The founder of the progressive online channel "The Young Turks" criticized Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) over her economic patriotism proposal, calling the name of the plan “goofy” and an “obvious political wordplay.”

“I think economic patriotism, it’s a little goofy," Cenk Uygur told Hill.TV’s Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti during an interview on Friday in reference to Warren’s proposal. “I mean, it’s an obvious political wordplay.”

Warren's platform, released earlier this month, would include a $2 trillion investment over the next 10 years in green research, manufacturing and exporting green energy technology. Warren also would help create domestic demand for new American products through $1.5 trillion in federal procurement over a decade.

Uygur went on to praise Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), another progressive giant vying for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, for his embrace of democratic socialism.

The Hill

It's well known that this guy is a sexist pig with a solid right wing track record. How are these people not transparent to everyone? If Cenk and HA had an intellectual sparring bout it would never end. Neither has a punch to throw in their arsenal.

Top five and would not vote for.

1/2) Warren - Biden - Such different ideology but they both bring something great to the table. I don't think anyone is as uniquely equipped as Biden to get the agencies of the federal government going full steam ahead again. He will have amazing people ready to go on day one. I also believe he will have the largest coattails out of all the candidates. I see him as our best bet to make gains from coast to coast. He will regain respect around the world overnight. Warren will utilize really good people and will force her plans down to congress as much as possible. This will probably end in legislation starting out from a stronger progressive position. I also think she can do better in PA and other states than many think. She is throwing out plans, not blowing smoke up peoples ass. I think white men will get on board with that. I wish this was the totality of our primary. Just these two.

3-4-5) Klobuchar - Gillibrand - Harris - Really really like all three. I think they would all have a difficult time in the general. I think Harris would have been our rock star but she didn't seem to be really coordinated out of the gate. Seems they concentrated on getting out strong with some big rallies but didn't follow it up with anything special. She is probably one of my favorites running. I really like Gillibrand a lot. She speaks extremely well for us. She is flat out a no-go because of Franken. She pissed off too many people with long memories. Klobuchar. I am so glad she entered. As someone who wasn't very familiar with her I can say I love pretty much everything about her. Klobuchar did great at the She the People forum and others.

Would not vote for.

1 - Sanders - Gravel -Gabbard - Williamson - I like Williamson a lot. I don't think this is the job for her. At all. Out of those four I think that Gabbard is probably the most competent today.

All other candidates I could vote for in the primary.

Final note: I'm really looking forward to learning more about Inslee, Hickenlooper, Salwell, and one or two others.

https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1130864643063328768

They look very happy together.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dangles 2020 endorsement: Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren?

LA Times

When the Meet the Press host alleged women get abortions when they don’t like the gender of the fetus, the candidate did not push back



Rolling Stone

Rights are being rolled back and he is highlighting this a a concern when asked about it. I don't think he is concerned like I am. I am concerned that they are limiting access to abortions in any and every way possible.

This is a current issue.

Supreme Court compromise on Indiana abortion law keeps issue off its docket



Washington Post

Blocking Dangerous and Deadly Abortion Restrictions Before They Take Effect


We are living through an all-out assault being waged on women’s health and reproductive rights. From Alabama to Ohio, and Missouri to Georgia, the goal of Republican politicians is clear: Overturn Roe v. Wade and end safe and legal abortion in America.

With the specter of a hyper-partisan Supreme Court, these attacks have laid bare the pressing need to pass federal legislation protecting reproductive rights, including access to abortion. But the truth is, simply codifying Roe v. Wade isn’t enough. Extreme politicians in state legislatures have been working to systematically chip away at Roe for decades, enacting over 1,000 measures since 1995 designed to wipe out access to abortion.

States have mandated that women submit to invasive ultrasounds, passed laws requiring survivors of sexual assault to carry their rapist’s child to term, and placed onerous and medically unnecessary restrictions on health clinics. These restrictions do nothing to make people healthier or safer. Their sole purpose is limiting access to abortion.

Kamala Harris believes we need to fight back and block these dangerous and deadly laws before they take effect. That’s exactly what she intends to do as president. Similar to the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, Harris will require, for the first time, that states and localities with a history of violating Roe v. Wade obtain approval from her Department of Justice before any abortion law or practice can take effect.

HERE’S HOW WE’LL DO IT

States and localities with a history of unconstitutionally restricting access to abortion will be required to pre-clear any new law or practice with the Department of Justice.

Under the plan, states and localities will be subject to the preclearance requirement if they have a pattern of violating Roe v. Wade in the preceding 25 years. For example, violations will include settlements or final findings by a court that a law or practice runs afoul of Roe, such as rulings in South Carolina, Iowa, and Georgia.

While the Supreme Court’s partisan majority gutted the Voting Rights Act on grounds the preclearance formula was purportedly “outdated,” it explicitly invited Congress to update the formula along these lines.

From 1965 to 2013, preclearance under the Voting Rights Act prevented hundreds of discriminatory laws and practices from going into effect. Just as states and localities enacted facially neutral measures to suppress the right to vote – including literacy tests, poll taxes, photo ID laws, and the closure of polling locations – states have similarly done so to limit reproductive rights – including placing targeted restrictions on abortion providers, requiring waiting periods, and imposing medically unnecessary doctor supervision requirements. A preclearance requirement will make it harder for states to implement these dangerous and deadly laws and practices. Like the blatant voter suppression the Voting Rights Act was designed to prevent, these restrictions on abortion fall disproportionately on people of color.

