-repeal-Obamacare pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services. But their response so far has created the impression of piecemeal opposition. There has been no big thematic push against Trump. The concerns and outrage of the 66 million Americans who had voted for Clinton are not being directly addressed. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) did mobilize a modest-sized boycott of Trump's inauguration after saying Trump was not a "legitimate" president. But in general, the Democratic leadership was not sharing the sense that a crisis is underway.

And the first week of the Trump era did suggest that a crisis was at hand. Consider the following:

* In his initial days in the White House, Trump behaved in an erratic manner and gave reason to suspect he was prone to delusions. He repeatedly insisted that the crowd at his inauguration was record-setting. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he claimed that up to 1.5 million people were there and that his ceremony had topped the turnout at President Barack Obama's first inauguration. He pressed the National Park Service to back him up. He ordered White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to push this lie in public. During an event at the wall in CIA headquarters that commemorates agency officers who have lost their lives, Trump prattled on about the crowd size and claimed he had been on the cover of Time magazine more than football star Tom Brady or anyone else. (Wrong: Richard Nixon still holds that record.) The president of the United States was coming across as a fellow with a solid case of narcissistic personality disorder, as senior adviser Kellyanne Conway tried to explain that he and his crew were merely citing "alternative facts." Days later, Trump bolstered the impression that he was untethered from reality when he claimed—first in private to members of Congress and then publicly during an interview—that 3 million to 5 million undocumented people had voted illegally in the presidential election. There was no evidence for this assertion. Still, Trump absurdly and stubbornly maintained that a study backed him up, though the author of this work had declared it did not confirm Trump's point. It turned out that Trump was probably basing his claim on a tweet from a guy with no expertise that had been promoted by Infowars, the conspiracy theory site of 9/11 truther Alex Jones. The fellow now in charge of the US nuclear arsenal was acting bizarrely.

* One of Trump's first actions was an executive order aimed at undermining the Affordable Care Act. He essentially instructed federal agencies to do what they can to weaken the program, while congressional Republicans vowed to make good on their obsession to smite Obamacare. The Rs faced the obvious problem of deriving a replacement that would preserve the most popular aspects of the program—and it may be impossible for them to do so. (If you don't compel people, including young adults and the healthy, to buy insurance and enlarge the pool of insured, you cannot mandate insurers to cover preexisting conditions.) Still, the intent remained: Trump was aiming to blow up a program that provides 27 million or so Americans with health insurance. Ripping insurance from all these people posed a grave threat to a large percentage of the country.

* A promoter of white nationalists participating in the most sensitive and secretive meetings held in the White House—that's essentially what Trump brought about when he signed an executive order that allowed Steve Bannon, a senior White House aide who is Trump's top political strategist, to sit in on the principals committee of the National Security Council. Bannon has acknowledged that as the publisher of Breitbart he positioned this conservative website as a "platform" for the alt-right, a wing of the conservative movement that prominently features white nationalists. Not only is Bannon a champion of white nationalists; he's a self-proclaimed proponent of political destruction. In November 2013, he declared in an interview, "I'm a Leninist." And he explained, "Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's establishment." In a 2014 private talk he noted he believes the world is now experiencing a clash of civilizations: "We're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years." Placing a political adviser with extreme views in such important meetings—previous presidents have kept their political aides out of these sessions—is a clear and present danger.

* Shortly before Trump took office, the US intelligence community issued a stark conclusion regarding Russia's meddling in the 2016 election: Vladimir Putin had ordered a comprehensive and covert Russian intelligence operation to subvert US democracy to assist Trump. Is there a more serious matter than the integrity of US elections? For months, Trump would not accept intelligence community assessments blaming Russia for the hacking of Democratic targets and the leaking of material to harm Clinton's campaign. He eventually and reluctantly acknowledged this conclusion—but he downplayed it, and he has not said what he intends to do in response. On Saturday, Trump had his first phone call with Putin, and the reports of the conversation suggested he did not confront Putin about Russia's interference in US elections. This was a serious abdication of presidential responsibility and a sign that he is not willing to defend the Constitution.