No abortion law or practice will take effect until the Department of Justice certifies it comports with Roe v. Wade.

Under the plan, any change with respect to abortion in a covered jurisdiction will remain legally unenforceable until DOJ determines it comports with the standards laid out by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, as applied in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and the Women’s Health Protection Act, which Harris co-sponsors in the Senate.

More than just codifying every woman’s federal right to an abortion, this will shift the burden to jurisdictions with a pattern of violating Roe to prove any new law or practice does not deny or abridge the fundamental right to access abortion.

Jurisdictions will be required to submit any proposed change to DOJ. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the change comports with Roe and the Women’s Health Protection Act, DOJ must object to the change.

Guardrails will ensure DOJ enforces the law even under an administration that’s hostile to women’s rights—and patients and providers will have standing to sue if they don’t.

DOJ will have an affirmative duty to review submissions and make formal determinations, which will be posted publicly.

Women and health care providers will have the ability to challenge DOJ’s approval of a law or practice in federal court, serving as a check on hostile administrations.

This is just one way Harris will fight back against the all-out assault being waged on women’s health and reproductive rights. She’ll also protect Planned Parenthood from Republican attempts to defund essential health services, nominate judges who respect Roe v. Wade, fight to repeal the Hyde Amendment, reverse the Trump Administration’s illegal attempts to cut evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program grants, and immediately roll back dangerous and discriminatory rules the Administration put in place to limit access to contraception and safe abortion in the United States and around the world.

Throughout her career, Harris has fought for women’s access to health care and reproductive rights. As Attorney General of California, she petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse unconstitutional abortion restrictions, protect women’s access to contraception, and ensure women have access to essential health care regardless of their for-profit employer’s beliefs.

https://kamalaharris.org/repro-rights/

Kamala Harris, in Town Hall, Lays Out Plan to Require Federal Approval for Abortion Laws

Senator Kamala Harris of California unveiled a plan on Tuesday that would require states and localities with a history of unconstitutionally restricting abortion rights to obtain federal approval before such laws can take effect.

Ms. Harris, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, called for what is known as a “preclearance requirement” in the plan, released as numerous states have passed laws to sharply limit abortions.

“When we look at a law like what’s happening in Alabama and they’re saying they’re going to sentence a doctor to 99 years, as a prosecutor, let me tell you, I got a real problem with that,” Ms. Harris said on MSNBC on Tuesday night, referring to an Alabama law intended to ban most abortions in the state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/us/politics/kamala-harris-abortion.html

NYT

The difficulty many see is the inconsistency of his history. It's littered with inconsistencies. For private lands. For selling private lands. For Democratic Socialist policies. For direct and near unfettered capitalism. One of the few consistencies is his rhetoric involving crackdown on immigrants and yelling about income inequality. The former he is on record with votes, the latter is empty rhetoric.

Read the Full Transcript of President Obama Surprising Joe Biden With the Medal of Freedom

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D-CA) on Wednesday sent a letter to Ed Bastian, CEO of Delta Air Lines, urging him to bring an end to Delta’s coordinated, strategic anti-union campaign, which has included distributing fliers to its non-unionized workforce discouraging unionization, playing anti-union advertisements continuously in employee break rooms, and holding weekly anti-union activities.

“The right of workers to join together in a union and collectively bargain has been fundamental in helping to build the middle class in this country,” wrote Harris. “Unions have a substantial impact on the compensation and work lives of both unionized and non-unionized workers. Union participation can improve an employee’s wages, health care, job security, workplace safety, and retirement benefits.”

Harris continued, “Delta’s Don’t Risk It. Don’t Sign It. campaign is disingenuous, disrespectful, and misleading. It is an attempt to interfere with its employees’ legal rights and hinder the ability of thousands of workers to make an important decision about their lives and livelihoods. I urge you to cease this campaign and allow Delta employees the ability to determine whether to unionize free from inference, intimidation, or retaliation.”

Harris.Senate.gov

Full Letter Harris.Senate.gov

Talk turned to politics and the overriding theme was Trumps instability and what it has and will do to the financial markets. We had a representative from a large investment firm speaking. He talked about the fear of Trump in his industry. They fear instability. They said Clinton is more of the same which is viewed fondly.

I have not fact checked this and don't know how true it is.

He stated markets almost immediately dropped %1.5 after Comey sent his letter. He stated in his industry that alone is frightening.

He also stated our election is directly influencing Mexico's currency. Good news for Trump or bad news for Clinton alone is shifting the value.

I left with a very positive attitude. This was a conservative environment and there was no positive talk about Trump. It was all negative about him from the members.

One day, Americans who were too young to have followed the 2016 campaign will look back and try to make sense of it. They will want to know how such a dangerous person could have gotten so close to the presidency — a man who spoke of abandoning our allies, admiring foreign despots, weakening constitutional rights, and serially molesting women.

Those future adults may also pose a more personal question to their elders:

Mommy and Daddy, what did you do in response to Donald Trump?

It will be a fair question. The reality is, Trump could still win. It is unlikely, yes, but the gift he received from a surprisingly bumbling F.B.I. shows that campaigns aren’t over until they’re over.

With seven days left, it is not too late for anyone alarmed by Trump to get involved. As it happens, Trump himself has pointed toward the best way to do so. Again and again, he has attempted to undermine democratic legitimacy, be it inviting foreign interference or flirting with voter intimidation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/opinion/how-you-can-fight-donald-trump-right-now.html?_r=0