So during his first week in office, Trump triggered a constitutional crisis with his immigration order (as Customs and Border Protection agents refused to abide by a federal court's temporary stay) and adopted a policy that national security experts noted would impede the country's counterterrorism efforts, held a comfy conversation with a man who undermined US elections, started the process to deny millions of Americans health care, placed a fan of white nationalists in the middle of the most important national security discussions, and demonstrated that he literally cannot handle the truth. This is not business as usual. And Democrats and progressives beyond the Beltway are not wrong to wonder if the reaction from top Democrats has not been commensurate with Trump's actions.

It may be that the Democratic Party lacks leaders in a position to rally fundamental opposition to Trump. Schumer is an insider legislator. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is no rabble-rouser. There are no obvious 2020 candidates yet. Barack Obama and Joe Biden appeared to have taken a time-out. Yet the protests of the past two weekends show that there is an energized and mobilized anti-Trump movement, and most of its adherents are likely looking for Democrats to take a strong and robust stand against Trump. Perhaps the nationwide demonstrations against Trump will spur more Democratic opposition on Capitol Hill. After all, can Senate Democrats still vote for Sessions out of senatorial courtesy, when Trump has declared war on the values and programs they hold dear?

In the past days, Trump has sent a clear signal: He will disrupt, he will attack, he will not work cooperatively, he will not be burdened by facts or expertise. Democrats might have initially hoped to devise a strategy of selective opposition. But sometimes you cannot choose the fight you are in. Nuance is not always an option. In a Washington Post op-ed, Adam Jentleson, the former deputy chief of staff for Sen. Harry Reid, who just retired from the Senate, counseled Democrats to forge a wide-ranging front against Trump. He noted how this could be done: "Senate Democrats have a powerful tool at their disposal, if they choose to use it, for resisting a president who has no mandate and cannot claim to embody the popular will. That tool lies in the simple but fitting act of withholding consent. An organized effort to do so on the Senate floor can bring the body to its knees and block or severely slow down the agenda of a president who does not represent the majority of Americans."

Schumer has not yet embraced such a strategy of resistance. But Senate Dems said on Monday that they will wage a filibuster to block Trump's Supreme Court nominee. And Schumer announced that he would oppose five Trump nominations: Price, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) for budget director, Steve Mnuchin for treasury secretary, Scott Pruitt for Environmental Protection Agency chief, and Andy Puzder for labor secretary. Meanwhile, Obama released a mildly worded statement praising this weekend's demonstrations and criticizing policies that "discriminate against individuals because of their faith or religion."

Millions of Americans do not share Trump's dark ideas and do not accept his bigotry and misogyny. They represent a majority of the electorate, and they are ready and eager to confront Trumpism. If the Democratic Party is serious about reversing its fortunes, it must harness this energy. That means presenting an opposition that resonates with these voters.

At the start of Week Two of the Trump Era, there were indications the Democrats were moving toward a more comprehensive opposition, perhaps wielding the tools of obstructionism that Republicans used to thwart President Barack Obama's agenda. With Trump already on the rampage, they may not have much choice.

[Marypoza]

(02-03-2017, 01:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Hey Marypoza, when I read this article I thought about you:

http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/a...75159.html

'Sen. Bernie Sanders says President Donald Trump may be right in claiming he won the general election votes of some former Sanders supporters.'

We know how much you hate "that bitch!"

Tell us the truth!

-- Bernie's probably right. It certainly would explain the "Brexit" states (Wi, MI. PA) which went for Bernie in the primaries & the Donald in the general. Also certain red states like AK & WVA. Those states went big time for Bernie, & may have flipped blue had he been the Dem nominee.
But l think most Bernie supporters lost interest & stayed home since they felt they no longer had a dog in the fight. Almost 1/2 the electorate didn't vote last yr

[Eric the Green]

I dunno how that follows; almost 1/2 of the electorate ALWAYS stays home.

Bernie lost the Pennsylvania Primary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvan...mary,_2016

Bernie did score a narrow win in Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_D...mary,_2016

[Eric the Green]

From Van Jones: "Just want to remind folks, once again, that I predicted the election (down to the rust belt states) back in June 2016. So when I stay stuff now (e.g., Trump won't be impeached), please listen to me.

The GOP won't impeach him; he is still too popular with their voters. And right-wing media will keep him popular. ... So we need to continue protesting, filing lawsuits, pushing Dems to stand stronger, demanding investigations of all his BS, reaching out to patriotic conservatives who are starting to get worried, using art/social media to spread truth and keeping our spirits high.

In time, we will prevail. But it will take awhile (years). And there will be no GOP-sponsored miracle from above.

So defend all the underdogs now (in both red states and blue states), as best we can. Fight every day, as hard as we can. And let's prepare to make the 2018 midterms the mother of all battles. Because victory in 2018 is the only miracle that we can engineer ourselves."

[Marypoza]

(02-03-2017, 05:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I dunno how that follows; almost 1/2 of the electorate ALWAYS stays home.

-- you got a source on that? According to 538 it's more like between 30 & 40%

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/vot...inton-won/

ps, they better not impeach the Donald bcuz then we'll get stuck with Pence

[Eric the Green]

(02-03-2017, 06:35 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 05:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I dunno how that follows; almost 1/2 of the electorate ALWAYS stays home.

-- you got a source on that? According to 538 it's more like between 30 & 40%

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/vot...inton-won/

ps, they better not impeach the Donald bcuz then we'll get stuck with Pence

I'm not with you on that, because I still think a Democrat is loads better. I know, you don't. But come 2020, Pence would be much easier to beat, and that's going by my scores too. And obviously, Trump is proving to be worse even than Pence would be. I admit, I thought Trump would probably be better than Cruz. I was wrong, and Mr. X was right; Trump is at least equally bad and probably worse than Cruz.

I am no longer shy about calling Drump a fascist. He's Mussolini reincarnate. Any candidate would be better. ANY candidate.

I don't remember an election where much more than half the people voted. It just doesn't happen. Maybe up to 60%, sometimes, but not much more than that, even then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turn..._elections
The Bipartisan Policy Center has stated that turnout for 2012 was 57.5 percent of the eligible voters, which they claim was a decline from 2008. They estimate that as a percent of eligible voters, turn out was: 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%; 2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%.[11] These were the same figures as given by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.[12]

Of course, as the chart shows, the percentage of voting age population who vote, as opposed to eligible voters, is even lower; about 3% lower. With our huge prison population (the most anywhere, at least in the developed world) and restrictions on felons voting, many (mostly black and poor) voters are excluded from eligibility.

[Eric the Green]

A moment of crisis, Elizabeth says. We were already in crisis. "It's time for Democrats to grow a backbone." So, Democrats not and weren't talking economics??

In my email:

Eric,

Our country is in crisis – but that crisis didn’t begin with the election of Donald Trump.

We were already in a crisis because for years and years and years, Washington has worked just great for the rich and the powerful, but far too often, it hasn’t worked for anyone else. The excuses end now.

This morning I spoke to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and told them: It’s time for Democrats to grow a backbone and to get out there and fight. Watch my speech and share it on Facebook:





The world has changed a lot over the past few months. I’m still finding my way, finding my footing, day-by-day, step-by-step. But with each passing day, we learn.

The lesson of history is that when faced with a danger like Donald Trump, the opposition must be willing to fight. It’s time for us to make clear – in every way, from every mountaintop we can – that we will fight back.

Thanks for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-29-2017, 12:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: California Could Cut Off Feds In Response To Trump Threats
January 27, 2017 2:44 PM By Melissa Caen
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01...p-threats/

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned.

Officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.

“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news. “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”

California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding.

ALSO READ:

Family Detained At SFO Following Trump Travel Ban
Iran To Retaliate Against Pres. Trump Order Targeting Muslim Countries
Sanctuary Cities Grapple With Trump’s Threat To Pull Federal Funding
Mayor: San Francisco Will Remain Sanctuary City

Huh? And all this time I thought harboring illegals was illegal. Why don't these joints help their homeless and veteran populations?  What a bunch of fucked up priorities.

[Eric the Green]

(02-03-2017, 08:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 06:35 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 05:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I dunno how that follows; almost 1/2 of the electorate ALWAYS stays home.

-- you got a source on that? According to 538 it's more like between 30 & 40%

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/vot...inton-won/

ps, they better not impeach the Donald bcuz then we'll get stuck with Pence

I'm not with you on that, because I still think a Democrat is loads better. I know, you don't. But come 2020, Pence would be much easier to beat, and that's going by my scores too. And obviously, Trump is proving to be worse even than Pence would be. I admit, I thought Trump would probably be better than Cruz. I was wrong, and Mr. X was right; Trump is at least equally bad and probably worse than Cruz.

I am no longer shy about calling Drump a fascist. He's Mussolini reincarnate. Any candidate would be better. ANY candidate.

I don't remember an election where much more than half the people voted. It just doesn't happen. Maybe up to 60%, sometimes, but not much more than that, even then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turn..._elections
The Bipartisan Policy Center has stated that turnout for 2012 was 57.5 percent of the eligible voters, which they claim was a decline from 2008. They estimate that as a percent of eligible voters, turn out was: 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%; 2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%.[11] These were the same figures as given by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.[12]

Of course, as the chart shows, the percentage of voting age population who vote, as opposed to eligible voters, is even lower; about 3% lower. With our huge prison population (the most anywhere, at least in the developed world) and restrictions on felons voting, many (mostly black and poor) voters are excluded from eligibility.

According to this site:
http://www.electproject.org/2016g
The turnout was 59% of eligible voters, and 54% of voting age population, in 2016; higher than 2012 in the former stat.

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 07:55 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 12:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: California Could Cut Off Feds In Response To Trump Threats
January 27, 2017 2:44 PM By Melissa Caen
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01...p-threats/

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned.

Officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.

“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news. “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”

California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding.

ALSO READ:

Family Detained At SFO Following Trump Travel Ban
Iran To Retaliate Against Pres. Trump Order Targeting Muslim Countries
Sanctuary Cities Grapple With Trump’s Threat To Pull Federal Funding
Mayor: San Francisco Will Remain Sanctuary City

Huh? And all this time I thought harboring illegals was illegal. Why don't these joints help their homeless and veteran populations?  What a bunch of fucked up priorities.

They are both priorities, and they do.

[Marypoza]

(02-04-2017, 06:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A moment of crisis, Elizabeth says. We were already in crisis. "It's time for Democrats to grow a backbone." So, Democrats not and weren't talking economics??

In my email:

Eric,

Our country is in crisis – but that crisis didn’t begin with the election of Donald Trump.

We were already in a crisis because for years and years and years, Washington has worked just great for the rich and the powerful, but far too often, it hasn’t worked for anyone else. The excuses end now.

This morning I spoke to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and told them: It’s time for Democrats to grow a backbone and to get out there and fight. Watch my speech and share it on Facebook:





The world has changed a lot over the past few months. I’m still finding my way, finding my footing, day-by-day, step-by-step. But with each passing day, we learn.

The lesson of history is that when faced with a danger like Donald Trump, the opposition must be willing to fight. It’s time for us to make clear – in every way, from every mountaintop we can – that we will fight back.

Thanks for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

-- *yawn* sellout

[Eric the Green]

You're the sellout if you don't get behind the opposition to Trump and the Republicans now and for the duration, by any legal and ethical means necessary.

[Marypoza]

(02-04-2017, 08:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You're the sellout if you don't get behind the opposition to Trump and the Republicans now and for the duration, by any legal and ethical means necessary.

-- why is it, that whenever l callout neolibturds, DINOS, & other assorted crappy Dems, you automatically assume l'm with the Donald?  I can take out 2 bags of trash @ once. So can most Greens l know. Can you?

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-04-2017, 08:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 07:55 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 12:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: California Could Cut Off Feds In Response To Trump Threats
January 27, 2017 2:44 PM By Melissa Caen
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01...p-threats/

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned.

Officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.

“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news. “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”

California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding.

ALSO READ:

Family Detained At SFO Following Trump Travel Ban
Iran To Retaliate Against Pres. Trump Order Targeting Muslim Countries
Sanctuary Cities Grapple With Trump’s Threat To Pull Federal Funding
Mayor: San Francisco Will Remain Sanctuary City

Huh? And all this time I thought harboring illegals was illegal. Why don't these joints help their homeless and veteran populations?  What a bunch of fucked up priorities.

They are both priorities, and they do.

Apparently not San Francisco.
http://www.sfgate.com/homeless/article/S...326254.php
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/us/sa...sness.html

I dare say that at least in San Francisco that they need to focus like a laser beam on just the homeless problem.  Looks like they have their hands full on that one.  Charity begins at home you know.

[Eric the Green]

They need to focus on it, but not to the exclusion of all other issues. That can't be done by any Mayor or City Hall.